This bothered me

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Sawdust, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. Sawdust

    Bull Mountain(Tigard), OR
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    This is a copy of an email that I recieved form Congressmen David Wu's office:
    I think he shows a unique interpretation on Heller--read to the end.

    Dear Mr. Begovich:

    Thank you for contacting me to express your support for including an amendment to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 to repeal gun regulations requiring concealed weapons permits for carrying firearms or ammunition into National Parks. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

    H.R. 146 has been passed in both the House and the Senate. The Senate passed it with amendments, so the House will take up the amended bill again, most likely next week. Thus far, H.R. 146 does not repeal the current requirement that citizens carrying firearms or ammunition into National Parks carry a concealed weapons permit. I intend to vote for H.R. 146 without changing that requirement.

    I hunt, fish, and enjoy the outdoors. At the same time, I also support taking a moderate, common-sense view of guns versus public safety. The most recent Supreme Court's ruling in Heller v. the District of Columbia supports this reasonable approach. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld previous findings by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which ruled in a 2-1 decision that provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibit persons from keeping handguns in their homes are unconstitutional in that they infringe upon the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is important to note that the Supreme Court limited their consideration and ruling to the question of whether the D.C. ban violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

    Further, the Court confirmed the right of local legislative bodies to create regulatory gun laws and that while an individual right to gun ownership does exist under the Second Amendment, that right is not unlimited. The Court wrote, "[The Second Amendment right is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.[The Court's] opinion should not 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 Heller decision allows the government to regulate gun ownership without hindering the right to gun ownership.

    I support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and as a sportsman and hunter, I have voted to protect the rights of gun owners. However, the Heller decision underscored the importance of the government's responsibility to regulate gun ownership. This decision is a balanced approach that reflects my long-held position on the matter. As Congress considers any legislation to regulate firearms, I will keep your views in mind.

    Thank you again for writing to me on this issue. If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me at 503-326-2901 or 800-422-4003. If you would like to receive regular email updates from me, please go to my website at to sign up.

    With warm regards,

    David Wu
    Member of Congress
  2. treemanx

    Spray, Or.
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Bothers me too, bud.

    You know, it just seems like we are so insignifigant to the machine that is the US. I find myself thinking, "well, what can I do? I'm just one person." And truthfully, just as one person, there isnt much I can do to protect my fellow Americans rights. All I can do now, is say those powerful words that have become so popular from the movie 300. Come and take them. But I dont just means my weapons, I also mean my rights and freedoms.

    I wish that someone or some group, in an influential position would take the lead for standing up against the tyranny that our government seems to be brining down on us and help to bring back the basics our country was founded on. That person or group who stands, doesnt even know how many proud Americans would stand behind them. I think at least half the country would.

    I for one am tired of being in constant fear of some right given to me by our FOUNDING FATHERS being snatched away by greed and power mongers in Washington DC.

    Oh well, all I can say for now is.....come and take them.
  3. ZombieAssassin


    Likes Received:
    There are people and groups, both inside and outside the political system, that are trying to stand for liberty. It's the system, which has been set up and controlled to prevent liberty, and the willingly ignorant and evil people in this country and world that enable the machine to keep rolling forward.

    If the day ever comes when people sincerely question everything they think they know, listen with an open mind, and quit wanting to control and abuse others with the power of the system, then and only then will there be a march towards liberty. Until that day comes, you can expect people to keep on abusing each other, enriching themselves at your expense, and not caring because "I've got mine, so why care?" or "it doesn't hurt me" (false premise).
  4. SimonJester308

    kitsap county

    Likes Received:
    Whichever side of any conflict that maintains the initiative and the element of surprise wins. Molon Labe showed great courage, but ultimately was and is a losing strategy. One person can lead by example.
  5. wallygator1938

    Salem, Oregon
    New Member

    Likes Received:
    These tin horn politicians want power and acclamation, they will do any thing for power, but you have power also, at the ballot box one vote maybe your whole households vote, remember them at the ballot box and keep up the letter writing, it works.
  6. Hill


    Likes Received:
    I'd bet a lot that Congressman Wu has never hunted anything other than a deal on artwork in ebay. In short, he's lying when he says that he hunts only to express a sympathic connection to those constituents who feel strongly on the issue.

    "I support the second amendment but I'm voting against it - please vote for me anyway, OK?"

  7. Fobos


    Likes Received:
    OK class, once again for clarification: the second amendment is NOT about hunting. It's about protection from those that would take your rights away.
  8. Bend

    Central OR

    Likes Received:
    "However, the Heller decision underscored the importance of the government's responsibility to regulate gun ownership."

    Here is what he should have said:

    However, the Heller decision underscored the importance of the government's responsibility to regulate gun ownership by criminals and the mental deficient. I'll let you know when we have figured out how to do that without restricting gun ownership by the general citizenship for self defense in accordance with the second amendment.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2009
  9. fingolfen


    Likes Received:
  10. Stomper

    SHUT YOUR FACE!! Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I need to comment on one thing that was said here earlier... the founding fathers of this country DO NOT... REPEAT, DID NOT "give" you your civil rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution... they DECLARED (not gave) what they believed GOD has endowed on mankind (certain inalienable rights) and HAMMERED that into the U.S. Constitution.

    Maybe I'm splitting hairs, and I'm SURE that is what was (more or less) meant, but words mean things, and how words are said are our "first-line" weapons... and the crux of the battle to maintain our GOD-GIVEN rights is a battle of words... if/when that fails, we switch to the "steel/iron/lead" if need be to defend our rights. ;)

Share This Page