• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Congressman's Response to my Letter

Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
1,517
Likes
177
Location
CT
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Like many of you, I have taken to writing my representatives and so on. I actually received a response from Rep. Joe Courtney (CT), and I thought I would share his response:

courtney_banner.png

Dear Ted,
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun legislation in light of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate your comments and having the benefit of your views.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of over two dozen lives, including the lives of 20 young children, in this senseless act. In the days since the attack, we have heard the powerful stories about Principal Dawn Hochsprung and the brave teachers that acted selflessly to protect their students. This senseless tragedy has touched all Americans and has once again raised concerns about the issues of gun safety here in America.

Let me be clear, I am committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I also believe that there are many areas where we can find agreement on commonsense approaches to improving gun safety laws in our country. In the days following the shootings in Newtown, I have been contacted by many people on this issue – including gun owners who support ways to improve gun safety for our communities.

While I appreciate the concerns that you and others have expressed with any changes to our nation's gun laws, it should be noted that even in upholding the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners the United States Supreme Court has also upheld the ability of our government to place restrictions on the use and sale of firearm. For example, in his majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Dick Heller case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia emphasized the following:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The majority opinion in the case, which supported the right of individuals in the District of Columbia to be able to keep firearms in their homes, also reaffirmed the right to restrict the purchase and sale of dangerous and unusual weapons.

As you are aware, a number of legislative proposals are being considered that address the issue of gun safety. The scope of these bills varies from rules regarding purchase of guns and ammunition over the internet to the ability of individuals to purchase large magazines capable of holding multiple munitions, among other proposals. In addition, the Obama Administration – led by Vice President Joe Biden – has convened an inter-agency task force to determine how the federal government can improve gun safety.

In the days and weeks ahead, we must commit ourselves to strive for a better nation and never forget these innocent souls. The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Sandy Hook is to make it harder for this to ever happen again.

As President Obama so eloquently stated Sunday night, the test of a nation's values is whether we protect our children from this unspeakable violence. I stand ready to work with him to create a stronger system of public safety and mental healthcare.

Again, thank you for sharing your views on this issue with me. Should you have any additional comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. For more information on my work in Congress, please visit my website atcourtney.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter at courtney.house.gov/forms/emailsignup. You can also connect with me at facebook.com/joecourtney or receive updates from twitter.com/repjoecourtney.

Sincerely,
signature_background.gif

JOE COURTNEY
Member of Congress
 
I keep hearing from the dems that they have many messages from gunowners who want stricter laws. It's funny how I never meet one of these guys.
 
shit, I'm puzzled if this guy is pro or anti
It is quite clear he is anti as he is quoting "reasonable restrictions" and claiming gun owners are calling to agree that we need to trample 2A.

Both hall marks of people who have no respect for the Constitution or our civil rights.
 
I keep hearing from the dems that they have many messages from gunowners who want stricter laws. It's funny how I never meet one of these guys.

That is because it is a bunch of crap. Either that or they are hearing from moonbats like John Rosenthal that CLAIM to be gun owners.
 
I keep hearing from the dems that they have many messages from gunowners who want stricter laws. It's funny how I never meet one of these guys.
It is a common saw, attempting to convince you your views are extreme even amongst those you consider your fellow gun owners and get you to question your stance.

There are fudds spewing nonsense as vile as the antis, but they are the exception.
 
It is quite clear he is anti as he is quoting "reasonable restrictions" and claiming gun owners are calling to agree that we need to trample 2A.

Both hall marks of people who have no respect for the Constitution or our civil rights.

As to Scalia's opinion, gun free zones (such as schools) are part of the PROBLEM here not the solution.
 
Pretty much what I get from it is the same stance as most antis. Also I'd like to note I was mounting a light on my AR as I read this.
 
It's politician-speak. A full page letter that says nothing. Carefully written to not piss off either side (which usually results in both sides being pissed off).
The interesting thing about this issue is that the blunt language of 2A provides an easy litmus test. It is pretty hard to lose your way out of the paper bag of "Shall not be infringed."

If you do, then we know where you stand.
 
I keep hearing from the dems that they have many messages from gunowners who want stricter laws. It's funny how I never meet one of these guys.

This^

The majority opinion in the case, which supported the right of individuals in the District of Columbia to be able to keep firearms in their homes, also reaffirmed the right to restrict the purchase and sale of dangerous and unusual weapons.

WTF is that even supposed to mean? Dangerous? I won't even get into that one. Unusual? WTF? I don't see ANYTHING unusual about any AR platforms or the magazines that accompany them. Especially with the fact that there's been millions of them flying off the shelves for the last few years. I would find an original Civil War era musket however to be a bit unusual....would I not be allowed to have one of those if I were to come across one? [thinking]
 
I like

does that mean getting rid of NFA, because sure as hell a lot of things I like are dangerous but definitely very usual and common [rofl]
Yes, and these "dangerous and unusual" weapons are essentially NEVER used in crimes when purchased legally (or even in generaly, illegally converted MGs are used in a barely measurable fraction of violent crimes).
 
shit, I'm puzzled if this guy is pro or anti

This is what's scaring me.

I keep hearing from the dems that they have many messages from gunowners who want stricter laws. It's funny how I never meet one of these guys.

Well I have and it's absolutely astounding. Complete FUDD in every definition of the dirty word. Usually it's the "Assault rifle" anti or a hunter with a stupid stance on mag laws.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The interesting thing about this issue is that the blunt language of 2A provides an easy litmus test. It is pretty hard to lose your way out of the paper bag of "Shall not be infringed."

If you do, then we know where you stand.

Exactly! Laws these days are written in legalese and very difficult to discern (see MA gun law for an example), but the Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment is written in clear and plain English. Moonbats that try to push focus to the "well-regulated militia" portions are simply seeing only what they want to see.
 
Damn it, I just duped this thread.

It's very anti. note the section:

The majority opinion in the case, which supported the right of individuals in the District of Columbia to be able to keep firearms in their homes, also reaffirmed the right to restrict the purchase and sale of dangerous and unusual weapons.

He intentionally included that as cover to vote for whatever he wants. He thinks all guns are dangerous.

He's also a lying scumbag. He voted against TARP to get re-elected in '08, and then turned around and has voted for every single bailout and right stomping bill since.
 
Damn it, I just duped this thread.

It's very anti. note the section:



He intentionally included that as cover to vote for whatever he wants. He thinks all guns are dangerous.

He's also a lying scumbag. He voted against TARP to get re-elected in '08, and then turned around and has voted for every single bailout and right stomping bill since.

Sounds like a partison hack to me. You can guess which way he will vote on any gun control bill that Pelosi and Feinstein craft.
 
I keep hearing from the dems that they have many messages from gunowners who want stricter laws. It's funny how I never meet one of these guys.

Remember, the only thing it takes to be a gun onwer is to be the owner of a gun. It doesn't mean they support the meaning of the second amendment or freedom in general. Consider that John Rosenthal claims to be a gun owner.

To put it another way, I'd bet nearly everyone on this board is a car owner, but not everyone watches NASCAR or participates in (legal on a sanctioned track) drag races. While most people here believe in freedom and wouldn't deny another person their right to do as they choose, there will certainly be some car owners that say we need to ban these sports or ownership of high horsepower cars for whatever reason they have. The gun owners supporting this crap are like the guy saying "I own a SMART car, so no one needs to have a pickup truck."
 
It is quite clear he is anti as he is quoting "reasonable restrictions" and claiming gun owners are calling to agree that we need to trample 2A.

Both hall marks of people who have no respect for the Constitution or our civil rights.

That and his calling Obamas words eloquent.
 
shit, I'm puzzled if this guy is pro or anti

That's easy. Look at the phrases in bold. He will vote in favor of whatever legislation the moonbats come up with.

Let me be clear, I am committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I also believe that there are many areas where we can find agreement on commonsense approaches to improving gun safety laws in our country.

While I appreciate the concerns that you and others have expressed with any changes to our nation's gun laws, it should be noted that even in upholding the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners the United States Supreme Court has also upheld the ability of our government to place restrictions on the use and sale of firearm.

As you are aware, a number of legislative proposals are being considered that address the issue of gun safety. The scope of these bills varies from rules regarding purchase of guns and ammunition over the internet to the ability of individuals to purchase large magazines capable of holding multiple munitions, among other proposals. In addition, the Obama Administration – led by Vice President Joe Biden – has convened an inter-agency task force to determine how the federal government can improve gun safety.

As President Obama so eloquently stated Sunday night, the test of a nation's values is whether we protect our children from this unspeakable violence. I stand ready to work with him to create a stronger system of public safety and mental healthcare.

Anything else is just window dressing. It's the politician's version of "I'll still respect you in the morning." This guy will screw gun owners in a heartbeat.
 
There's no doubt its a canned response because the letter I wrote would have garnered a very different letter I'm guessing.
 
Remember, the only thing it takes to be a gun onwer is to be the owner of a gun. It doesn't mean they support the meaning of the second amendment or freedom in general. Consider that John Rosenthal claims to be a gun owner.

I've known a couple of libs who were for gun control but kept unregistered guns. Since when does being a hypocrite interfere with one's political views?
 
Remember, the only thing it takes to be a gun onwer is to be the owner of a gun. It doesn't mean they support the meaning of the second amendment or freedom in general. Consider that John Rosenthal claims to be a gun owner.

To put it another way, I'd bet nearly everyone on this board is a car owner, but not everyone watches NASCAR or participates in (legal on a sanctioned track) drag races. While most people here believe in freedom and wouldn't deny another person their right to do as they choose, there will certainly be some car owners that say we need to ban these sports or ownership of high horsepower cars for whatever reason they have. The gun owners supporting this crap are like the guy saying "I own a SMART car, so no one needs to have a pickup truck."

Point taken. I stand corrected.
 
Back
Top Bottom