Defensive Carry banner

Response from Wisconsin Congressman Sensenbrenner, Jr.

633 views 9 replies 7 participants last post by  acepilot 
#1 ·
Thank you for contacting me about new gun control proposals. I appreciate you taking the time to share your opposition with me.

In responding to the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, it is imperative that any new legislation is consistent with the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a safeguard for liberty and security, and Americans’ right to keep and bear arms has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have advocated for legislation that protects Second Amendment rights, while ensuring that our laws are enforced and guns are not used for criminal activity.

I do not support a so-called “assault-weapons ban.” A ban on assault weapons fails to make the distinction between types of guns, making the possession of some guns criminal and others not. Guns of all kinds are capable of causing bodily harm. For this reason, a criminal should not be able to possess a gun, regardless of type. However, if law abiding citizens want to possess guns to be able to defend their families and their homes, they should decide what kind of gun they want. Millions of honest gun owners are not criminals and they should not be treated as such by the Congress or the President.

Be assured, I will vote against renewing any semi-automatic weapons ban should legislation come to the House floor for a vote.

Thanks again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
Member of Congress
 
See less See more
#2 ·
But it would seem he's open to all the rest of the anti-gunner crap being lobbed over the walls: UBC, 10rd max, bullet stamps, etc.
 
#6 ·
Below is from an email he sent me on Jan 23rd. The whole "I sponsored the Brady Bill" thing bothered me, which I told him. It's good to keep pushing back to help him see the error of his ways. He does seem to be slowly shifting his position to the right.


In the wake of such violence, we naturally want answers. We also want to know what can be done to prevent such tragedies in the future. As the President said, no set of laws will prevent every future horrific act of violence or eliminate evil from our society, but we can do better. As someone who sponsored the Brady bill, I support reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill. I look forward to having an honest debate about these issues in the weeks and months ahead, and will keep in mind your views during this process.
 
#8 ·
The "Brady Bill" brought background checks to America, however it went to the Supreme Court who ruled such checks as unconstitutional(as a federal mandate and left it up to states) yet did not strike down the entire Bill:
In its 1997 decision(Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997) in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top