Nice response from Senator John Cornyn (TX)

[JohnKSa]

I wrote to him urging him to vote against any gun control legislation. Not that I would have expected him to do otherwise--just figured it was a good idea to let him know we supported him. This may be a canned response, but even if it is, it's a good one.

Dear JohnKSa:

Thank you for contacting me regarding federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.

It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals our country was established upon. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' Constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in that case stating an individual’s right to bear arms is fundamental. This historic ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in McDonald v. City of Chicago to strike down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—and thereby affirm that the Second Amendment safeguards against state and local encroachments on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and meting out tougher sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes—will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

I think I might vote for this guy again.

[Doc Intrepid]

Thanks for posting that.

Reading about the debate in the Senate that was authorized today becomes disturbing on so many different levels.....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I got that also. But talk about canned. I also got one yesterday thanking me for my comments on the proposed Sec. of Defense and how he will be opposed.

I think I saw that dude on TV talking away.

But Cornyn is one of the good guys in the gun debate. However, I think the bill will pass the Senate. The progun Democrats will vote for it as will blankety-blanks like Toomey.

[lcpiper]

That's because they have slowly been convinced that the background checks aren't unreasonable and they won't really stop us good guys from buying and selling our guns.

But it will set the tone that the Fed has authority to regulate private sales of private property intrastate. In doing so it takes this away from the states. It also provides a new law with a new framework for the Antis to build upon.

If this passes in any form it will be a loss, not a gain, even if the only things that are in it look good for us.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just ask is it a first step?

For more gun rights or less?

The strategies to pass this will be used again if there is another horror. The Washington Post has an article on how the Newton parents were used.

It takes guts and integrity for a legislator to say - I understand your pain but what you are proposing will not solve the problem and it takes away rights.

That won't happen and gun support will die by attrition. We must do something. Also, the inability of the NRA to move into the changing demographics (look at the speaker list at the convention) just predicts erosion with current strategies.

[Cowboy_mo]

Glen: I agree we must do something and many of us are doing what we can by keeping the pressure on our legislators to vote against these ideas.

I don't agree it is a foregone conclusion this bill will pass the Senate, and I certainly don't see it surviving in the House.

One other thing we can do is add an additional argument against the current bill regarding expanded NICS checks. That argument is the COST. Someone in another thread posted a link to Toomey's entire bill. When I looked through it, I noted the cost -- it provides for a $100 million per year appropriation for 4 years to fund the bill. Now, that might not seem like a lot but if you consider that the Pres is proposing cuts to Social Security COLA increases to help balance the budget perhaps we could enlist the aid of social security recipients to lobby against this bill.

[bikerbill]

One thing the government never takes into consideration in fights like this is the cost ... 100m is peanuts when you consider how long they've dreamed of taking guns away from citizens and how hard they've worked (and how much they've lied) to make their dream come true. Obama wastes millions on vacations seemingly every week, why would anybody care about the cost?

[Cowboy_mo]

I am not saying "they" are considering the cost. I am saying WE and every person in the country should be considering the cost. Canada started a long gun registration program. Within a few years, the program was abandoned because so many Canadians ignored the law and the COST was so enormous!

With today's fiscal situation, Trillions of dollars in debt, and searching for ways to save money, gun owners like us should solicit the support of those who don't care about guns BUT do care about how our government is choosing to spend OUR money.