Prior to receiving this response from Senator Dianne Feinstein, we had one in total from California, which is interesting to say the least from the state with the largest populace. Especially considering the numerous responses we received from Texas residents.
Interestingly, Senator Feinstein touches on the shootings at the University of Texas in the '60's and the weapons utilized would not even be banned under her new AWB 2013 aside from the sawed off shotgun, which clearly already has its own legal wranglings. The mere concept that banning the new production and purchase of supposed "assault weapons" will stop mass shootings or mass murder in general is illogical. As we mentioned before, the Ruger Mini-14 is exempt as well and was utilized in the tragedy that took place in Norway.
Other aspects left out of the analyses are the examples of the Oklahoma City bombing and the Bath school disaster, which much more destructive in regard to loss of life and explosives were the main implement utilized in both cases. The concept that criminals will not get their hands on "illegal" firearms is a further testament to her withdrawal from reality. As for the 2nd Amendment, she clearly missed the words "shall not be infringed".
We try to let you decide for yourself on how to interpret these responses, but surely hers was as expected and we couldn't help but point out these holes in her logic. You can read the response for yourself and be the final judge.
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.
Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.
I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.
Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, Feinstein.Senate.Gov.
You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.