Response receiverd from Senator D. Feinstein - CA

Capt.Jim

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
303
Reaction score
403
Location
California :(
Dear James:

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.


Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.


Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.
 
Register to hide this ad
I don't feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in many businesses, and in other public places, because of the sign out front with the circle and slash through a gun. It keeps me from having one, because I'm honest and law abiding; but a signs don't stop felonious persons.
 
So why do you suppose that the two incidents Ms. Feinstein specifies did not involve the use of what she refers to as "assault weapons" (presumably assault rifles)? Nicely written, but in substance, "a joke." Heywouldyabuzzoff. :)
 
Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited.

I'm not lawyer, just an old retired guy, so could someone explain to me why the term "shell not be infringed" is in the 2nd but not in any other amendments to the constitution.
 
I received the same response this morning. I couldn't believe she referenced the 1966 shooting. I would hope she knew that incident happened with a shotgun and a hunting rifle and not an assault weapon...
 
I'm not sure that she really cares what type of firearm was used. She only seems concerned with disarming everyone (except the government, of course).
 
She says, "over the 40 years I have been in public life".

All I can say is wow. Think term limits would be a good idea? Sad thing is what she thinks and votes effects all of us, not just our brothers in Kalifornia. At least she responded to you.
 
She says, "over the 40 years I have been in public life".

All I can say is wow. Think term limits would be a good idea? Sad thing is what she thinks and votes effects all of us, not just our brothers in Kalifornia. At least she responded to you.

That kind of puts this in perspective, she's been in office so long she no longer thinks she is accountable to anyone. From my observation that is pretty common in D.C. these days. As for the Texas Tower shooting I wonder if she's aware that a lot of local citizens kept Whitman's head down with suppressing fire from their personal rifles? How much quicker could that have been ended if a Barret .50 had existed in those days, or maybe a veteran with an AR15, both of which are pretty much illegal in DiFi's home district. I don't think she's really interested in facts, or our opinions, for that matter.
 
I received the same response this morning. I couldn't believe she referenced the 1966 shooting. I would hope she knew that incident happened with a shotgun and a hunting rifle and not an assault weapon...

I am happy that at least she didn't refer Lincoln's assassination in theater!:D
 
I received the same response this morning. I couldn't believe she referenced the 1966 shooting. I would hope she knew that incident happened with a shotgun and a hunting rifle and not an assault weapon...

+1, must have sent them all out at the same time.
 
Sen Feinstein's letter

You hit the nail on the head when you referenced term limits. Every time I her say "I've ...for 40 years" I think well it's been too long. Has she ever done anything for the American public?
 
She doesn't care what anyone has to say--she has an agenda, and that agenda is to get semi-auto firearms out of the hands of the American people as quickly as possible.When the dollar crashes, the government does not want the public armed with semi-auto handguns and especially, rifles, since their rounds will penetrate the majority of body armor worn by LE. TPTB are afraid of us.
 
That kind of puts this in perspective, she's been in office so long she no longer thinks she is accountable to anyone. From my observation that is pretty common in D.C. these days. As for the Texas Tower shooting I wonder if she's aware that a lot of local citizens kept Whitman's head down with suppressing fire from their personal rifles? How much quicker could that have been ended if a Barret .50 had existed in those days, or maybe a veteran with an AR15, both of which are pretty much illegal in DiFi's home district. I don't think she's really interested in facts, or our opinions, for that matter.

it is rumored ... but only rumored, that when an armed civilian escorted police to Whitmans position that it was that armed civilian that stopped him.
 
After Sandy Hook she mentioned that she, and about five staff members "have been LOOKING at PICTURES OF GUNS for about five months now, to define more completely what an assault weapon should be in her new bill.

The shooting was the green light she'd been dreaming of to get traction for a bill she re-introduces with no effect each and every year.

I keep wanting to tell her the difference between magazines and clips. Out where she lives, a lot of people smoke that left-handed tobacco with a clip . . .
 
I got the same response and drafted a very eloquent and fact based response and then it occured to me that there was nothing I could say that would even remotely affect the Senators views. Just like her previous and current AWB, it will do NOTHING to address the real problem.

So I saved the response for use another time where it may be needed. I am meeting in an hour with a CA Senator who invited me for coffee so perhaps it will find a use there. :P
 
I can only imagine the type of people in her district that continually reelect her........ Boxer is another one....
 
From a post I made elsewhere concerning Ms. Feinstein:

Some have called her actions treason. I would perhaps not go that far, but it certainly looks like she has broken her oath of office. She has also shown that she is not only a hypocrite when it comes to carrying a firearm, but is either too stupid to check her facts and educate herself about the weapons she is trying to ban and look at the actual crime statistics, or she intentionally fabricates lies to further her personal agenda. In any case, any or all of these should call for censure at the very least, or ought to clue in the voters of California to the fact that she should be fired. Lying in office, oath breaking, or stupidity are all suitable grounds for a recall.
--------------

Another possibility occurs to me. It could be that she is simply failing severely mentally. Given some of her speaking "gaffs" I've occasionally noticed, this is a very real possibility. She may not even realize it herself.

Unfortunately, one of my own Senators is just as bad, and the form-letter response I received for my thoughtful comments on the issues sent via both email and snail-mail showed an equal level of cluelessness.

But, I will continue to try, as every now and then one of these people not only listens, but I'll hear my own words being used by them.
 
Back
Top