Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Chatting and General Stuff > Politics Of Hunting And Guns (NOT General Politics)


Reply

Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-31-2013, 01:44 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 3,464
Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

Been writing lots of letters to Congressmen, Senators, the President, Vice President, Local Sheriff, Sate Police...Just about everyone that would have or has an impact on whats transpiring.

I've gotten a few replies, mostly form letters thanking me for my concerns and the usual blather one expects from politicians, a whole bunch of nothing. however, I got a personal reply from Sentator Carl Levin (one of the sponsors of the Brady Bill).

I know this is a long read so bear with me and read it carefully. It expresses what we all fear and it expresses the consensus of quite a few of our elected bobble heads on Capitol Hill.

Number 1, we need to stay focused and Number 2, we all need to make the right choices, informed choices and positive choices in upcoming elections.

First, I'll post his letter to me and the my return letter to him with my rebuttals to his stance and position on the pending legislation and the Feinstein bill which was floored earlier this week.This is not a form letter but a personal relpy to me.....

Senator Carl Levin's letter:

Dear Mr. Davis:

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me. I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms.

I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.

The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases.

Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done.

For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required.

This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this Ďgun show loophole,í I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act.

This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole. Additionally,

I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category.

This ďterror gapĒ in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism.

Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense. I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management.

But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nationís citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the billís enactment.

It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children. We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings.

These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm.

I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,Carl Levinlevin.senate.gov

Next, my rebuttals to his reply to me. I sent this just as I sent the original letter voicing my concerns, via snail mail.....

Dear Mr. Davis:

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me. I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

********Senator Feinsteinís legislative proposal covers far more than what is termed an Ďassaultí weapon. It actually includes rifles with detachable magazines of all types. I typically hunt with with bolt action rifles with detachable box magazines, all are considered Ďassaultí weapons under the Feinstein bill.

The term Ďassault weapon; is a misnomer, any rifle of any type as well as any pistol can be considered a weapon of assault if the operator of that weapon is using it for malicious or criminal intent.*********

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007.

The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007. While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required.

This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this Ďgun show loophole,í I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

**********I have no issue with 100% background checks on all firearm purchases. The process that is already in place is understaffed and ill utilized. To that I agree 100% with your assertions.**********

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This ďterror gapĒ in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

**********My comment to that is I agree with keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists, however, if the AG was cognizant of that fact then why was ĎFast and Furiousí allowed to put firearms in the hands of known terrorists and one of those weapons killed one of our Border Patrol Agents. I believe Eric Holder isnít a competent person to hold the AG position in this country and should be removed and someone competent and that has common sense put in his place.**********

I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nationís citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

**********I went through the definition of an Ďassaultí weapon previously. While I donít own an AR platform, the AR is a very competent hunting rifle for small to medium game and again, only becomes a lethal to humans weapon in the wrong hands. Law abiding gun owners own many thousands of AR type rifles and hunt with them. Itís the use determined that differentiates the weapon, any weapon.**********

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the billís enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

*********Iím in disagreement with your previous paragraph. The Assault Weapons Ban flies in the face of the Second Amendment which states in part ďThe Right to bear arms against a tyrannical governmentĒ I interpret any direct infringement of the ownership of (assault type weapons), a misnomer as Iíve explained to you previously, as a direct attack on the Second Amendment. Again, and Iíve underlined the crucial sentence, that applies directly to 95% of legitimate hunting rifles, most of which have detachable magazines.********************

*********Banning any type of weapon will do nothing to curtail recent violence or to be committed acts of violence simply because Criminals donít register their weapons and obtain them through illegal means to perpetrate crimes. Thatís just plain common sense. If I was a criminal and your administration imposed a ban on a certain type of gun, do you actually think for a minute that I as a criminal, would turn in that weapon? Think about it. You are an intelligent person. Iím sure your conclusion is the same as my statementÖ.**********

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

*********I donít know how closely you have followed the Sandy Hook killings but itís come to light that no AR type weapon was used in the crime. I believe (and hundreds of thousands of others as well) that President Obama is using the Ďassault type rifleí more directly the AR platform to advance an agenda to malign the Second Amendment and destroy the very fabric that this country was founded on. You will find stiff opposition to your assertions not only now but in the future as well in the upcoming elections. I would suggest you rethink your position and weight the possible alternatives, especially alternatives that do not infringe on the Constitution.**********

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

**********The only way the shooting like Sandy Hook will cease is when our law enforcement agencies start being pro-active instead of reactive. We have a penal system that recycles criminals to the street to prey on citizens time and time again and mentally ill that are denied treatment or not treated at all. Until the government addresses that, incidents like all you have mentioned above will continue. Removing firearms from law abiding citizens and I might add voters, will not effectuate the result you want, in fact, crime will increase because the criminal element then knows that the citizens are unarmed and easy prey. Criminals donít know that now.**********

In closing, note that I a recent study, 88% of Senators and Congressmen have concealed carry permits and commonly carry, are you one? If so, ask yourself what differentiates you from the common citizen other than your office. My rights (presently as a citizen parallel yours). In my opinion, you have no right to deny my rights while perpetuating yours.

**********I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I respect a person who is actually concerned enough to do that while our opinions may differ.**********

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,Carl Levinlevin.senate.gov
__________________
'It's not about me, it's about we'..........
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:21 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 436
Re: Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

Good job Flip. I hope he will listen, but it is highly unlikely. We still need to continue to fight back.

I had an interesting conversation with a very good high school friend on facebook last night. I posted a link supporting LB 451, the Nebraska bill to oppose any federal anti-gun legislation which is similar to what has been proposed for many states already. the conversation went as follows:

Kent: You Republicans are all the same. How much money did the NRA give you??

Me: Hey Kent. If Feinstein's bill gets passed my kids can no longer inherit the AR rifles that should eventually become theirs, the government just takes them when I pass away. I'm not cool with that at all. You have known me for a long time, you know how I love to hunt and shoot, and you know that I am knowledgeable and safe with guns. This whole "assault rifle ban isn't right, and I and other will fight it. I hate the shootings, but taking guns from legit people isn't the answer. It just regulates the wrong people. Talk to you later brother.

Kent: I didn't want to fight. It was kinda a rude statement so sorry on that. Let's agree to disagree. I know YOU are safe with firearms but there must be something done.

Me: That's okay Kent. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree, just remember how many people you grew up with that own these guns, and what they use them for safely, that's all I ask.

Kent: Will do.

The Prez has done what he wanted to do. He has made people believe that anyone who opposes the gun legislation is an extremist and is not using "common Sense". They are not even thinking about how they know us, grew up with us, are friends or family to us, and know damned well that we have common sense when it comes to guns. That SOB has driven a wedge between himself and his supporters, and those like us over and over again, but this time people are absolutely blind to what he is doing. The above conversation was with a guy that I used to hang out with on a nightly basis, and he couldn't remember what I actually stood for until I spelled it out for him. I feel very sorry for the people who are his zombies and buy into his every word.

I'm sick of senators and congressmen/women trying to make me feel like an idiot by using the "common sense" descriptor. I feel like I am going to fricking implode the next time I read or hear of someone saying, "these guns have no sporting purpose". They are talking out of their asses, are completely ignorant on the subject, and people are soaking it up like sponges. It is a sad, sad, abysmal state that this country is in right now. I'll get off of the soapbox now. I just had to vent because I am so pissed off!!!

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-31-2013, 12:14 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The cold part of Montana
Posts: 1,390
Re: Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

I watched the Senate Judiciary Hearing: on what American do to reduce gun violence.

That hearing went 4hrs. One thing I took away from it, is that the Anti gun Senators don't give 2 S*^ts about the 2nd, or any part of the constitution, or fact's. They flat out stated that the Bill of Rights was open to interpretation, and should be interpreted.

On the other side, there many that pointed out very clearly (with proof to back it up). Senator Cruz (R. Texas) did a damned fine job to that end, as well as Senator Grassley.

I'm not sure what will make it out of comitee, and go to vote. Back ground checks likely, They'll send mental health care reform that will not be enforced, They'll try to plug holes that are small leaks, and will be largely feel good measures.

an interesting procedure for sure but I have got to say that system is broken worse than any other.


Here's a link if anyone wants to endure 4hrs of spinning wheels, and evasive non-answers
__________________
Keep in mind the animals we shoot for food and display are not bullet proof. Contrary to popular belief, they bleed and die just like they did a hundred years ago. Being competent with a given rifle is far more important than impressive ballistics and poor shootability. High velocity misses never put a steak in the freezer.

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-31-2013, 12:34 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 436
Re: Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

I just got a scathing letter to the back in response to my letter to the president and governor Cuomo, which I also sent to the paper as a letter to the editor. Enjoy. I know this guy too...

Joe Kupper, Arthur Village, writer of letters addressed to President Obama and New York Governor Cuomo and mistakenly sent to the North Platte Telegraph, should feel fortunate that he is insulated from the gang related executions, armed robberies, and indiscriminate shootings in schools, shopping malls, and college campuses. Fortunately, all 117 residents of Nebraska's 355th largest community have been spared the personal grief and tragedy of losing close friends and family to crazy people with firearms.
To Joe, it's all about himself and his shooting toys:

"Most of these so-called assault rifles are used for varmint hunting and 10 shots may be needed for a running coyote." Yes, most of us are aware that AR 15s are the weapon of choice for New York City and Chicago carriers who pack for the sole purpose of shooting prairie dogs and coyotes on 5th Avenue and Rush Street! Just let me be in some other county when Joe opens up with his high capacity clip of ammunition on a wild dog.Well Joe, you can rest easy - the threat of someone taking your precious gun is mostly imagined, not real. Banning assault weapons as a stop-gap measure won't pass muster since the NRA knows this prohibition is unconstitutional. The powerful, special interest group will simply take it to the Supreme Court where Judge Scalia recently declared that even a hand held rocket launcher is protected under the 2nd Amendment - a sure fire bulls-eye for the lobbyists.
The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is vague, lacks specificity, and needs to be rewritten and amended to conform to today's needs - and it ain't gonna happen. Passed in 1791 when the militia were capable of firing primitive muskets at the startling rate of three rounds per minute, this Amendment just doesn't cover the use of today's sophisticated, lethal weapons in the hands of the wrong people.
Unfortunately, Congress is intoxicated with the elixir of NRA money and does not have the courage, desire, nor decency to change this out-dated right. And so we wait for the next tragedy, the next carnage. And we don't mind being like Joe as we continue the perpetual, tiresome task of doing nothing.

What a $^&&#$%^^Q# $^^$%% *$%* $!#@%$!!!!!!!

Sorry for that!

He's going to get a very nice letter back in the snail mail regarding his inaccuracies.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-31-2013, 07:35 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: east central fl. /n.c. pa.
Posts: 652
Re: Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

if everybody would just totaly ignore the media i wonder what would
happen to the media?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:07 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 3,464
Re: Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

Joe...

That guy has his head so far up Obama's anus, when Obama farts, that idiot hears an echo.

I've found it's hard to carry on an intelligent discourse with any of these 'so called' pro gun grabbers. All they want to do is quote Chancellor Obama's **** and not discuss anything. I blame the state run media and their partisan position for that.

Like I stated somewhere else, what the hell happened to objective and fair journalism. Don Henley was right on when he composed and sang the song 'Dirty Laundry'.

I was accused of 'being on the edge' on another forum I post on where there are a lot of gun grabbers/Second Amendment zombies.

I come here for solace, believe me, I'm posting on some extremely anti-firearm forums all the time. Might as well have some fun right.....?

Normally I hold the lobbyists and PAC's in disdain because of the money plying, but this time, because it's the only avenue of adjudication, I'm supporting the NRA monetarily. Let them spread the money if thats what it takes for me to keep my firearms that the Second Amendment grants me but the Obama supports want to take away (among other things)...

Been buying gift memberships for the family. My niece who is 11 months old has a membership now....

IMO, just MO, I believe Obama has taken a way bigger bite that he first realized. I believe he thought it was going to be the usual 'roll over and subvert like good sheeple do' Not this time as he is finding put. He awakened the sleeping giant and candidly, I believe he's worried because it derails his plan of a totarian central government.

I think in the end, we will wind up with 100% background checks (which I support btw)(and stated that in my reply to Levin) but won't happen because staffing levels make that impossible and possible a bunch of political blather about revamping the mental health and penal system that will get stuffed and never come to fruition. Bottom line is the government is broke and broken. If the government was a private corporation, it would have/should have declared Chapter 7 reorganization.

If I ran my company like the government runs theirs, I wouldn't have a pot to piss in or a bucket to throw it out with............

I see a possible reinstatement of the Clinton/Feinstein Assault rifle ban on AK's, no issue, I sold all 4 of mine already at a very nice profit.

I don't see much else coming out of all this except it pissed of tens of thousands of legal, law abiding gun owners who won't forget in 2014 and 2016 because folks like us won't let them forget.
__________________
'It's not about me, it's about we'..........
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:16 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 3,464
Re: Reply from Seantor Carl Levin

Quote:
Originally Posted by yobuck View Post
if everybody would just totaly ignore the media i wonder what would
happen to the media?
People can't. They need that 'fix' of shoddy journalism daily. It's like the morning sabatical. If you don't and get off schedule, you get constipated...

Obama, Feinstein, Cumo, Levin and all the rest of the Second Amendment bashers are 'off schedule'

Probably saves a ton of money in toilet paper but Preparation H makes a bundle......
__________________
'It's not about me, it's about we'..........
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC