Letter from Carl Levin

[DooFighter]

If you're a Michigan voter and a sportsman, you need to read this.

I occasionally write our legislators regarding various issues, often times 2nd amendment issues. This is the response I received back from Sen. Carl Levin recently...this guy makes my blood boil.

Dear Mr. Tackman:

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate your sharing you views with me.

I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help stem the tide of crimes committed with firearms. I believe Congress can and should pursue legislative solutions 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), which requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer. From 1994 until the end of 2008 these background checks prevented more than 1.6 million firearm purchases by potentially dangerous individuals. Additionally, according to the most recent CDC statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the U.S. dropped 22% from 39,595 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful at reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. Accordingly, I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act (S.35), which would extend the protections of the Brady Law to purchases made at gun shows, thereby closing the loophole that currently permits gun sales without criminal background checks. In 2008 9.9 million background checks were conducted for firearm purchases, 147,000 of which were rejected. The majority of these denials were the consequence of a prior conviction or indictment. However, when an individual purchases a handgun from a private citizen, who is not a licensed gun dealer, there are no requirements to ensure that the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. Private party transactions, like tose that can occur at gun shows, account for approximately 40% of all gun sales.

I also support reinstating a federal ban on assault weapons. The first federal assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994 and prohibited the sale of 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. Additionally, it prohibited the sale of semiautomatic weapons that incorporated a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features included folding telescoping stocks, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. I voted to establish the assault weapons ban, and ten years later, in 2004, I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for another 10 years. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism and bipartisan support in the Senate, this measure ultimately was not enacted. As a result, our nations' neighborhoods are in greater danger and police officers across the country are being forced to counter previously banned military style assault weapons.

To help mitigate the negative impact of the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, I cosponsored a bill that would ban large capacity ammunition magazines, items that previously were prohibited under the ban. The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (S.32) would ban the possession, import or sale of ammunition magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. The bill would make an exception for the possession of such a magazine that was lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment, while still banning its sale. High capacity magazines, some which can hold 30 or 50 rounds of ammunition, greatly increase the lethality of firearms and have been used by assailants in numerous mass shootings, including Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood and most recently, the Tucson shooting of Rep. Giffords and 19 others. These military style, high capacity magazines have a tragic history of increasing the severity of gun related violence and have no place on our streets.

In addition, I am a cosponsor of a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act (S.34) would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm when a 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. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits firearm transfers to individuals on terrorist watch lists unless they fall into another disqualifying category. In other words, being on a terrorist watch list does not automatically prevent someone from purchasing a gun. This "terror gap" in federal law that prevents the federal gov't from stopping the sale of firearms or explosives to a known or suspected terrorist must be eliminated.

Despite progress over the years in reducing gun related violence, much remains to be done. I support common sense gun safety legislation that protects against violence while safeguarding the second amendment rights of American citizens. I will continue to work to close the gun show loophole and to enact a federal ban on assault weapons. Additionally, I will continue to support the various federal agencies responsible for the prevention and prosecution of gun related crime. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin

[duckiller2]

Time for Carl to leave office Been there almost my whole life. Ran into him 2 yrs ago at a parade in Holland. Did not even bother to stand up and shake his hand when he came over to talk to me. Told him to move along he was blocking my view. For some reason he did not see the humor in that comment. Either did my father-n-law Oh well!!!!!!

[CrankYanker]

I don't get liberal thinking ever but I really don't get the views they have on guns. Gun laws only make criminals stronger. always have always will. I should be able to own a 16mm cannon if I felt i needed it. The only people who would see the flash before the thunder would be those trying to take it away. No matter what they do people who want to kill will do it. Its not our fault that they do it using guns. The people writing these laws are also the ones that have armed bodyguards paid to take bullets for them if need be.
stockpile them guns and don't skimp on the ammo!
Don't Tread on Me!

PS: Any Perch on the bay? Gettin very itchy to get the boat wet!

[tipup_time]

damn right. the liberals in control of this country want to ultimatly take away private gun ownership. dont let them fool you, this is their ultimate goal. take away a little here, little there, ban this, ban that..20 years later they are confiscating your guns. they call it "progress". they are known as progressives. if they came out and said " we are socialists and we dont want anyone to own guns because they are evil" the only people that would vote for them are the extreme left, which is kind of a minority. problem is they mask their intentions and i know one too many idiot sportsman who fall victim to the lie. think about it.... do gangsters head over to gander mountain to pick up their guns? they get them on the street. its no different than the drug trade. drugs are illegal too but we seem to have alot of them available. guns are no different. only thing is we have a right to own firearms provided by the constitution. as far as im concerned anyone over the age of 18 should be able to walk into a sporting goods store and pick up an M16 .stock up on ammo now because i dont see it getting any better. better yet start reloading.

[letsgofishing]

Just curious.

Which part of Mr. Levin's letter do we disagree with? The background checks for hand gun purchases? Or the backgroung checks for purchases at gun shows? Or the attempt to eliminate assault rifles and/or high round capacity firearms? Or is it just the more general objection to the perceived attack on the right to bare arms?

I find it ironic that we can assert that Native Americans should be using a canoe and spear when exercising 100+ year old treaty fishing rights but when it comes to guns, for God's sake don't take away our assault rifles. Not sure how many manufacturers of those rifles existed 200+ years ago when our Constitution was written?

I for one do not believe for a minute that my ability to hunt small game with shot guns or deer with rifles is in jeopardy because of action to perform background checks or eliminate assault rifles.

Now I suppose the debate can start as to what type of person I must be - Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, white or native american, etc. but it would do nothing to advance understanding of gun problems and solutions to address them.

[CrankYanker]

When the constitution was written, the government used weapons that civilians hunted with. Not much more than a ball, powder, and some flint. With that said, those weapons were the assault rifles of the day. There is no reason we as civilians should be told which guns we cannot own. That just sets the stage for a little ethnic cleansing in my opinion... It makes us stronger as a country when the "potential invaders" have it in the back of their minds that there may be an M16 behind every door. Whatever it goes on. I'll do my way you do yours.

[DooFighter]

I had decided to not reply to his drivel because I know it's useless. But I may send this off as long as I've taken the time to assemble some thoughts...

1st paragraph..."I believe Congress can and should pursue legislative solutions to prevent gun violence " I have a general dislike for "legislative solutions." I find it hard to believe we even need a full time legislature making new laws every month of the year. Do we really need this many laws? We certainly don't need any more laws written by lobbyists which is where most of them come from.

Brady law...well, even though he doesn't care, in MI there are very few ways to buy a gun without a background check. You either have to have a CPL or a purchase permit. both require a background check to obtain. Buy from a private individual? That individual should still check to see that you have a CPL or PP, if you do, bkgd chk has been done. Only way to circumvent this in MI is shady guy buying without CPL and without PP, and buying from a shady guy who doesn't check for those things. Any dealer, whether at a gun show, in his place of business or selling out of his pickup truck is going to do a background check before he sells you a handgun...it's not worth risking his FFL license to not do it. If his "gun show loophole law" passes, however, the only way you will be able to do a private individual to pvt indiv. sale is by involving an FFL dealer to do the background check. They'll charge for that service, as they should, it's their time and resources.

He then goes on to play statistical gymnastics...stating that since Brady law took effect gun related deaths decreased. There is no evidence that these two things are cause/effect. I could say that these deaths have decreased becuase many states have adopted shall issue for CPL and more people are armed and protecting themselves, decreasing the # of deaths by violent crime. It probably wouldn't be true, but I could write it in my letter. I could also say sales of prozac and viagra have sharply increased since the Brady law took effect. Maybe people are just more happy and satisfied,, and don't need to kill each other as much. Or maybe there were just more sunny days than cloudy days since the Brady law took effect, decreasing the # of deaths.

Assault weapons...sure, we don't need them, they're senseless and good for nothing. Until another country brings war onto our soil. Hasn't happened in a long time. Doesn't mean it won't happen. Or worse, when our own government decides they've had enough of us dissenters. They'll disarm us first, though. Don't think it can't happen here. At least if China invaded us we maybe could unite and agree on a few things.

Magazine ban on mags holding over 10 rounds. If this takes effect any gun with a mag holding more than 10rds becomes unsaleable. You can keep it. Your kids can inherit it and become outlaws unless they work in a grandfather clause. One thing is for sure, all the bad guys who rob, steal, rape, and kill will turn in all their 15 & 17 round mags. They won't want to be caught with those! For example on how well this will work, see Prohibition in the 20's.

Terrorist thing. This I can't really say I have a problem with, sure, don't let terrorists have NEW guns. If they are terrorists, they probably already have guns, though, right? Probably assault rifles! haha. I'm sure they'll turn them in though when they are banned by you, Carl.

[jkoll]

I can see the argument about taking away certain kinds of guns as being over the top. Anyone who wants one will still get one whether they are outlawed or not. These kinds of laws can and will not be completely affective.

With that being said I am in complete support of a background check on every other gun purchase. Nobody needs a gun right now. If you cannot wait for a background check to process you are probably a little suspicious to me. If you have a CWP you have already gone through the background checks and in my opinion, that is enough. If you cannot pass the background check then so be it.

[wyldstallion906]

My question is about the definition of certain things. I remember Bill Clinton asking congress what the definition was of "is and the" after he oxycleaned Monica Lewinsky's dress. So I want to go grouse and rabbit hunting with a m134 mini gun. Furthermore, I would also like to "trap" fox and other furbearing animals with a Phalanx CIWS system set up in my area of choosing. Google both of these things if you never heard of them because they are awesome.. But in all seriousness I agree that Carl Levin has overstayed his welcome and needs to get out. I dont think congress should be a lifelong occupation for any of these guys/gals.

[Will]

DooFighter has done a fine job of covering all the bases but Levin makes my blood boil too therefore I'm compelled to throw in another 2 cents.
First,my blood boils at the specter of this buffoon stalking the halls of Congress with the ever-present glasses hanging off his nose masquerading as a defender of our 2nd ammendment freedoms ( Carl,most of us use reading glasses too but manage to find a pocket for them). His response to Doofighter is a form letter which, to say is an insult to our intelligence,is being charitable. I also think the response is a non-sequiter but didn't read Gary's initial volley.
Let'sgofish; which part do I disagree with? I disagree with the license he takes with the numbers for one. He asserts that the Brady Bill has prevented 1.6 million purchases by "potentially dangerous individuals" and the number of deaths "dropped 22%" and "private party transactions account for approx. 40 % of all sales"!! These facts & figures are completely fictitious and it strains credulity that he thinks people will swallow this dogma.
I also disagree with his position on " assault weapons" and high capacity magazines (none of which I own or have an interest ) because it's the same old mentality that characterizes Carl Levin and his ilk in Washington - feel good legistation. Gun control doesn't work and if anyone believes in the demigogic rot he outlined in his phony form letter I'd suggest they also believe in the Easter Bunny.

[camo]

Doo Fighter, any Idea where I can buy a few bazookas and some nuclear weapons before Sen. Levin takes my right to bear arms away. Please let me know, I am really worried.

[YooperTroll]

We all need to get a little more educated beyond the surface talking points and the stereotypes about what and who are conservatives and liberals. This thread is a reminder of that for me. And it's pretty typical banter.

The newly "conservative" Mich Supreme Court yesterday just made it a lot more difficult for sports groups or environmental groups to sue or block corporations from contaminating trout streams. What's your take on that, conservative sportsmen?

We live in a complex world, friends. Try to figure out when you should support a political party--and when you're giving them a free pass on everything else under the sun simply because you love they spout the right things about owning semi-automatic weapons.

Thanks.

My first and last post in this thread. Cheers.

One last thing to help with the critical thinking this morning: gun-ownership rights (via a number of things, including the fed park issue) have actually increased during the Obama administration. Whether you agree with Obama or not or whether you simply spend five seconds in a voting booth voting straight ticket (for either party), this is a fact worth consideration. Things that make you go "hmm."

[The Bait Shop Guy]

I guess my main question is -

"Why is this here, and what does any of this have to do with Bay de Noc fishing reports?"

[YooperTroll]

I guess my main question is -

"Why is this here, and what does any of this have to do with Bay de Noc fishing reports?"

Well...I suppose some people do go fishing with their guns

[duckiller2]

Because first maybe its guns and next it is lead fishing lures. The goverment need to butt out of our lives. Want to give up your favorite 2 stroke motor? It will be next.

You have the power to close a post if you want (we know it has been done before)

[The Bait Shop Guy]

Because first maybe its guns and next it is lead fishing lures. The goverment need to butt out of our lives. Want to give up your favorite 2 stroke motor? It will be next.

Fine, if they want to do something that effects us as fishermen, then lets discuss it. Until then, I still feel this has no place on our fishing forum.

You have the power to close a post if you want (we know it has been done before)

Perhaps I should, if that's what it takes to get this forum back to it's intended purpose, (Gary initially posted this letter on another website's "Gun Talk" forum. Makes perfect sense there.)

[DooFighter]

I guess my main question is -

"Why is this here, and what does any of this have to do with Bay de Noc fishing reports?"

Just trying to stimulate some discussion. We're not exactly overrun with fishing reports yet. And because many fishermen (people) also tend to be interested in 2A. If you don't approve, I'd ask you lock it rather than delete it.

[Editor]

We just all need to Go Fishing...... This is thread is closed