WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Mike Lee lauded the growing support in the Senate for protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens Monday. Thirteen senators have now signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announcing they will object to any new gun legislation that restricts the rights of Americans or leads to government surveillance of constitutionally protected activity.
“The more people learn about the consequences of current gun control proposals, the less they will support the new restrictions,” said Sen. Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The proposals serve primarily to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing little – if anything – to reduce violent crimes. Senators have an obligation both to uphold the Constitution and to promote solutions that effectively address national problems. The current gun control proposals fail both tests.”
A recent national poll showed a 10 percent drop in the number of Americans who support additional gun control. Just 47 percent support greater gun restrictions, while 50 percent of the country wants to keep the laws the same or make them less strict.
Two weeks ago, Sens. Lee, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Ted Cruz of Texas announced their intention to force a 60-vote threshold to consider any new gun legislation. They have been joined by Sens. Rubio, Inhofe, Moran, Burr, Johnson, Enzi, Risch, Crapo, Coats, and Roberts. A copy of the letter with the updated signatures can be seen here.
“We believe that any new restrictions on gun rights should require a bipartisan majority. The American people deserve a meaningful and transparent debate about gun laws before those who seek further Second Amendment restrictions use procedural tricks and back-room deals to push through controversial legislation,” Lee added.
Lee also announced his effort to reach out to the American people and get their opinions on the new gun measures. His “Protect2A” project will allow more Americans to have their voices heard through his website and several social media outlets.
“Americans know the true meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee our right to self-defense in our system of self-government. We’re asking citizens to share their stories about what the Second Amendment means to them and why they feel the Senate should protect their rights,” explained Lee.
Americans can email Senator Lee directly and share their thoughts here: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/protect-2a
Submitted by: The office of Sen. Mike Lee
Email: [email protected]
Noah Pozner was a darling 6-year-old who attended Sandy Hook elementary school. I do not know his family but because he was a twin and I have twin grandchildren of the same age, I felt especially saddened at his loss for his family and especially his twin sister. I look at his picture every single day.
I am ashamed and embarrassed for the state of Utah by the actions of Mike Lee. He has used this issue to make a name for himself. It is reprehensible.
I too am saddened at the Sandy Hook deaths. My wife and I teach elementary school and have been asked what our schools are doing to protect kids from a mass killer. Only drills and locking a few gates. We still can’t lock our classroom doors from the inside. I’ve bought a bullet ?proof backpack for my wife’s anniversary. It is sad that libs won’t let either of us, trained to use guns to save lives, carry in our CA classrooms. UT is truly fortunate to have wise political leadership. We would voluntarily and responsibly carry so we could protect every child we become so endeared to every year, but can only cower and watch our kids die in our pretend ‘gun free’ zone. How is responsible gun training any different than CPR? Guns save lives.
Harry Reid and the Democrats had the opportunity to reform the Senate filibuster and refused to take action. Now on this important issue the Republicans are able to flaunt the will of the people by not even allowing an up and down vote. What are they afraid of? Second amendment rights are not being threatened and if they were, constitutional processes would allow an appeal to the courts. Are they afraid that they might be held accountable for their vote if they had to cast it?
Along with retired generals Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal I fail to see the need for rapid firing assault type weapons with more that 10 round clips by civilians for self protection or hunting. I fail to see why a speedy effective background check at the time of purchase is an infringement of constitutional rights.
So what would you say if I started placing restrictions on “your” first amendment rights? Let’s say I want to ban certain types of comments from you like assault type comments. Also let’s say you are only allowed 5 nasty comments per conversation and not the 10 or 15 that you might be used too. I should also make you register your comments so the Feds can see if you comply or not. Maybe they give you a license to speak, or maybe not. How about I ban how you choose to practice your faith or religion and whether or not this is now acceptable to others of the “state” who now want to control these decisions by you. Sounds ridiculous right? Yes it does. But this is how it works. First they convince everyone to give up their liberties and rights to please the masses and make us safe from “the bad guys” and then they take other rights that you thought were yours forever. This has happened many times in history. We know how this works. Don’t think it won’t be attempted again by our current administration. Wake up and start fighting back before it’s too late!
That’s absurd, Gunther. Your analogy doesn’t hold up at all. And your paranoia about a government takeover is laughable.
Sorry Ron but, Gunther has his analogy right on target. This is Socialism at its best.. Following the path that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Tse-Tung used. The Democratic party is now the Socialist party with a clear and defined agenda. I would have voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat. But, he has turned out to be a turn coat.. The government that you are talking about.. is not the government of people now they are telling me what I can eat, what I can drink, that killing babies is fine it is my body then tell me I can not have a soft drink over 8oz? That if you have certain health problems and you are a certain age you can no longer be treated because it is not cost effective? they have taken In God we trust off our money, out of post offices, out of schools, The government want us to think of them to be our God.. To look to them for everything.. But, the only way they can enforce them is to make sure “we the people” can not fight back” and that means gun confiscation… READ YOUR HISTORY..
Yep Gunther, those interviewed late in life, about their mindset 10yrs before Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Polpot, and the rest; report not being able to forsee the fall of their societies. Those who do not know what the world was like before they were born make irresponsible choices affecting future generations. As a child, I never thought our Republic would fade away. All that remains is a fragile democracy well on its way to a nanny state. (Think of Great Britian’s Olympic preshow) Responsibility for our security is the last thread of individuality our society has left.
Why should there be any debate on this topic. This is the 2nd amendment to the constitution and it is our right to protect us against govt. oppression. Case closed. Simple explanation all tyrants have to disarm the population. Read history people.
Mike Lee is doing the right thing. Expanded background checks would not have stopped any of the recent massacre shooters. Limiting magazine capacity will not reduce the numbers of people killed in future shootings because magazines can be changed very quickly. All gun control ideas are doomed to fail because they only apply to people who obey laws in the first place. A crazy or a criminal ignores all of that and will do what they wish to do. People must have the option, the chance to defend themselves, and to do so with the best possible weapons.
George, they’re not just trying to block an up/down vote, they want to block ANY DEBATE at all.
.
.
Fred, nobody is trying to take your guns away.
George, if they didn’t want to take our guns away, why aren’t they addressing the root cause of mass killers rather than coming up with schemes to restrict peaceable gun owners? Reasonable would be repealing the horrendous ‘Gun Free Schools’ concept. Reasonable would be coordinating model armed citizen training classes. Resonable would be to treat gun safety knowledge the same as CPR knowledge. Reasonable would be tackling the clearly mentally dangerous individual on the street issue (Ft Hood, Aurora, Tucson, SandyHook) Reasonable would strengthen the Bill of Rights. If it looks like a duck, swims like duck, and quacks like a duck, don’t you think it could be a duck?
wrong person, meant to address philiplo’s comments
One of the problems with this debate is that we have not done any serious studies to explore the reasons for the high level of gun violence in our nation for 15 years. More than 3200 people have died since December 14, 21012. Many of those died in shootings among people who have had guns too readily available when becoming involved in angry conflicts. Some, including children, died because of accidents with unsecured guns. The facts are that more than 31,000 die in this country each year in gun related incidents. Hopefully we will begin to fund studies to help us understand the causes of many of these deaths. It does seem clear to me that too often legally owned guns are not properly controlled, not by the government, but by their owners. Gun owners need to accept responsibility for their guns.
A report on last weekend’s gun deaths.
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/weekend-gun-report-april-5-7-2013/
Yet there’s plenty of studies showing that murders go down when conceal carry laws are relaxed, and go up when gun control is implemented. Seems one could make a case(http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) that 162,000 innocents got to live because either they had a gun protect themselves (often times without firing a shot and unreported), or a repeat killer was taken out and can no longer kill (how can you count this going back decades?) History is clear that millions can suffer and die in the years after gun bans. But, self preservation including having the means of self-defense is simply a natural right. I have a chance if I’m wise about avoidance and carry a concealed gun that I’m fully trained to utilize.
I lived in Phoenix, Arizona for 54 years born and raised there. I moved to Utah to get away from the crime, drugs, and gangs. Phoenix makes Salt Lake look like a Sunday school picnic. Three different times a gun saved my life. I am now 64 years old and would have been dead at the age of 23 if my father had not taught me to protect myself with a gun. I still depend on my gun to stay alive until the police get there. The gun did not kill the children at Sandy Hook the man that pulled the trigger did.. It could have been a home made bomb just as easy.. I have 18 grandchildren who I love dearly. All the more reason that I want them to be able to protect themselves. I have 3 grandson’s serving their country one Navy, 2 Army another leaving next week for the Marines and one in June for the Army.. They are putting their lifes on the line for FREEDOM.. My husband is retired Air Force Vietnam veteran and my Father a WWII veteran.. All put it on the line for the right to live free… It is my right, to be able to protect myself, my family and my home. God Bless You Mike… You are fighting the good fight from the Revolutionary War to those in Afghanistan fighting today that their blood was not spilled in vain.. America remains FREE….
We already have background checks. We also have a ton of gun laws as it is, no more. It is against the law to murder, I’m sure it is on the books in all states. It is also against the law to speed but I suspect most here do…