Coburns response

[ChuckC]

I'm sure this is a mass response but I just got it this evening and hadn't seen here yet.




April 9, 2013

Mr. ChuckC
307 East Shawnee
Tahlequah, OK 74464-3027

Dear Mr. C,
Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again.
I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment. I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens. While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon. However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.
The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearms—it is a concern about how to preserve liberty. When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc). The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate. Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war. They feared tyranny and centralized power—which is why our Constitution was established. In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executive—and checked by a judiciary—the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments).
Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people. Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending. This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government. I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.
Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution. I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful. In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending.

Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator

 

[n2sooners]

improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm

This is the one part that I could support if one question were answered. Is it voluntary or mandatory. If it were voluntary I would have no problem with it. It sounds voluntary and with no record keeping required it sounds unenforceable. But if it is mandatory I have a problem. Mandatory would lead to record keeping required (in order to enforce it) which would eventually lead to mandatory registration. Not only that, but there is absolutely nothing in the constitution giving congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

 

[ChuckC]

This is the one part that I could support if one question were answered. Is if voluntary or mandatory. If it were voluntary I would have no problem with it. It sounds voluntary and with no record keeping required it sounds unenforceable. But if it is mandatory I have a problem. Mandatory would lead to record keeping required (in order to enforce it) which would eventually lead to mandatory registration. Not only that, but there is absolutely nothing in the constitution giving congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

Pretty much echoes my feelings.
Mandatory UBC would never work without registration. And history has shown what follows registration.

 

[Daryl Licht]

This is the one part that I could support if one question were answered. Is if voluntary or mandatory. If it were voluntary I would have no problem with it. It sounds voluntary and with no record keeping required it sounds unenforceable. But if it is mandatory I have a problem. Mandatory would lead to record keeping required (in order to enforce it) which would eventually lead to mandatory registration. Not only that, but there is absolutely nothing in the constitution giving congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

My messages to Senator Coburn have focused on the intrastate commerce aspect. Not sure why others haven't brought this up, but I'm glad to see there are at least two of us.

 

[otis147]

there's already a voluntary background check available, you just have to be willing to pay the ffl fee...
or are we implementing a new program with no way to fund it?

 

[n2sooners]

there's already a voluntary background check available, you just have to be willing to pay the ffl fee...
or are we implementing a new program with no way to fund it?

Why should it cost money to check a list over the internet? No one should have to pay a fee to check a list that the government should be keeping anyway in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right. It's really no different than charging people a small fee to vote to cover the costs involved with running elections.

 

[otis147]

why does it cost money to make a 5 minute phone call? would this internet list render the ffl dealer obsolete? surely nobody would be inclined to hack the list, adding and removing names as they see fit?
nothing our government does is free...

 

[vvvvvvv]

Why should it cost money to check a list over the internet? No one should have to pay a fee to check a list that the government should be keeping anyway in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right. It's really no different than charging people a small fee to vote to cover the costs involved with running elections.

Why should government be keeping a list of those who purchase firearms?

 

[n2sooners]

why does it cost money to make a 5 minute phone call? would this internet list render the ffl dealer obsolete? surely nobody would be inclined to hack the list, adding and removing names as they see fit?
nothing our government does is free...

Is there a constitutionally protected right to a cell phone? I'm thinking Obamaphone owners might think so, but I'm pretty sure there isn't.

I don't see how a system that would allow people who are selling without checks right now to voluntarily make a check would make FFL dealers obsolete.

What's stopping someone from hacking the current system?

Voting is free. The courts have already ruled on the idea of charging a fee to vote. The government shouldn't be able to charge you a fee or tax to exercise a constitutionally protected right, otherwise they could nickle and dime that right right out of reach for the average citizen. I don't think they should be able to tax firearms or ammo or charge you for background checks or any kind of carry license or require any type of insurance.

Why should government be keeping a list of those who purchase firearms?

They shouldn't. I was speaking of a list of those NOT allowed to own firearms.

 

[vvvvvvv]

They shouldn't. I was speaking of a list of those NOT allowed to own firearms.

Why should people not be allowed to own firearms?