Letters to Elected Officials

**Lynne** · 11-15-2005, 01:23 PM

This thread is for letters to your Reps/Sens regarding gun laws. Feel free to post what you've written, and if you get a reply to your letter, post that as well.

**TYPEO1313** · 07-19-2006, 09:29 PM

From: typeo1313
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:24:35 -0700
To: Bill@BillHarsch.com
Subject: Position on 2nd amendment rights.

Dear Mr. Harsch,

My name is Bill Charette I am a current Massachusetts
resident with intent to move to Rhode Island
(Cumberland to be exact) once I get married next year.
I have heard that you are pro 2nd amendment. Can you
verify that this is true? Also, Do you have intentions
of resuming the issue of firearms carry & conceal
permits to both residents and non-residents?

Thank you for your time,
Bill Charette

----------------Response---------------

Dear Mr.Charette,

To answer your question directly: Yes, I am a strong supporter of 2nd Ammendment rights.

As someone who grew up with a familiarity with firearms and as a former military member, I am fully supportive of the right to bear arms.

As I am sure you know, the real problem we face are illegal firearms
flooding our streets. Punishing responsible gun owners, and limiting
our constitutional rights, is not something that I believe addresses the
problems of gun violence.

Further, I am strong supporter in enforcing the laws when it comes to
carry permits. That is, as Attorney General I will direct local police
departments to follow the law and issue carry permits rather than passing the buck to the AG's office where first and final authority has been for the last 2 administrations.

I have been meeting with sportsman's associations throughout the state for the last few weeks, and will continue to do so as the election gears up. Hopefully our paths will cross sometime on the campaign trail.

Please feel free to contact me anytime at this email or at the campaign (401) 490 4489 if you have any other questions you would like ask.

All my best,

Bill Harsch

www.BillHarsch.com

**Duane Allman** · 03-18-2007, 10:33 PM

Dear Senator Joyce,

Governor Patrick has proposed a budget which includes a provision that
we do away with giving gun owning Massachusetts citizens notification of
the expiration of their firearms license.

Seeing as I paid a $100 fee for the firearms license, I can't see why
this notification should be done away with.

Please vote against your neighbor Governor Patrick's budget unless this
issue is resolved. Can I count on you to do so?

Sincerely,

Duane Allman

-------------------------------
Duane,

I'm sympathetic to your argument that there should be continued notice
and will be aware of your views when the matter comes before me.

Brian A. Joyce

**ronbok** · 06-08-2007, 01:41 PM

Representative / Senator,

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the Secretary of the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs (NCLofSC) and a delegate to the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council (MSC). In addition I also serve as the Legislative Chair for the MSC. I am also an avid salt water angler, boater, hunter (Turkey, Pheasant), and firearms enthusiast. In addition, I belong to GOAL, NRA, Walpole Sportsmen’s Association (delegate to NCLofSC), Norwood Sportsmen’s Association and the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association.

I was recently awarded the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council (MSC) 2007 Presidents Award and along with that received a citation by the House and the Senate on the occasion as well.

The Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council, Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, all the other County Leagues, the clubs they represent and the individuals that belong to these organizations are deeply concerned about H.3991 “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence” as proposed by Governor Deval Patrick.

Since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act the number of licensed gun owners has been decimated in this State, yet crime rates are soaring out of control. The current over-reaching laws have barred hundreds of thousands of citizens from practicing their civil rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Since the passage of the 1998 Act, the number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts has decreased from 1,500,000 to approximately 270,000. Meanwhile the FBI Violent Crime Report Statistics as of 2004 ranked Massachusetts as number one in violent crime throughout the New England states.

We find it incomprehensible that nearly a decade after the passage of some of the most persecutory gun laws in the nation, Governor Deval Patrick could be holding the remaining 15% of lawful gun owners accountable for the illegal gun supply in Massachusetts. Keeping in mind that under the current laws a citizen’s License to Carry a firearm can be revoked or suspended at any time if the issuing authority suspects that the licensee is “unsuitable”, his accusation is even more unreasonable. (In fact there are many other “equal treatment under the current law issues” that need to be resolved with the 1998 laws.)

Governor Deval Patrick has no evidence to prove, let alone make the accusation that law-abiding citizens are the cause of illegal gun trafficking and by requesting passage of this bill has not allowed due process of the law to those accused. In truth, this bill as “crime control” is a fraud. It cannot be applied to criminals – only to the law-abiding. A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty the law will allow to the rest of society, in no sense “fights” crime.

Today California, Maryland and Virginia have instituted such laws. Governor Deval Patrick has pointed to those States as having success with this kind of law. However, we all know it didn’t stop the tragedy at Virginia Tech and it won’t curb violent crime in Massachusetts either. In 2004 the South Carolina legislature repealed their one-gun-a-month law because it had the exact opposite effect on the violent crime rate.

I am hoping that we can count on you for your support in defeating this bill in Committee/Senate/House. In addition we are asking you to work with your peers in defeat of the same.

Respectfully submitted,

**LenS** · 06-08-2007, 02:02 PM

Good letter.

**ronbok** · 09-22-2007, 07:58 AM

September 17, 2007

Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133

The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in strong opposition to Senate Bill 540 “An Act Establishing A Wildlife Management Commission” filed by Senator Pamela P. Resor of Middlesex and Worcester.

Under M.G.L. Chapter 131, The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) is responsible for the conservation including restoration, protection and management of fish and wildlife (game/nongame) resources for the benefit and enjoyment of all citizens of the Commonwealth. MassWildlife works to balance the needs of people and wildlife, so that wildlife will be available for everyone's enjoyment today and for future generations.

The citizens (Sportsmen and Women of all persuasions enjoying whatever their pursuit of wildlife may be) of the Commonwealth rely heavily upon the MassWildlife for the sound, wise and thoughtful management practices and scientific methodologies used to accomplish these goals.

MassWildlife has a long standing, proven track record of restoring, conserving, managing and protecting these natural resources. The only legitimate reason to suggest, through legislation (S. 540) a change in authority over certain species would be to offer evidence of neglect and abuse of the public trust. Thus far no evidence has been presented. Those that would view hunting as a violation of that trust are apparently not familiar with MGL Chapter 131, Section 2A, its economic impact1 or origin. Instead we must surmise that this proposed bill, in short, simply seeks to legitimize and provide a voice for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and subvert the wise stewardship2, management and control of specific species from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Thus, we conclude that this proposed bill is without common sense and is purely politically driven in nature. It is our view that passage of this bill would complicate the management of wildlife in the Commonwealth at the risk of destroying the very resources it seeks to protect.

We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the job well done by MassWildlife with the full support of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Bokleman, Secretary

1 Enclosure: 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Preliminary Findings issued May 2007 http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006.pdf 2 Historical Facts

**ronbok** · 09-22-2007, 08:01 AM

September 19, 2007

Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133

The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in opposition to Senate Bill 466 “An Act Relative to the Prohibition of Fishing Gear Containing Lead” filed by Senator Robert A. Antonioni at the request of Emily Norton as written.

We are not opposed to the goodwill and intent of this bill as explained by Emily Norton during the hearing and many others. There is nothing more enjoyable than sighting a Loon in Massachusetts. We share her concern and as Massachusetts’ first conservationists would like to suggest, however, that this be implemented as an inland fishing regulation (MassWildlife 321 CMR 4:00) rather than a statutory law. In fact, this bill does not provide for any penalty for violation indicating that this was in fact Ms. Norton’s original intent.

The act of incorporating this into MGL would be of grave concern. It would open the door to additional sections to Chapter 130 restricting lead use in other venues such as salt water that has no affect on Loon habitat. Saltwater fishing requires the use of much heavier and larger weighting devices due to tide and current conditions making the use of alternative materials much less desirable and practical. We also fear that this could be used as a foothold to directly affect the use of lead in other sporting activities such as trap, skeet, sporting clays, 5-stand and the like using lead shot in shotgun shells.

We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable report by marking this bill “Ought Not to Pass”. Instead, we would strongly encourage the Committee to refer this bill to MassWildlife to update 321 CMR 4:00 concerning fishing which already prohibits the use of lead sinkers for fishing in the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs.

The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs will gladly work with Ms. Norton, her class and MassWildlife to see that our inland fishing regulations, are amended to prohibit the use of lead on inland waters. MassWildlife should then be authorized and funded to educate the public concerning the regulatory change. In the meantime we will begin our own educational efforts on behalf of Ms. Norton to strongly discourage lead use and encourage our members to use alternatives when fishing Massachusetts’ inland waters.

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Bokleman, Secretary

**ronbok** · 09-22-2007, 08:03 AM

September 19, 2007

Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133

The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in support of Senate Bill 487 “An Act To Enhance The Management Of Problem Wildlife” filed by Senator Stephen M. Brewer as written.

Question “1” in 1996, banned the use of effective trapping devices such as padded jaw leg hold and conibear traps. It also transferred control of problem animals to local permitting Boards of Health. Over the last 11 years, there “appears” to have been a large increase in the number of “complaints” with respect to Beaver and Coyotes in particular, but with furbearers in general throughout the Commonwealth.

In 1996, the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen opposed this Question “1” vehemently against its supporters the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals among others. At the time the NCL warned of what we “felt” the resulting imbalance in specific species would be and the overabundance that would result.

Today, 11 years later, we are only “hearing” these reports, but have no scientific or written evidence that Question “1” has had the direct impact predicted. Being Massachusetts’ #1 conservationists, before pursing legislation that would reverse Question “1” altogether, we strongly support this legislation as a cost effective means to gather the necessary facts for use by MassWildlife, the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture and the citizens of the Commonwealth in making future wildlife management decisions with respect to furbearers.

The fact that HSUS and the MSPCA during the hearings on September 17th were opposed to this bill illustrates that they have no interest in gathering the facts, learning or studying the impact of their support for Question “1” in 1996, nor any interest in properly managing the population of furbearing animals of the Commonwealth. Further this suggests an unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions and brings into serious question why any citizen of the Commonwealth would want to place further wildlife management oversight in the hands of such organizations (S.540).

You will never see the Sportsmen or Women shy away from responsibility for their actions, become obstructionists to the truth, nor hide from the facts. We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking this bill “Ought to Pass”.

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Bokleman, Secretary
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/20...griculture.pdf

**vaccaroja** · 09-26-2007, 01:17 AM

Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate
-- Immediate action required

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

You'd think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags.

But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 -- legislation which would bar you from owning guns if:

* You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD.

Not to mention the fact that your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners have been desperately fighting this bill for several months. You will remember that it passed in the House with an unrecorded voice vote in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote.

Sen. Schumer is pushing hard to pass this legislation -- dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act -- so he is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill.

This agreement could come about in the next few hours or the next couple of days!

This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!

But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE single senator can block it.

ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators RIGHT AWAY and urge them to OBJECT to Senator Chuck Schumer's "unanimous consent agreement" to steamroll H.R. 2640, the McCarthy anti-gun bill.

You can use the Take Action feature to send a pre-written message as an e-mail to your Senators.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pre-written letter from Gun owners of America

Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -

**vaccaroja** · 09-28-2007, 05:41 AM

Dear Mr. Vaccaro:

Thank you for your letter on the nation's gun laws. There is no doubt that the easy availability of firearms, particularly handguns, contributes to the unacceptable toll of death and injury from gun violence.

We must end the arms race in our cities, towns, and our neighborhoods. I support tough punishment for violent criminals, but I also believe that is not a sufficient answer to the problem. There are steps we can take to prevent violent crime before it occurs. It is time for Congress to act to place reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons.

Congress took an important first step by enacting the Brady Bill in 1993, which imposed a nation-wide five-day waiting period on the purchase of handguns. We need comprehensive legislation to strengthen the regulation of federal firearms dealers and limit the importation of foreign-made weapons. It is also time to limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time.

In the past, I have been a sponsor of legislation that follows the example of Massachusetts and requires handgun purchasers throughout the country to obtain a license proving they are qualified and responsible enough to own handguns. More recently, I have introduced the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act, to protect children from gun violence.

None of these measures will infringe on the legitimate rights of hunters and other sportspeople. The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals. The framers of the Constitution surely did not intend to leave Congress powerless to protect the public from an epidemic of gun-related violence.

I am committed to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without undue burden to law-abiding citizens who choose to use firearms for legitimate sporting purposes. Reasonable gun control is an important part of the effort to protect the American people from violent crime. Again, thank you for writing to me on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy

Letters to Elected Officials

Thread Tools

Display

Letters to Elected Officials

H. 3991 “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence”

Senate Bill 540 “An Act Establishing A Wildlife Management Commission”

Senate Bill 466 “An Act Relative to the Prohibition of Fishing Gear Containing Lead”

Senate Bill 487 “An Act To Enhance The Management Of Problem Wildlife”

reply to letter

Posting Permissions