H.R.4269 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

[Bill of Rights]

January 5, 2016​ Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxx: Thank you for contacting me to voice your concerns about gun violence prevention. The opinions of my fellow Hoosiers are essential to the decision making process as a Member of Congress. As you may know, I am strongly in favor of having and enforcing sensible laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who are incapable of using them safely and responsibly. In and around my own neighborhood, I have witnessed how gun violence has the power to destroy families and entire communities. These preventable tragedies are unacceptable. I believe that strong restrictions must be enacted to protect both the public and the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act which would improve our current system of background checks to help prevent violent felons and those with severe mental illness from easily purchasing guns. Rest assured, I make the safety of my constituents a top priority and will continue to monitor this issue as it moves forward. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue and I hope you will continue to contact my office on future issues. I encourage you to visit my website at Congressman Andre Carson | Representing the 7th District of INDIANA where you can view the latest news and updates about pertinent issues and legislation important to you, or follow me on Twitter @RepAndreCarson. You may also sign up for my weekly e-newsletter The Carson Courier to receive periodic updates on my activities in Indianapolis and in Washington, D.C. As always, my staff and I are here to serve you. Please feel free to contact me if we ever can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, André Carson Member of Congress SCRATCH THE F'ing record for a minute batman, how can you be a second amendment supporter and also be supporting this long guns ban?

Simple.

 

[2A_Tom]

Dear Tom: Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 (H.R.4269). I appreciate the opportunity to respond. Representative David Cicilline introduced H.R.4269 on December 16, 2015, and it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. This legislation would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or importation of semi-automatic rifles and handguns with fixed magazines that have a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine, semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds, semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature, and any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds. Beyond these categories, the bill also bans 157 specific firearms. Should this or similar legislation come before the Senate, I will oppose it, as I believe it punishes responsible gun owners, not criminals. When I was sworn into office as U.S. Senator for Indiana, I took an oath that I would support and defend our nation's Constitution. I will not support any legislation or broader effort that would serve to undermine the Second Amendment. I am a proud supporter of gun rights and will oppose any gun control measure that infringes upon ownership rights for responsible, law-abiding citizens. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and please do not hesitate to reach out in the future. Sincerely, Dan Coats​

 

[Ruffnek]

Dear Tom: Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 (H.R.4269). I appreciate the opportunity to respond. Representative David Cicilline introduced H.R.4269 on December 16, 2015, and it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. This legislation would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or importation of semi-automatic rifles and handguns with fixed magazines that have a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine, semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds, semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature, and any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds. Beyond these categories, the bill also bans 157 specific firearms. Should this or similar legislation come before the Senate, I will oppose it, as I believe it punishes responsible gun owners, not criminals. When I was sworn into office as U.S. Senator for Indiana, I took an oath that I would support and defend our nation's Constitution. I will not support any legislation or broader effort that would serve to undermine the Second Amendment. I am a proud supporter of gun rights and will oppose any gun control measure that infringes upon ownership rights for responsible, law-abiding citizens. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and please do not hesitate to reach out in the future. Sincerely, Dan Coats​

Wish they could all remember that oath.

 

[2A_Tom]

Wish they could all remember that oath.

I have written them all long letters concerning their oath and their constitutional duties. They have me in their files and respond the way they think i expect them to.

I don't know if I have actually made any impact or they are just regurgitating what I want to hear. But they can't deny they know it.

 

[Caleb]

I dare somebody to write them a long anti-gun letter and see how the response stacks up.

 

[Expat]

I always get a "will keep your comments in mind" letter...

 

[IndyDave1776]

I always get a "will keep your comments in mind" letter...

You mean the infamous 'F**k you without actually saying f**k you' letter.

 

[Trigger Time]

Carson is a traitor and terrorist supporter anyways. **** him

 

[IndyDave1776]

Carson is a traitor and terrorist supporter anyways. **** him

It's a crying shame that he likely will never be rewarded appropriately.

 

[bonkers1919]

When it comes to people I trust very little. One thing I do believe though is the passion of gun owners when it comes to their freedom. If there are 300 million guns in America, that represents a lot of potential votes. Those who would use "gun control" to excite their base, might just end up exciting the opposition. This could work out just fine.

And for those of you who think that not voting is the best plan, I suggest you remove your ass from around your ears and consider the actual value of your vote.

I agree gun owners have a passion for their sport. So do golfers, softball players, bowlers and fisherman. We all vote. The problem is the politicians will say anything to be elected. Once in office, they change the song they once sang. Look at Paul Ryan. He rolled over and played dead on the budget. Alren Specter (D-PA) changed parties once as he knew he didn't stand a chance at being elected. Over night he changed his views on every subject.

Gun control is not the Anti 2A mantra now, it is gun safety. The phrase, gun safety, is less threatening and sounds reasonable to the public than gun control.

Everyone wants to be safe. "sigh"

More laws for football players safety...........

More laws for child seats in your car for their safety.........

More laws concerning offensive words, because we all know if words hurt your feelings, there may not be a safe room for you to go to...........

Put the word participant on a trophy so a child's ego is safe from being hurt.............

New laws for common sense gun safety.............................



As a side bar, implantable RFID chip manufactures will use the same tactics.

Safe business transactions, IE. no money or credit cards.

Your child's safety, always knowing where they are.

Crime will go down. When a crime is committed against you, who's RFID chip was next to you.

Enough digression, more laws do not stop what people do nor does any law make your gun safe. Everyone say the new anti 2A slogan with me, Safety, Safety, Safety. (say it like Marsha, Marsha, Marsha)

 

[cobber]

It's a crying shame that he likely will never be rewarded appropriately.

One-way fun-filled rafting trip to Havana?

 

[IndyDave1776]

One-way fun-filled rafting trip to Havana?

I was thinking more along the lines of free room and board for the rest of his life for being one of those domestic enemies our founders warned us about. Of course, sending him to Guantanamo Bay would put him both in Cuba and in federal prison.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's a crying shame that he likely will never be rewarded appropriately.

Necktie party. Either type would be fine... Old West vs. Colombian

To be crystal-clear, I refer to whichever version as being the punishment decided by due process of law, after he's been judged by a jury of his peers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Necktie party. Either type would be fine... Old West vs. Colombian

To be crystal-clear, I refer to whichever version as being the punishment decided by due process of law, after he's been judged by a jury of his peers.

Exactly. It is a shame that we have lost our way in dealing with those domestic enemies our founders warned us about.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Exactly. It is a shame that we have lost our way in dealing with those domestic enemies our founders warned us about.

I think that's an 8A thing, Dave. However, an argument could be made that the Old West style is unusual today, but not cruel... certainly not more cruel than what the death cocktail used for lethal injections causes. The Colombian type, well.....

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that's an 8A thing, Dave. However, an argument could be made that the Old West style is unusual today, but not cruel... certainly not more cruel than what the death cocktail used for lethal injections causes. The Colombian type, well.....

I would argue that the 8th is willfully misinterpreted as bad as the 2nd. One wonders why practices which were accepted by those who wrote an designed the Constitution have magically become against the Constitution. In my reckoning, that is almost as presumptuous as me telling God that His standards are wrong.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would argue that the 8th is willfully misinterpreted as bad as the 2nd. One wonders why practices which were accepted by those who wrote an designed the Constitution have magically become against the Constitution. In my reckoning, that is almost as presumptuous as me telling God that His standards are wrong.

They accepted slavery, too... not to mention denying women suffrage.
That latter is a bit questionable, considering the support for the Hildabeast, but....

 

[2A_Tom]

They accepted slavery, too... not to mention denying women suffrage.
That latter is a bit questionable, considering the support for the Hildabeast, but....

Two separate countries on this continent would have been better (! or ?) You decide.

Non property owners were not allowed to vote either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

They accepted slavery, too... not to mention denying women suffrage.
That latter is a bit questionable, considering the support for the Hildabeast, but....

I feel compelled to point out that those two issues were addressed with amendments, not people in positions of public trust simply deciding that the Constitution says WTF ever they want it to say.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I feel compelled to point out that those two issues were addressed with amendments, not people in positions of public trust simply deciding that the Constitution says WTF ever they want it to say.

They were addressed by amendment, true, but not for quite a few years. Still, though, if you don't like that answer, George Mallory reportedly had three words to say as to why they feel free to disregard the Constitution.