Sen. Coats flipping on background checks! Wants to see the details - CONTACT HIM

[Bill of Rights]

Sent:

Dear Sen. Coats,

Re: the article from "The Hill" dated 3/24/13, by Alexander Bolton, in which it is stated of you that, "Coats said he wants to see the details of legislation on background checks before making a decision."

Sir, this troubles me.

I received your newsletter of Jan 16 in which you stated in part:

"Today, President Obama released a series of executive actions and legislative ideas as part of his recently announced gun control initiative.

As we learn more details about the President’s proposals, I believe we must protect Second Amendment rights and ensure the federal government does not punish responsible gun owners. I will not support legislation or executive actions that would affect gun ownership rights for law-abiding citizens, including any assault weapons ban. "

Please be reminded of your last sentence, above, sir, as you look over those details. Increased background checks only sound good until any level of actual, rational thought is given to the concept: Criminals do not get background checks, only the law-abiding do so.

If the article misstated your position, a retraction should be demanded. If your stance is truly as strongly pro-rights as the rest of both of those quoted pieces insinuate, then this letter is unnecessary. I would like a re-iteration of your position, however, guaranteeing you will not waver.

No gun registration. No "universal background checks". No "scary gun bans". No governmental interference with ammunition. If anything, we need to be repealing "gun control" laws, not writing more.

Thank you for your time and for the favor of the requested reply.

Most sincerely,

ETA:

Dear Sen. Donnelly,

As your constituent, I feel compelled to inform you of the stance of so many of us on the issue of firearms ownership and carry. The latest "push" has been for so-called "universal background checks". There is no such thing: Criminals will never submit to them, and thus, they will only affect the law-abiding, who are the last people with whose behavior we as a society need to be concerned.

Increased background checks only sound good until any level of actual, rational thought is given to the concept: Criminals do not get background checks, only the law-abiding do so.

Sir, I would like to see a confirmation in writing that you will support no "gun control" schemes by those who do not seem to understand the Constitution their oaths bind them to support, protect, and defend.

No gun registration. No "universal background checks". No "scary gun bans". No governmental interference with ammunition. If anything, we need to be repealing "gun control" laws, not writing more.

Thank you for your time and for the favor of the requested reply.

Most sincerely,

We shall see what replies I receive.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

So, when did he become a democrat? I will be contacting him tomorrow.

1994

 

[Two-Tornadoes]

Sent this to both of my reps

Senator,

It has come to my attention that you may be reconsidering your stand on the Second Amendment to the United States of America Constitution.

I once again urge you to vote NO on any legislation that would infringe on the American peoples Second Amendment Rights. This would include expanded background checks in purchasing firearms.

Let me be perfectly clear on this matter. Their are some in the Senate that would want full registration of all firearms included in any background check or purchase of firearms. This would lead to registration, in my opinion, for the sole purpose of future confiscation.

Sir,
I do not have to lecture you on what our founding Fathers envisioned for the reason for the Second Amendment. I know you are fully aware of the brevity of there decision.

We do not need more gun control laws. What we need is for the laws that are already on the books to be enforced.

I am a law abiding citizen and any laws that would limit my right and ability to purchase firearms, the ammunition to fire from said firearms, accessories for said firearms, would be an infringement of my Second Amendment Rights as an United States of America Citizen.

The people of this great nation and the people of Indiana are watching the way that our elected officials are voting.

I for one will not forget when election time comes.

Thank you for your support and for serving this great nation and the people of Indiana.

 

[Racechase1]

I wrote to Donnelly on if he is for or against gun control. No response, and it's been a month.

Coats is a carpetbagger, his only loyalty is to himself. He probably doesn't even remember what a hoosier is.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Please remind Senator Coats that Indiana had this regime from 1974 to 1998 for handguns. All handgun transfers, including privates sales, had to pass through a dealer.

Indiana's UBC did nothing to reduce the crime rate, felons were exempt from it, the compliance rate approached zero, and I cannot find if this statute was ever enforced in one of the Indana's 92 counties (90 judicial circuits).

Ask Senator Coats:

1. What lessons can be learned from the complete failure of Indiana's law?

2. How will .gov enforce a UBC?

3. If .gov is on record as admitting their impotence on "paper crimes", what good will another paper crime do?

4. How will prosecuting for failure to transfer with a background check two non-criminals, e.g. Jimmy Lee, Korean War Vet (USMC) and retired tool and die guy, for selling a shotgun to Jared Smith, Iraq War Vet (USN) and insurance company vice president, make anyone any safer?

5. What impact will this have on federal gun control as more and more citizens lose respect for the law?

6. Do the useless laws weaken the necessary laws?

 

[hammer24]

Dear Senator,

NO TO "Universal Background Check" (Ban on Private Sales)

It has come to my attention that the Senate Dems believe you may be an easy target on the issue of Universal background checks (ban of private sales.) This is a non-starter as a law being that it is completely unenforceable and will do NOTHING to curb gun violence.

Our state of Indiana had "Universal background checks" on all handguns from the mid seventies to the late 90's. It was shown to be a pointless law, a paper infraction, with almost ZERO compliance. No database (national registry) = no way to track firearms = unenforceable law.

This "Universal background check" is in fact a foot in the door towards a national registry. Registry = Confiscation 100% of the time in history. The Senate dems like Schumer and Durbin know that the UBC will do nothing to curb violence, it is about control!!! Not GUN control, but PEOPLE control. It is a foot in the door towards disarming the U.S. citizenry.

We are watching closely, Senator. Don't be an easy mark for the "protectionists" and the Senate Dems. Don't let your constituents down, or I'll be forced to vote another way next time. Thanks for your service.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Sent

 

[bottlemaker]

I'll yell, but I feel my pleas will fall upon deaf ears, just like every other time I've voiced it. Hope for the best yet Expect an automated response whether it's email or in talking to him. So sad we've let these people get far beyond our grip... and been set underneath twisted dialect and bipartisan tongues.

That why we need term limits or recall options .

 

[Bennettjh]

I've sent an e-mail yesterday. I've contacted Coats, Donnelly, Messer, anybody and everybody probably 20 times in the last month or so. Gotten generic letters back. I feel like we're getting nowhere. Just keep pressure on!

 

[Trigger Time]

Called coats office. Made it clear that Indiana gun owners will not reelect him if he supports new background checks or gun restrictions.
I knew this guy couldn't be trusted. This will be it for coats if he supports the background checks. People In Indiana do not want another lugar.

 

[Trigger Time]

Please everyone please call his office!! You do not even have to give your name if you do not wish.

 

[24Carat]

I called and the young aid was very busy on the phones. I did give my name and he confirmed my home address in their system. I gave him my concerns about the "slippery slope" of Universal Background Checks leading to registration. I also asked he not pull a Richard Lugar on his constituents.

 

[Trigger Time]

I called and the young aid was very busy on the phones. I did give my name and he confirmed my home address in their system. I gave him my concerns about the "slippery slope" of Universal Background Checks leading to registration. I also asked he not pull a Richard Lugar on his constituents.

I got a male today. You?

 

[24Carat]

I got a male today. You?

No! If I did my wife would be giving me a 5th degree interrogation right now !

 

[schhrdkncks]

Bump thread and just called

 

[Bigtanker]

Just made the call. I told the guy that answered that I The Sen. votes on UBC, I will do everything I can to make sure he will be voted out next time. He said Sen. Coats supports 2A rights. I said not if he supports UCB's.

 

[Mosineer]

Called twice. Gave my concerns about the UBC on both. Left a message first time and talked to a young man the second. Also emailed him. I found it interesting that I gave him my name address and he gave ME my phone number. I said it seems you may have heard from me before..he gave a little laugh and said yes we have ....so I guess they are keeping track whether the message is getting through or not.

 

[Bennettjh]

Called twice. Gave my concerns about the UBC on both. Left a message first time and talked to a young man the second. Also emailed him. I found it interesting that I gave him my name address and he gave ME my phone number. I said it seems you may have heard from me before..he gave a little laugh and said yes we have ....so I guess they are keeping track whether the message is getting through or not.

I'm on their frequent flyer list. I hope he changes his mind on UBCs. If not, I'll guarantee that I won't vote for him again.

 

[cordex]

I found it interesting that I gave him my name address and he gave ME my phone number.

I was calling from a work number (that I haven't used before) and told him my name and he said "I think we may have spoken before" and immediately gave me my address. Quick lookup there, or he really did remember me.

 

[gunworks321]

We have seen all of this before. Remember the original AWB from 1994. Enough republicans were turncoats that this passed and became law. Our voices were heard then, but to no avail. Same will happen again as each and every Senator will be lobbied by the Media, the President, the leadership, the old sages (McCain and company) until they cave, as that is where the power lies. They will acknowledge our words right up until they are forced into voting, and the response will be a non-thinking act of self preservation within their own ranks. Voters have short memories, and we will be on to another crises by then. God save us all!