Representative Anna Eshoo response

[SanJoseScott]

Yes, I have responded but I won't post my response publicly. The ability of a congress person to tie my forum handle and pics of my guns to me gives me the willeys. Anyway here is her "form letter" response.

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about calls for increased federal gun control in the wake of the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate the time you took to write to me, and while we may not agree completely on this issue, I welcome your thoughts on it.

Like you, I respect the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our great democracy. The Framers supported the right of colonists to defend themselves against the British Empire, and at the time of the Second Amendment's drafting, they were concerned that the absence of a "well-regulated militia" could jeopardize the entire American democratic experiment.

Our founding fathers never contemplated, however, whether the open availability of modern military hardware would be necessary to ensure individual liberty in the 21st century. High-capacity ammunition magazines, high-powered assault rifles, and even semi-automatic weapons had yet to be invented, so it now falls upon us to determine the place of modern, highly lethal weapons of war in civil society.

The right of responsible citizens to keep and bear arms must be carefully weighed against the right of all Americans to live in a safe society—and as such, responsible steps can and must be taken to protect the latter without infringing upon the former. Closing the "gun show" loophole, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, and improving the system of background checks for gun purchasers will do nothing to infringe upon the right of citizens to keep and use firearms for recreational, subsistence, or even self-defense purposes.

Please know that while we may not agree on the effectiveness of particular gun control policies, I profoundly respect your views and will keep them in mind as Congress considers these matters.

If you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and I always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas.

I’ve created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation. Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo - California's 14th Congressional District and click on Sign Up for ENews. Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings.

Most gratefully,

Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress

 

[Vegetaman]

Like you, I respect the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our great democracy. The Framers supported the right of colonists to defend themselves against the British Empire, and at the time of the Second Amendment's drafting, they were concerned that the absence of a "well-regulated militia" could jeopardize the entire American democratic experiment.

Our founding fathers never contemplated, however, whether the open availability of modern military hardware would be necessary to ensure individual liberty in the 21st century. High-capacity ammunition magazines, high-powered assault rifles, and even semi-automatic weapons had yet to be invented, so it now falls upon us to determine the place of modern, highly lethal weapons of war in civil society.

The right of responsible citizens to keep and bear arms must be carefully weighed against the right of all Americans to live in a safe society—and as such, responsible steps can and must be taken to protect the latter without infringing upon the former. Closing the "gun show" loophole, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, and improving the system of background checks for gun purchasers will do nothing to infringe upon the right of citizens to keep and use firearms for recreational, subsistence, or even self-defense purposes.

Yep. This will TOTALLY fix the illegal weapons problem in America. And stop all the gang violence. And keep crazy people from doing crazy things.

 

[Moonman]

Amazing how they're always on THEIR MISSION.

I would put the Forefathers Knowledge up against the best these present folks can muster or display.

SURELY SHE JESTS!

 

[wetdog]

The Forefathers could do it in their sleep.

 

[Popeye77]

Typical I will vote along my liberal Democratic Party line. Whatever they tell me to do.

 

[COL Jagdog]

Where she is wrong:

The 2nd Amendment specifically contemplated the use and possession by citizens of military-grade weapons -- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (whose father was part of the Boston Tea Party) was appointed to the USSC by James Madison. Justice Story in his Commentaries wrote that: "The militia (read: all able-bodied citizens) is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers......."The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a free republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitraty power of rulers; and will genrally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The argument of the Calif representative that no one foresaw modern arms/magazine capacity is specious -- the intent is that the militia would be armed with arms commensurate with the times; specifically, the type of arms necessary to repel foreign enemies, domestic insurrectors and domestic usurpers of power -- i.e. it would be absurd, for example, to argue that the militia should be restricted to swords and daggers, which were among the arms of the times. Interestingly, at that time, many artillery pieces were actually owned by private or local militias, and those were the most powerful arms of the times.

Every chance we get, we need to remind citizens and politicians that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense, it is about retaining the power of the citizens (all of whom are automatically deemed members of the militia) to successfully challenge enemies, domestic or foreign of the country and the Constitution. Urge folks to read the words of Justice Story.

 

[BigCityChief]

Where she is wrong:

The 2nd Amendment specifically contemplated the use and possession by citizens of military-grade weapons -- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (whose father was part of the Boston Tea Party) was appointed to the USSC by James Madison. Justice Story in his Commentaries wrote that: "The militia (read: all able-bodied citizens) is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers......."The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a free republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitraty power of rulers; and will genrally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The argument of the Calif representative that no one foresaw modern arms/magazine capacity is specious -- the intent is that the militia would be armed with arms commensurate with the times; specifically, the type of arms necessary to repel foreign enemies, domestic insurrectors and domestic usurpers of power -- i.e. it would be absurd, for example, to argue that the militia should be restricted to swords and daggers, which were among the arms of the times. Interestingly, at that time, many artillery pieces were actually owned by private or local militias, and those were the most powerful arms of the times.

Every chance we get, we need to remind citizens and politicians that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense, it is about retaining the power of the citizens (all of whom are automatically deemed members of the militia) to successfully challenge enemies, domestic or foreign of the country and the Constitution. Urge folks to read the words of Justice Story.

Well said, Colonel! I am astounded to see how many of our elected officials actually seem to believe that the most recent legislative proposals will protect innocent people. I haven't heard of a single responsible proposal aimed at keeping weapons out of the hands of people whose past actions clearly demonstrate to the communities in which they live that they are violent psychopaths. In most communities across this country, protecting oneself is, in fact, a matter of SELF protection. We can't wait for police forensics teams to show up 10 minutes or more after the fact and cart us away to the ME's office. Lastly, I'm appalled by the revisionism practiced by our more widely read and verbally articulate "leaders," whose "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment is agenda-driven, treating it as an "inconvenient truth."

 

[beemerphile]

I was also surprised to learn from Ms. Eshoo that our country was a "democratic experiment". I thought it to be, as Ben Franklin described it, a very carefully constructed republic wherein the rights of the minority were protected from the whims of the majority by constitutional law..

 

[owenwd54]

Make no mistake she has got to be defeated and we should all let her know that we are threw with her and her views. Remember to vote and not give up if they don't want to do what we ask there is someone else who will. Write all of our Politicians and tell them That we are not going away and we will not forget how they vote.

 

[jag312]

Don't be too hard on Anna. She's not exactly the brightest legislator in Congress. Unless her letter was written in crayon, then it was probably written by some fuzz-brain on her staff. Of course she will follow the Democratic party line. She doesn't know any better.

 

[Beemerguy53]

When the Founders drafted the First Amendment, they never envisioned the Internet, paparazzi, tabloids, cell phones, computers, etc., etc....so does that mean those things can be regulated by Congress as well?

 

[A10]

I visited her website. What a collection of left wing claptrap. Every headline was thoughtless and emotion laden. I feel bad for you having this type of "representation".

 

[Guys1911]

I live in Ca. and i want to know where there is a "Civil Society", what a joke that is.

 

[Damocles]

Like you, I respect the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our great democracy.

Most gratefully,

Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress

We are a republic. Elected people *should* know this......

 

[P&R Fan]

Tell her that Article One of The Bill Of Rights protects her right to free speech, which she exercised freely in her response. However, if we follow her "logic", what she said is NOT covered as she probably sent it via e-mail, or at least wrote it on a word processor. Those things, I'm fairly sure, were not in the Founders minds when they wrote the Bill Of Rights.
Then wish her a nice day. We've gotta be polite.
Jim

 

[Nightowl]

That is almost exactly word for word, the response I received from Senator McCaskell of Missouri. To me, this is another indiciation of their duplicitous actions. They are all on board with confiscation and are trying to placate us. This is the largest campaign to remove all firearms from us. If we do not all participate, we will all be Federal Felons!

 

[66Park]

The argument of the Calif representative that no one foresaw modern arms/magazine capacity is specious.

The Supreme Court specifically addressed this argument in D.C. vs. Heller. From the decision:

" Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

 

[REM 3200]

Tell her that Article One of The Bill Of Rights protects her right to free speech, which she exercised freely in her response. However, if we follow her "logic", what she said is NOT covered as she probably sent it via e-mail, or at least wrote it on a word processor. Those things, I'm fairly sure, were not in the Founders minds when they wrote the Bill Of Rights.
Then wish her a nice day. We've gotta be polite.
Jim

Yep, back to the quill pen.

 

[A10]

And, since there were no cars, trains, planes, etc., in the 18th century, the only acceptable compensable travel for congressional members should be on horseback or by wagon. Everything else should come out of their own pocket!

 

[kent11202]

Don't be too hard on Anna. She's not exactly the brightest legislator in Congress. Unless her letter was written in crayon, then it was probably written by some fuzz-brain on her staff. Of course she will follow the Democratic party line. She doesn't know any better.

Well stated Jag!

If she had just stopped talking with the word "nothing," I'd be a happy camper because she would have nailed it but, no, she had to continue just like the rest of the loons.....

"Closing the "gun show" loophole, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, and improving the system of background checks for gun purchasers will do nothing...."