Fla Sen. Nelson's second reply to me

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by gilfo, Jan 22, 2013.

  1. gilfo

    gilfo Member

    170
    0
    16
    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
     
  2. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Sounds to me like "you are free to have a gun as long as you keep it in your house". Lol
     

  3. Str8tShooter

    Str8tShooter New Member

    25
    0
    0
    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 .
     
  4. sputnik1988

    sputnik1988 Active Member

    2,883
    2
    38
    Looks to me like a subtle way of backpedaling
     
  5. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,369
    167
    63
    Yeah... That means, yes you can have a pistol and hunting rifle... but anything else is not necessary.
     
  6. MoreAltitude

    MoreAltitude New Member

    456
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  7. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    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.
     
  8. shaker

    shaker New Member

    178
    0
    0
    He didn't respond back to me yet :(
     
  9. Devin556

    Devin556 New Member

    552
    0
    0
    Sounded to me like the pre-drafted gun supporter letter to be sent to anyone giving him flak over his actions.
     
  10. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,334
    190
    63
    Yup- you got a Bedbug letter!
     
  11. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    He said exactly nothing, whether he will vote with or against us.
     
  12. gilfo

    gilfo Member

    170
    0
    16
    My reply to his second reply



    Dear Sen. Nelson,

    I received your reply to my question on your stance on the gun control/weapons ban. After reading your reply I am still unsure what your stance really is. The poll you conducted on your website is overwhelming opposed to a ban of any kind.
    Yes (9151 votes)
    11.39%

    No (71064 votes)
    88.42%

    No Opinion (152 votes)
    0.19%

    Please clarify for me are you going to vote with your constitutes wishes or not.

    Sincerely
    Donald Gilfillan
     
  13. MoreAltitude

    MoreAltitude New Member

    456
    0
    0
    I really like that response, kudos. Thanks for sharing up to this point, hope to see more...