Post by patriotpreacher on May 20, 2013 5:22:02 GMT -5
i received the following from a fellow-patriot... our state is in deep trouble... voting will not cure this...
(this was on US Senatorial Letterhead but didn't c&p but the content is unchanged)
Dear ... ,
Thank you for contacting me about both the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the recent votes on gun legislation. Let me start with your concerns about the Arms Trade Treaty.
In March, there were two amendments to the Budget Resolution concerning the UN Arms Trade Treaty. I voted in favor of Senator Leahy's amendment S.Amdt. 710, which ensures that the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate Americans' Second Amendment rights. I voted against Senator Inhofe's amendment S.Amdt. 139, which prohibits the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
I thought the Inhofe Amendment was premature since the UN was still discussing the Arms Trade Treaty when the Inhofe Amendment came up for a vote. I did not want to preclude the possibility of settling on treaty language that could stem the flow of arms to criminals and terrorists abroad as long as it did not affect our rights under the Second Amendment.
On April 2, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty by a vote of 154 to 3. The three countries that voted against adopting the treaty were Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The point of this treaty is to regulate the flow of arms across international borders, and to prevent them from ending up in the hands of terrorists and criminal organizations.
American representatives to the treaty negotiations were limited by a series of "Red Lines" that, if crossed, would preclude our support and ratification of the treaty. The Leahy Amendment reaffirms the "Red Line" stating that the United States will not support any treaty that infringes upon Second Amendment rights.
A vote against the Inhofe Amendment was in no way a vote for any UN treaty and certainly does not in any way represent a vote to let the UN take our guns.
If the President signs the treaty, it will then come before the Senate for ratification. I will continue to study the treaty to make sure that it does not violate Second Amendment Rights, and will oppose it if this is the case.
I understand that many people disagree with how I voted on the nine amendments to last month's gun legislation. Some are angry about my votes in support of various amendments. Though I don't expect I will be able to change anyone's mind, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I voted the way I did on the various amendments. For my part, I am confident that I cast my votes with respect for and in accordance with the Second Amendment.
I supported – and will continue to support – the Manchin-Toomey amendment on expanded background checks because it is a reasonable compromise that would improve the currently flawed NICS system. It expands background checks only to sales at gun shows, over the Internet and in commercial publications. It doesn't touch transfers between family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers or other private transfers.
Importantly, Manchin-Toomey enhances the rights of law-abiding gun owners in several ways. For example, it expands the ability of gun owners to transport guns across state lines, and allows concealed carry permits to be used in place of a background check when purchasing from a licensed dealer. These are just a few of the provisions that increase the rights of gun owners. I encourage you to read the proposal in its entirety if you haven't already. There has been a lot of misinformation about it, and you may be surprised with what you find.
Manchin-Toomey also goes to great lengths to prohibit the creation of a national gun registry. It makes it a felony for any individual who attempts to create such a registry. This crime would carry a prison sentence of up to 15 years.
I co-sponsored the Leahy-Collins amendment, a reasonable provision that makes gun trafficking and straw purchasing federal offenses. I hear a lot about the need to better enforce existing laws, and I agree. In the case of these two practices that allow criminals to acquire guns, however, existing laws are so weak that they are essentially un-enforceable. I voted against the Grassley amendment because it would have undermined important provisions in Leahy-Collins.
I voted in favor of the Lautenberg-Blumenthal amendment to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. I believe that this could save lives in a mass-shooting situation. After talking with gun owners in Maine, I reached the conclusion that a 10-round limit would not overly restrict the lawful use of firearms for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense.
I voted for both the Burr and Harkin-Alexander amendments. The Burr provision would have stopped the unfair practice that allows veterans to be denied firearms without a court ruling. While I think we need to prevent all mentally ill individuals from acquiring firearms, I don't think it's fair that veterans currently go through a different process than other Americans. I voted for the Harkin-Alexander amendment because it's a straightforward bill that improves mental health services for young people in schools by focusing on early detection and treatment.
I have been very open about my opposition to the ban on the so-called assault weapons, so I hope it is no surprise that I voted against Senator Feinstein's amendment. This would largely ban guns based on their appearance rather than their functionality, and I don't think it's an effective or enforceable way to limit gun violence.
I voted against the Cornyn amendment that would have allowed a conceal carry permit from one state to automatically be valid in another. I support states granting reciprocity for concealed carry permits if they choose, but I also strongly believe it is a state's right to determine who can carry a concealed weapon within that state and not be bound by whatever concealed carry rules are established elsewhere.
While I believe that the personal information of firearms owners should be protected, I voted against the Barrasso amendment because I see it as an issue for states to decide themselves. If a state wants to prohibit the release of such information, they can and should do that. But I do not believe the federal government should punish states for how they chose to treat this information. The protection of gun owner information is something that I strongly support, but it is ultimately a states' rights issue that must be addressed by state legislatures.
To those individuals who argue that any form of gun legislation is an unacceptable infringement of the Second Amendment, I must point out that this would require the repeal of current law that prohibits certain classes of dangerous people from owning guns and strictly controls fully automatic rifles. If you believe that felons and the mentally ill should have access to any firearms whatsoever, then I'm afraid we will, respectfully, never agree on how to approach the Second Amendment.
Best Regards,
ANGUS S. KING, JR.
United States Senator
P.S., Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, the view that the Second Amendment is unlimited and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.
Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.
Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia – arguably the most conservative member of the court – went on to make this point very clearly:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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 forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
I am not able to read or respond to replies to this address. If you would like to be in contact with me further, please do not reply to this message, but instead go to www.king.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Thanks, Angus.
(this was on US Senatorial Letterhead but didn't c&p but the content is unchanged)
Dear ... ,
Thank you for contacting me about both the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the recent votes on gun legislation. Let me start with your concerns about the Arms Trade Treaty.
In March, there were two amendments to the Budget Resolution concerning the UN Arms Trade Treaty. I voted in favor of Senator Leahy's amendment S.Amdt. 710, which ensures that the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate Americans' Second Amendment rights. I voted against Senator Inhofe's amendment S.Amdt. 139, which prohibits the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
I thought the Inhofe Amendment was premature since the UN was still discussing the Arms Trade Treaty when the Inhofe Amendment came up for a vote. I did not want to preclude the possibility of settling on treaty language that could stem the flow of arms to criminals and terrorists abroad as long as it did not affect our rights under the Second Amendment.
On April 2, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty by a vote of 154 to 3. The three countries that voted against adopting the treaty were Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The point of this treaty is to regulate the flow of arms across international borders, and to prevent them from ending up in the hands of terrorists and criminal organizations.
American representatives to the treaty negotiations were limited by a series of "Red Lines" that, if crossed, would preclude our support and ratification of the treaty. The Leahy Amendment reaffirms the "Red Line" stating that the United States will not support any treaty that infringes upon Second Amendment rights.
A vote against the Inhofe Amendment was in no way a vote for any UN treaty and certainly does not in any way represent a vote to let the UN take our guns.
If the President signs the treaty, it will then come before the Senate for ratification. I will continue to study the treaty to make sure that it does not violate Second Amendment Rights, and will oppose it if this is the case.
I understand that many people disagree with how I voted on the nine amendments to last month's gun legislation. Some are angry about my votes in support of various amendments. Though I don't expect I will be able to change anyone's mind, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I voted the way I did on the various amendments. For my part, I am confident that I cast my votes with respect for and in accordance with the Second Amendment.
I supported – and will continue to support – the Manchin-Toomey amendment on expanded background checks because it is a reasonable compromise that would improve the currently flawed NICS system. It expands background checks only to sales at gun shows, over the Internet and in commercial publications. It doesn't touch transfers between family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers or other private transfers.
Importantly, Manchin-Toomey enhances the rights of law-abiding gun owners in several ways. For example, it expands the ability of gun owners to transport guns across state lines, and allows concealed carry permits to be used in place of a background check when purchasing from a licensed dealer. These are just a few of the provisions that increase the rights of gun owners. I encourage you to read the proposal in its entirety if you haven't already. There has been a lot of misinformation about it, and you may be surprised with what you find.
Manchin-Toomey also goes to great lengths to prohibit the creation of a national gun registry. It makes it a felony for any individual who attempts to create such a registry. This crime would carry a prison sentence of up to 15 years.
I co-sponsored the Leahy-Collins amendment, a reasonable provision that makes gun trafficking and straw purchasing federal offenses. I hear a lot about the need to better enforce existing laws, and I agree. In the case of these two practices that allow criminals to acquire guns, however, existing laws are so weak that they are essentially un-enforceable. I voted against the Grassley amendment because it would have undermined important provisions in Leahy-Collins.
I voted in favor of the Lautenberg-Blumenthal amendment to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. I believe that this could save lives in a mass-shooting situation. After talking with gun owners in Maine, I reached the conclusion that a 10-round limit would not overly restrict the lawful use of firearms for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense.
I voted for both the Burr and Harkin-Alexander amendments. The Burr provision would have stopped the unfair practice that allows veterans to be denied firearms without a court ruling. While I think we need to prevent all mentally ill individuals from acquiring firearms, I don't think it's fair that veterans currently go through a different process than other Americans. I voted for the Harkin-Alexander amendment because it's a straightforward bill that improves mental health services for young people in schools by focusing on early detection and treatment.
I have been very open about my opposition to the ban on the so-called assault weapons, so I hope it is no surprise that I voted against Senator Feinstein's amendment. This would largely ban guns based on their appearance rather than their functionality, and I don't think it's an effective or enforceable way to limit gun violence.
I voted against the Cornyn amendment that would have allowed a conceal carry permit from one state to automatically be valid in another. I support states granting reciprocity for concealed carry permits if they choose, but I also strongly believe it is a state's right to determine who can carry a concealed weapon within that state and not be bound by whatever concealed carry rules are established elsewhere.
While I believe that the personal information of firearms owners should be protected, I voted against the Barrasso amendment because I see it as an issue for states to decide themselves. If a state wants to prohibit the release of such information, they can and should do that. But I do not believe the federal government should punish states for how they chose to treat this information. The protection of gun owner information is something that I strongly support, but it is ultimately a states' rights issue that must be addressed by state legislatures.
To those individuals who argue that any form of gun legislation is an unacceptable infringement of the Second Amendment, I must point out that this would require the repeal of current law that prohibits certain classes of dangerous people from owning guns and strictly controls fully automatic rifles. If you believe that felons and the mentally ill should have access to any firearms whatsoever, then I'm afraid we will, respectfully, never agree on how to approach the Second Amendment.
Best Regards,
ANGUS S. KING, JR.
United States Senator
P.S., Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, the view that the Second Amendment is unlimited and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.
Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.
Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia – arguably the most conservative member of the court – went on to make this point very clearly:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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 forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
I am not able to read or respond to replies to this address. If you would like to be in contact with me further, please do not reply to this message, but instead go to www.king.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Thanks, Angus.
