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.
Response from Wisconsin Congressman Sensenbrenner, Jr.
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
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
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Yep I read it the same way. Against the AWB but up for anything else. I would send him an e-mail and ask him his stance on anything else and see what comes back. Put a little pressure on him and lets see if that lump of coal starts to sparkle a little.
Well, cynical me thinks a turd is a turd, no matter how long you polish it. If he is truely pro 2A, he should have simply said he would oppose ALL legislation that infringes on that right. Period. End of story.Yep I read it the same way. Against the AWB but up for anything else. I would send him an e-mail and ask him his stance on anything else and see what comes back. Put a little pressure on him and lets see if that lump of coal starts to sparkle a little.
Yup.Well, cynical me thinks a turd is a turd, no matter how long you polish it. If he is truely pro 2A, he should have simply said he would oppose ALL legislation that infringes on that right. Period. End of story.
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.
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.
If he supported, no co-sponsored, the Brady bill, it's my guess he'd be all for beefing that up and making it "universal."
I'd press him on the issue of UBC's. HARD.
I'd press him on the issue of UBC's. HARD.
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: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.
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.
Silly wabbit. Politicians can't give a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question. It just ain't in their blood.Well, cynical me thinks a turd is a turd, no matter how long you polish it. If he is truely pro 2A, he should have simply said he would oppose ALL legislation that infringes on that right. Period. End of story.
I know, I know. I may have been dreaming when I wrote my post. :image035:Silly wabbit. Politicians can't give a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question. It just ain't in their blood.
Ace
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Defensive Carry
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
