Fla Sen. Nelson's second reply to me
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Fla Sen. Nelson's second reply to me

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2013, 08:44 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 140
Liked 31 Times on 15 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default 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.

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.

Bill Nelson

gilfo is offline  
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here

Old 01-22-2013, 09:02 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
mountainman13's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,525
Liked 2922 Times on 1720 Posts


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

I don't need No stinking signature.
mountainman13 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:04 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25
Liked 8 Times on 7 Posts


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 .
Str8tShooter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:08 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
sputnik1988's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Bluegrass state
Posts: 2,882
Liked 717 Times on 468 Posts
Likes Given: 1952


Looks to me like a subtle way of backpedaling
Just passing through...


sputnik1988 is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:26 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Mosin's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Welcome to Earf
Posts: 5,668
Liked 4857 Times on 2421 Posts
Likes Given: 1188


Yeah... That means, yes you can have a pistol and hunting rifle... but anything else is not necessary.
Arbitrary enforcement of the law is the mark of tyranny. Citizens will always fight against it.
Mosin is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:39 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
MoreAltitude's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 453
Liked 159 Times on 96 Posts


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.
The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved

Last edited by MoreAltitude; 01-22-2013 at 09:56 PM.
MoreAltitude is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:57 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
danf_fl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 11,255
Liked 3599 Times on 2060 Posts
Likes Given: 1577


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.
Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC
Former President of the ECPT (Eifel Combat Pistol Team)
danf_fl is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:19 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
shaker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 178
Liked 32 Times on 21 Posts


He didn't respond back to me yet
shaker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:31 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Arley, AL in "The Free State of Winston"
Posts: 552
Liked 259 Times on 150 Posts
Likes Given: 185


Sounded to me like the pre-drafted gun supporter letter to be sent to anyone giving him flak over his actions.
Devin556 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:45 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
c3shooter's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 18,512
Liked 11150 Times on 4833 Posts
Likes Given: 1833


Yup- you got a Bedbug letter!

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.
c3shooter is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson's reply to my e-mail gilfo Legal and Activism 26 01-19-2013 11:40 PM

Newest Threads