Reply from a Senator

[chupacabrachus]

About 2 months ago (?) I emailed a Senator from Iowa asking why he did not vote for HR5441. The reply seems legit, what do ya'll think? I was mostly just surprised I got a reply albeit 2 months later.





"Dear Brian:

I appreciate you sharing your views on gun control, and specifically on
Senator Vitter's amendment to H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for 2007, regarding the confiscation of
firearms during emergencies.

As you may know, as a hunter I am committed to protecting Second
Amendment rights. I do believe that with those rights come
responsibilities, but I do not advocate unduly burdensome gun control.

I supported Senator Vitter's amendment to H.R. 5441 as it was originally
introduced. This original version of the amendment would have prevented
law-abiding citizens from having guns seized in an emergency, but would
also have allowed law enforcement officials to confiscate weapons that
were possessed illegally or were used in the commission of a crime.
Unfortunately, these protections against criminal activity were removed
from the final version of the amendment.

As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the
legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun owners, while continuing to
support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and
communities safer. I believe that both of these goals are important and
can be accomplished simultaneously.
Again, thanks for sharing your views with me. Please don't hesitate to
let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,



Tom Harkin
United States Senator"

[jednp]

What bothers me, is his "as a hunter" comment. His response may be legit. But it appears to me that he is more concerned with protecting the 2nd for hunting purposes. When it comes to law abiding citizens needing them in emergencies, he is more worried about keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, than he is allowing good people to keep their guns.

I'm sorry, but in an emergency, I don't care how you got a gun, or who you are. if you got it illegally, that's not what I'm going to be worrying about. Besides, I don't think cops in a huge emergency are going to be attempting to be sure all guns out there are legally owned, not when they have a lot bigger issues to tackle. And on top of that, emergency situation or not, there is NO law that would forbid law enforcement from confiscating a gun from someone when they used that gun to comit a crime. Remember, this bill was about taking guns from law abiding citizens, not those who used their gun to comit a crime, or for that matter those who have a gun illegally if that gun is proven to have been gotten illegally.

Just sounds to me like a way to say "i support you privately, but publicly I beat around the bush". You can't say you are concerned for me and my guns, yet do something to leave me defenseless against a criminal all because you don't want criminals to have guns in emergencies. Criminals will have guns in emergencies, so why would you vote against something that would guarantee me to have my gun as well? Who cares if theirs is illegal, or they want to use it in a crime. That's why I want my gun!

[UtahConcealer]

Originally Posted by jednp

What bothers me, is his "as a hunter" comment. His response may be legit. But it appears to me that he is more concerned with protecting the 2nd for hunting purposes. When it comes to law abiding citizens needing them in emergencies, he is more worried about keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, than he is allowing good people to keep their guns.

I'm sorry, but in an emergency, I don't care how you got a gun, or who you are. if you got it illegally, that's not what I'm going to be worrying about. Besides, I don't think cops in a huge emergency are going to be attempting to be sure all guns out there are legally owned, not when they have a lot bigger issues to tackle. And on top of that, emergency situation or not, there is NO law that would forbid law enforcement from confiscating a gun from someone when they used that gun to comit a crime. Remember, this bill was about taking guns from law abiding citizens, not those who used their gun to comit a crime, or for that matter those who have a gun illegally if that gun is proven to have been gotten illegally.

Just sounds to me like a way to say "i support you privately, but publicly I beat around the bush". You can't say you are concerned for me and my guns, yet do something to leave me defenseless against a criminal all because you don't want criminals to have guns in emergencies. Criminals will have guns in emergencies, so why would you vote against something that would guarantee me to have my gun as well? Who cares if theirs is illegal, or they want to use it in a crime. That's why I want my gun!

VERY well put

[chupacabrachus]

That was my thought. How are they going to know if a firearm is legally aquired or not? Run a quick NICS background check during the national emergency in the middle of the street? I don't think so.


Edit: " As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the
legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun owners, while continuing to
support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and
communities safer."

We'll see how you vote in the future, Mr. Senator. I have a pretty good idea already how it will be....

[mullanman]

As a former Iowan,

I would never vote for Harkin again. His stance on Global terrorism is pathetic. He even likes Hugo Chavez...

Read between the lines on that letter, anti 2nd ammendment.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by jednp

And on top of that, emergency situation or not, there is NO law that would forbid law enforcement from confiscating a gun from someone when they used that gun to comit a crime.

Excellent point. A good response from the Senator and it's nice that he (or one of his minions) took the time to respond. But I disagree with his assertions.

[Suppo]

See my signature line. Hunting does not deter crime.

[Jedi XD]

I sent letters on different Bills to my congressmen/woman.

The only one who replied was Stephanie Herseth, here was her reply:




Dear Adam:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the
NICS Improvement Act of 2005 (H.R. 1415). I appreciate your
thoughts.

Representative McCarthy of New York introduced this bill on
March 17, 2005. As you know, H.R. 1415 would authorize federal
funding and set requirements to enhance the accuracy and
completeness of felony criminal history and other information in
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is
used to help determine eligibility to purchase firearms.

I was pleased to receive an "A" rating from the NRA because of
my support of the rights of gun owners. As a defender of our
Second Amendment rights, I support allowing law-abiding citizens
to exercise their right to carry firearms for personal protection. I
oppose federal firearm registration and licensing and attempts to
limit gun owners' rights through bans on types of firearms or
ammunition.

On May 18th, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security approved H.R. 1415 by
voice vote, sending the bill to the full House Judiciary Committee
for consideration. I will be certain to keep your thoughts in mind if
the bill is considered by the full House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further
assistance or provide additional information, please don't hesitate
to let me know.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Herseth
eth (D) SD.

__________________________________________________ _________


I admit her letter was much more convincing. I understand it was a different Bill but the overall effect was good.

[loonybin]

Tom Harkin is no friend of the 2nd Amendment! http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/T...un_Control.htm

If the NRA gives him a grade of "F," then you can guess where he really stands.

Here's a quote from a speech he gave:
"he's [Bush] driven over our Bill of Rights and our U.N. Charter like they were someone's trash on the street. If Bush had been a truck driver not President, he would have had his license pulled for being a habitual reckless driver a long time ago. But, hey, look on the bright side, as of last Monday, once again you can visit your local gun store and buy your very own street sweeper 12-gage rapid fire assault rifle here in America. What a deal."

From the Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence web site:
"Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Jim Leach indicated to IPGV that they supported renewal of the assault weapons ban, while Senator Chuck Grassley and Congressmen Jim Nussle, Tom Latham, and Steve King indicated that they were opposed to renewal of the ban."

As you may know, as a hunter I am committed to protecting Second
Amendment rights. I do believe that with those rights come
responsibilities, but I do not advocate unduly burdensome gun control.

This is typical liberal smoke & mirrors. Claim that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting and then claim to support it. News flash, Tommy! The Second Amendment is not about hunting!

As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the
legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun owners, while continuing to
support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and
communities safer. I believe that both of these goals are important and
can be accomplished simultaneously.

translation: "I'll reduce crime and make our schools and communities safer by banning as many firearms as I can, but I'll do it incrementally starting with military-looking guns since I'm in a midwest state that has a lot of hunters and would vote me out if I went for a full-out ban."

Tom Harkin is a anti-gun liberal no matter how he tries to camoflage himself.

[chupacabrachus]

Loonybin, agreed.