Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Fla Sen. Nelson's second reply to me (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/fla-sen-nelsons-second-reply-me-82156/)

gilfo 01-22-2013 08:44 PM

Fla Sen. Nelson's second reply to me
 
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Thank you for response. While I agree that the tragedy in Newtown was horrendous I do not think a ban would resolve the issues leading up to and including this tragedy. Therefore I regret to inform you that I will NOT be voting for you in your next re-election bid as I have done in the past. It is clear to me that you are not in step with what the Second Amendment was intended to be. I will work tirelessly to do whatever I can to make sure you are not re-elected for another term when the time comes. You are not a friend of the Constitution therefore not a friend to me.
Sincerely


Got this as a reply from Nelson. Could somebody help me with what is trying to say. I don't know if he means that we should not have military type weapons or not.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this reply.


Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.

Sincerely,
Bill Nelson

mountainman13 01-22-2013 09:02 PM

Sounds to me like "you are free to have a gun as long as you keep it in your house". Lol

Str8tShooter 01-22-2013 09:04 PM

At this point I'd say it depends on his actions and voting records.

But I'm betting he will never be your (our) friend .

sputnik1988 01-22-2013 09:08 PM

Looks to me like a subtle way of backpedaling

Mosin 01-22-2013 09:26 PM

Yeah... That means, yes you can have a pistol and hunting rifle... but anything else is not necessary.

MoreAltitude 01-22-2013 09:39 PM

Mr. Nelson is using a Supreme Court ruling to answer the question so he does not have to. He is referring to District of Columbia v. Heller. The short version was that in Washington DC before the ruling there was a ban on certain firearms since 1975. The court ruled that the
"Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves"

Basically it means that they found people of washington DC had the right to legally use and defend themselves with a handgun/longgun as granted by the 2A, finding DC's law unconstitutional and barred requirements banning firearms including pistols rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

All is well right? No. This case concerned Washington DC (a federal enclave) since DC is not part of any state. The ruling gave no mention of States rights to uphold the 2A (New York is not bound by this ruling, neither is Florida for that matter), only homes and "federal enclaves" aka DC.

All in all, it's a BS answer, and the OP's return response is proof. All he is really saying is that he supports you having a firearm (for now) in general, everything else eg mag limit, assault w bans, etc etc are open game

Btw: I'm certainly no expert on this stuff so any errors will be taken with appreciation. Just call it like I see it.

danf_fl 01-22-2013 09:57 PM

gilfo, ask him the results of his survey, then ask if he would provide you with a copy of the preamble to the Democratic Party charter.

(for your reference, look here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582dc516dd52_5wsmvyn09.pdf

In short, he (as a Democrat) is suppose to put aside his personal opinion, and go with the opinion of the majority of the people he serves.

You now have the means to ask him why he plans to vote affirmative on the weapons ban that people in his survey said they did not want.

shaker 01-22-2013 10:19 PM

He didn't respond back to me yet :(

Devin556 01-22-2013 10:31 PM

Sounded to me like the pre-drafted gun supporter letter to be sent to anyone giving him flak over his actions.

c3shooter 01-22-2013 10:45 PM

Yup- you got a Bedbug letter!


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.