Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Pennsylvania Gun Forum (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f151/)
-   -   Se. Toomey's Softy Response (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f151/se-toomeys-softy-response-83081/)

Rentacop 02-01-2013 05:48 PM

Se. Toomey's Softy Response
 
February 1, 2013



Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,


Thank you for contacting me about gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a variety of gun policy measures in response to the Newtown, CT killings. I therefore value knowing your views on this important issue, which is important to me as I carefully review the President's proposals. Like many Pennsylvanians, I believe that Second Amendment rights are important and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety. I also believe that people who use guns in an illegal manner or harm others with them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, we have consistently observed that mass killings are the result of serious mental illness. We therefore need to better protect ourselves from mentally ill individuals who seek to carry out such atrocities, including improved background checks. We also need to review and improve how we take care of the mentally ill. As I continue working with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle on public safety, please be assured that I will keep your views about firearms in mind.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.


Sincerely,



Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania
Needless to say, the Senator is in error about Obama's acting in response to Newtown ; the agenda was set way before . Background checks violate property rights. Where does he attack " gun control " in this letter ? Nowhere . Go to www.ruger.com to email your officials

IAlwaysCarry 02-03-2013 03:21 PM

I assume this was in response to an e-mail or letter you sent to him. I did the same thing and got the identical spineless response from his office last week.

Rentacop 02-03-2013 04:28 PM

Notice he calls Gun Control 'gun policy measures' . I phoned his office and told them to stand and fight . They assured me he opposes Obama's stuff .

GrtWhytHype 02-03-2013 05:07 PM

Ruger has it set up now so you can post the responses you receive from your reps on the advocacy page. Check it out if you haven't already.

IAlwaysCarry 02-03-2013 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rentacop (Post 1122181)
Notice he calls Gun Control 'gun policy measures' . I phoned his office and told them to stand and fight . They assured me he opposes Obama's stuff .

…. and the words “the President’s proposals”. Pres Obummer taking away our ability to protect ourselves is reduced to the term “proposals”? Toomey’s response is typical politician “bull sugar”. It’s frightening that Sen Toomey is also wrapping this gun control push in the tragedy of Sandy Hook. Maybe we kinda know where he stands? Damn shame elections aren’t closer.

I sent an e-mail to Sen Casey in Dec and received a more encouraging response from him, at least at that time anyway. :mad:

IAlwaysCarry 02-03-2013 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrtWhytHype (Post 1122258)
Ruger has it set up now so you can post the responses you receive from your reps on the advocacy page. Check it out if you haven't already.

Thanks. Interesting resource.

Rentacop 03-01-2013 10:17 PM

Ialwayscarry :
Here is the response I got from Cagey ( I mean Casey ) .
Notice the dishonesty of Sen. Bob Casey . He claims to support the Second Amendment but then says he wants to ban what he falsely calls " assault weapons " and high-capacity magazines .

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.


As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.



The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.



As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.



Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.



On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.



This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.



Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.



For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.



Sincerely,

Bob Casey

United States Senator


P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

Rentacop 04-09-2013 02:26 AM

Toomey is talking to the Democrats about " going over " to support universal background checks . Call his office and give them hell before he sells us out . If folds, more Republicrats will fold .

Rentacop 04-20-2013 03:22 AM

Keep the pressure on the traitor, Toomey . www.ruger.com has been a great help, with their contact info and email service . I know what brand of gun I want to buy now .
Next time he's up for election, Toomey needs to be " Primaried " by the TEA Party .

Rentacop 05-03-2013 07:25 PM

" We Can't Stand Pat "
Toomey's latest bull**** :
April 29, 2013

Dear Mr. ,

Thank you for contacting me about national firearms policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Like many Pennsylvanians, I have long been a supporter of the Second Amendment. Americans have an individual right to bear arms for self-protection, hunting and recreation. In fact, during my tenure in the House of Representatives (1999-2005), my record of supporting gun owners' rights earned me an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).

As important as Second Amendment rights are, our society recognizes that these rights do not apply to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. Writing for the conservative majority in the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down the D.C. gun ban, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In other words, Justice Scalia affirmed that laws preventing criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

As you know, I recently introduced an amendment, along with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649). Our amendment had three parts. The first was to improve state compliance with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The second part was to expand background checks to commercial sales at gun shows or through the internet. These first two parts of our amendment were designed to make it more difficult for criminals and dangerously mentally ill persons to acquire firearms. The third part would have provided law abiding citizens with expanded opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.

With regard to the first part of the amendment, NICS relies on states to provide records of persons who should not possess firearms. Compliance varies greatly with some states providing very few records. The amendment requires states to completely participate in NICS in order to be eligible for certain types of federal grant funding.

Full state participation in NICS would help prevent the kind of tragedy that took place at Virginia Tech in 2007. Prior to that mass shooting, in which 32 people were murdered and 23 were injured, shooter Seung Hui Cho had been found mentally ill by a Virginia judge. However, Virginia did not submit that court record to NICS. The absence of this critical information in NICS enabled Cho to pass a background check and purchase the handguns he used for the shooting. This is one example of how the threat of gun violence can be reduced through improvement of the NICS system, a salient objective of the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

The second part, expansion of background checks to other venues such as gun shows, is not a new idea. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School tragedy in 1999, the NRA supported expanding background checks at gun shows during consideration by the House of Representatives of the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act (H.R. 2122). I agreed with the NRA then, and so did many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted in favor of this legislation.

Current law already requires a background check through NICS for all sales conducted through a federally licensed gun dealer. The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have required individuals seeking to purchase firearms from a non-dealer at a gun show to undergo the same background check as required for purchases from licensed dealers. The amendment would not have mandated "universal" background checks. Personal, non-commercial transfers would not have required background checks.

The third part of our amendment would have been achieved through a number of measures. These measures included allowing active duty military service members to buy a gun in their home state and providing a new legal process for restoring the Second Amendment rights of veterans who, under current law, can be unfairly prevented from acquiring a firearm. Another benefit included protecting law abiding gun owners from arrest or detention by fixing interstate travel laws.

Contrary to some reports, the amendment would not have created or enabled a national gun registry. I have always strongly opposed a gun registry, so our amendment prohibited the creation of a registry and would have established a new felony offense, punishable by a 15-year prison sentence, for any official who attempted to create a federal registry.

Senator Manchin and I posted the text of our amendment on our websites on April 11, 2013, thereby providing six days for our colleagues and the public to review the 49-page measure before a vote. On April 17, 2013, despite bipartisan support and a 54-46 vote in favor, the amendment was defeated due to a 60-vote threshold that was agreed to by unanimous consent.

I acknowledge that some will disagree with the Manchin-Toomey amendment. I am under no illusion that the amendment would necessarily prevent a determined criminal or dangerously mentally ill person from acquiring a firearm. No system can be 100 percent effective in denying firearms to those that should not have them, but that does not mean we should not try to improve the current system. In my view, keeping guns out of the hands of these people is not gun control, but common sense.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.


Sincerely,



Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:12 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.