Email Responses - Let's see them

hooligan82 said:

I think you could be onto something here. The 2a isn't read the same way by us and anti-gun people. They look at these rifles and see them as an evil tool with one purpose. If we point out that these rifles are used by a large number of law abiding citizens for the exact reason they think 2a exists, it could help.

Click to expand...

Thats my hope too

Mr. H- great letter. It really contains the essence of our feelings. The problem is that sen frosh is too far gone with his irrational thoughts. I hope you can strike a chord with him though, maybe I'll send one his way too...

Oh, and just an update to everyone, Barack has not replied yet...

Dear Mr. VWluv,



Thank you for your e-mail. Please know that I am an ardent supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights. I am sure there will be many bills introduced during the upcoming session on both sides of the 2nd Amendment issue, and I encourage you to consider testifying on any bills you feel strongly about.



I will be sure to provide you with updates on related legislation.



Thank you,



Delegate Cathy Vitale

Anne Arundel County, District 33A

Lowe House Office Building

6 Bladen Street, Room 154

Annapolis, MD 21401

O-410- 841-3510

F -410- 841-3180

I also got similiar replies from Vitale and Frosh. Below is a draft I'm presently working on... and I'm not good at this........R
*******************************************************************
Dear Senator:

First, we would like to express our thanks for your reply to our
original eMail. And our thanks for the invitation to contact you
again. We will comment on your reply point by point.

We suggest that the Newtown tragedy is yet another example of the
Country's unfortunate decision many years ago to eradicate
institutions for the mentally unbalanced. The powers that were decided
it would be in the best interests of the country and those poor
unfortunates who were mentally challanged to be released into the
public domain, supported mostly by part time mental clinics and the
mind altering drugs of the day. In recent times, we have seen the
results of those decisions. Newtown is yet another in a long line of
tragedies that may have been aborted by a more robust Mental Health
effort. We submit that we should have been acting long ago to protect
those we love and the communities in which we live from any type of
violence. We believe to single out firearms is short sighted. The
mentally unstable will use any available means to reach their intended
goal, and the data supports that fact.

And, specifically, the actual facts of Newtown have yet to be
verified. The rifle in question was first said to be found in the
trunk of a vehicle, and 2 handguns were found in the school. Then it
was reported that there were 4 handguns in the school, no rifle was
found inside, and again, the rifle was in the trunk of the car; and
then, all victims were killed by the AR15 which was found in the
trunk. The young man took his own life, but yet no factual
information has come to light regarding exactly how many firarms were
recovered, and if the rifle was found in the vehicle, how did he use
it in the school. You as a lawyer know about facts, and also what has
been termed as "a rush to judgement" It will be interesting, if we
find that the rifle in question played no part in the tragedy in
Newtown.

Those in the Firearm community will be the first to tell you that all
firearms are dangerous, and must be handled and used with the utmost
care. You, as a firearm owner/carrier know the ramifications of doing
otherwise. Law abiding citizens of the community do not own "illegal"
firearms, to do so is a contradiction of terms. Criminals own illegal
firearms, but then they also ignore the present laws, and will do
likewise regarding any new ones you wish to legislate. As it turns
out, Maryland does not enjoy a creditable record when it comes to
crime compared nationwide. And the FBI data bears out that fact
listing Maryland as number 2 in Murders. Why? The State has some of
the most stringent Firearms laws on the books. Well, one reason for
that unfortunate statistic is the criminal element knows that the
majority of law abiding citizens are not permitted to defend
themselves. Maryland law says to retreat in the face of danger, and in
turning their back they run the risk of being shot, or stabbed, or
sustain injury from whatever the perpetrator chooses to use. Many
States have declared "Gun Free" zones, Schools at the top of the list.
In Maryland, the entire State is a Gun Free zone. Maryland residents
are as sheep going to slaughter, one need only check the Baltimore
statistics, along with Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, and the
situation is spilling over into Anne Arundel County.

You are correct, we must act now to protect the citizenry, but, with
all due respect, you are attacking from the wrong end.

Regarding the Second Amendment. The legislature is in no position "to
take away their Second Amendment rights". The Second Amendment does
not give citizens the right to "keep and bear" arms.

We The People had the right before the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights. The Second Amendment keeps the Federal Goverment, from
infringing on the rights of the people regarding Firearms, and the
other 9 Amendments also protect We The People from the Government. The
Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment also reaches down to
the States. Ergo, the State of Maryland has no power regarding "taking
away their Second Amendment Rights". It is for We The People to
decide. Law abiding firearm owners use their firearms, all their
firearms, for any and all legal endeavors. It is for them to decide
which firearms to use in concert with all laws and regulations.
Criminals, on the other hand, have no such code, they do as they
please, illegal or not. Finally, firearm owners do not label their
firearms as "Weapons". The word weapon has a dark connotation; it is
something used in War, or in Crime. We The People do not own weapons!



Thank you for your time.

If you don't mind, I'll be stealing your draft to use.

hooligan82 said:

Adding 3 gun, and any other similar competitions that are based around these rifles are "a legitimate sporting use" could help. You could add the turnout of these competitions as well. Maybe also mention a lot of people use them for hunting deer, boar, varmints etc. The rest is well written.

Click to expand...

I had that thought... thanks for the boost.

Added a very short comment, and sent

Don't feed into these clowns with their "legitimate sporting use" BS. The 2A does NOT protect anything hunting or sporting related. An armed people hold the power. If the government can disarm us, we are powerless.

ArmyMan013 said:

If you don't mind, I'll be stealing your draft to use.

Click to expand...

We do not mind at all. It does need some "blue pencil" (editing), no problem.
There probably are better responses...

R

Sent to all MD legislators

Newtown Reflections

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/newtown-sandy-hook-reflections/1787477/


A reply:

"Thank you for sending Del. Cardin that informative USA Today article. I just read it and agreed with much of the author's insights. I will forward it to Del. Cardin immediately. We look forward to hearing from you on this or other issues in the future. Happy new year!"

--
Joshua Greenfeld, Esquire
Legislative Director to Delegate Jon S. Cardin
District 11, Maryland House of Delegates"


Sending links to articles is one method of communicating your views.

Regards
Jack

I keep hearing from the anti crowd that a person does not need the same weapon as the military or police. I don't think they understand the difference between the two at all.

LeadSled1 said:

I keep hearing from the anti crowd that a person does not need the same weapon as the military or police. I don't think they understand the difference between the two at all.

Click to expand...

Actually, if we plan on maintaining the ability to overthrow the government, we do need military style weaponry. I contend that the current scheme by which one obtains a true assault rifle is unconstitutional. They should be issued. Just like Switzerland. Sporting purposes are not covered under the 2A.

teratos said:

Actually, if we plan on maintaining the ability to overthrow the government, we do need military style weaponry. I contend that the current scheme by which one obtains a true assault rifle is unconstitutional. They should be issued. Just like Switzerland. Sporting purposes are not covered under the 2A.

Click to expand...

The 2A has never had anything to do with sporting purposes or hunting. It amuses me greatly that liberals are trotting out that canard about "hunting" and what one "needs" when it comes to firearms.

Another Response:

DELEGATE PAT McDONOUGH INTRODUCES THREE BILLS ON GUN VIOLENCE

1. GUN OWNER PRIVACY ACT –This legislation will prohibit newspapers and other publications from printing personal or private information about firearm owners.

2. CRIMINAL GUN CONTROL ACT – This legislation will prohibit early release, including parole, from incarceration of any offender convicted of committing a crime while using a gun.

3. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MASS MURDERS ACT – This legislation will retain and mandate capital punishment for anyone convicted of committing a crime of mass murder.

Regards
Jack

I got one back from Delegate Minnick and it said that he's part of the economic matters committee not the Judiciary therefore he won't be in the debates. He said if if comes to the House floor he will jump in the debate and keep my views in mind before he votes.

I sent an email using the NRA website on conceal carry in maryland to Senator Mikulski and she seems pretty level headed in her reply:

Dear Mr. <snip>:



Thank you for getting in touch with me to share your thoughts about the Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 (S. 2213). It's good to hear from you.



Like you, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I support sensible gun control, but it is not my intention to eliminate the right of law-abiding U.S. citizens to own firearms or change the U.S. Constitution. When I took the oath of office, I swore to uphold the Constitution. I take my oath very seriously. My support for reasonable steps to prevent crime does not go against my support for people's right to protect themselves or their right to hunt. We can take measures to save lives without infringing on the Constitution.



S. 2213 would allow individuals with valid government issued IDs and concealed firearm permits in one state to also carry a concealed handgun in another state. This legislation is currently pending before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Should S. 2213 come before the full Senate, please be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind.



Thanks again for contacting me. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to write me again.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

She failed to answer the question you asked. Imagine that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Its just kinda nice to see a lot of positive responses from some of these folks.

Sent from my DROID RAZR MAXX using Tapatalk 2

Straightshooter said:

She failed to answer the question you asked. Imagine that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Yup, used to get the same unresponsive responses from Babs on other issues; now, I just don't get any responses from her office to my letters.

Facts, while perhaps not changing minds, may undermine the zeal of even our most totally committed adversaries ... in the meantime the uncommitted are influenced and allies reassured.

In any event it seems to me contact with our representatives is now and will be absolutely crucial.


Regards
Jack

I am really heartened to see so many positive responses!