This is a discussion on Response from Senator Hutch within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I got this response today from the senior Senator from Texas, it took her long enough but at least she (or her staffers) read my ...
I got this response today from the senior Senator from Texas, it took her long enough but at least she (or her staffers) read my concerns:
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the horrible shootings at the Virginia Tech campus. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions in response to this incident.
While we all mourn for the families who have suffered loses, I do not believe we should take away the right of self-defense from law-abiding, responsible citizens as a result of this tragedy. I also believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous existing laws that address many aspects of this problem. Should legislation regarding gun control or mental illness come before the Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.
"Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."
ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
I send faxes and emails to both Kay Bailey and John Cornyn. It is great to know that as far as gun control, I think Texas has the two best defenders of the 2nd amendment.
Then, add John Cornyn's efforts against this terrible immigration bill... He has my vote as long as he runs for office.
"...the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’” - Ronald Reagan
I wish my congressman was like minded. I contacted him and explain why I was opposed to Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act.
His reply was what I expected as he is a very liberal democrat.
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.
From 1994 to 2004 federal law prohibited the transfer or sale of certain semi-automatic weapons defined by statute as "assault weapons." On September 24, 2004, as a result of congressional inaction, the statute was allowed to expire and the ban lapse.
As you know, H.R. 1022 would ban on the transfer or sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for a period of 10 years. In addition, the bill would ban the use of so-called "conversion kits," expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include semiautomatic rifles and pistols with the ability to accept detachable magazines, and prohibit the sale of firearms evidencing certain other characteristics such as a telescoping stock.
I understand your concerns about H.R. 1022, but I believe Congress must balance the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms against the need to prevent them from finding their way into the hands of those who would use them for dangerous or illegal purposes.
Please contact me about other issues important to you. Thank you.
Member of Congress
They still do not get it Criminals will not obey the law and it is not a Law Enforcement Protection Act. It is meant to disarm honest citizens
Hah! our 2 morons would not even listen to phone calls on the matter.
Why is it that you always find things at the last place you looked?
Because when you find something-you stop looking-Mooch