Thursday, April 25, 2013

Letter from Dianne Feinstein

   Thank you to all of those who support common sense measures to prevent gun violence. 

   Last Wednesday was a dismal day in the US Senate.  Proponents of gun safety reforms lost every vote on amendments to strengthen our nation's gun laws.

   The defeat of the Assault Weapons Ban was particularly disapppointing to me. Four months ago, 20 first graders and six brave educators were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut with a Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle loaded with 30-round ammunition magazines.

    The pictures of these little victims still bring tears to my eyes, and their smiles keep me going every day.

   I am dismayed that more senators did not have the courage to keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines off our streets.

    These military-style weapons have but one purpose - to kill many people as quickly as possible. 

   It is long overdue for Congress to take meaningful action to reduce assault weapon violence and strengthen our nation's gun laws.

   Despite the setback, I remain encouraged by the strong support the Assault Weapons Ban has received from police chiefs, mayors, clergy, medical professionals, educators and most of all, the American people.

   I will continue to fight to keep these weapons of war out of our communities. Your continued involvement in gun safety issues is critical to our success.

   I look forward to continuing to work with you to prevent more tragedies from happening.

    Sincerely Yours,

    Dianne Feinsten
    US Senator  
  

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Isn't what Senator Feinstein meant was to overthrow the Constitution of the United States? Sounds like it to me. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The right to bear arms has been adjucated before the Supreme Court already. Senator Feinstein is old enough to remember it. Heck, she probably attended.

Anonymous said...

What's with Ms. Feinstein's husband receiving a train contract in the central valley? Could that be construed a conflict of interest?