View Responses

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer. The right approach focuses on many... [MORE]

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer. The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States. The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.

In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.

On the sixth anniversary of the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech, I took to the Senate floor to remember the 32 Hokies who lost their lives. The tragedy happened after a dangerous young man illegally purchased weapons due to flaws in the background records check system. I was pleased to cast my vote on April 17, 2013 in support of S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act legislation, which included tougher laws on gun trafficking and straw purchases, and ways to improve safety in schools. I also voted in support of a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks on gun laws and enhance the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by incentivizing states to share information on individuals with a criminal record, and those adjudicated to be mentally ill. Unfortunately a filibuster of this measure prevented it from passing. I also voted for a ban on large-capacity magazines, and for a proposal to ban combat-style weapons. I am disappointed a minority of the Senate chose to use the filibuster to block common-sense reforms, but am hopeful there will be another opportunity to raise this issue again.

As your U.S. Senator, I will continue to work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Tim Kaine [LESS]

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding firearms. I appreciate hearing your thoughtful comments and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I do not support gun control. We as Americans must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. I will not support any legislation that will hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to acquire a firearm.

As you... [MORE]

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding firearms. I appreciate hearing your thoughtful comments and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I do not support gun control. We as Americans must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. I will not support any legislation that will hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to acquire a firearm.

As you may know, on December 16, 2012, President Obama announced that Vice President Joe Biden would lead a new initiative, tasked with identifying reform proposals on firearms. On January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a series of these sweeping reforms, including 23 separate executive actions that the Administration will take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence.

To view or download the Administration's report, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence.

The President's proposals are very disappointing. The President should not try to bypass Congress to impose new federal gun control restrictions. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying citizens this right.

Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks. As gun control advocates continue to seek creative methods of advancing their agenda, both through legislation and litigation, I will continue to oppose all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mike Crapo
United States Senator [LESS]

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms. I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, and I welcomed and supported the Supreme Court's decision in... [MORE]

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms. I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, and I welcomed and supported the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that made clear that the constitutional right to gun ownership is an individual one. I have also consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right, including permitting residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms and to prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen.

At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them, like criminals and individuals with mental illnesses. Recent events, such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrific massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, have made it clear that we should have sensible, constitutional controls on gun ownership that address safety in our communities.

In the wake of these tragedies, I have heard from many Missouri gun owners, including veterans and hunters, who agree that commonsense protections, such as background checks or limiting access to high capacity ammunition magazines and weapons designed for use by soldiers in combat, are sensible measures we could implement to improve the safety of Americans that do not infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

Proposals like these were considered when the Senate debated S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act. During consideration of this bill, I was proud to vote for several gun safety measures, including bipartisan proposals to expand background checks to purchases made at gun shows and on the internet, and to increase penalties for "straw purchases" when individuals buy guns for those who are barred from purchasing the guns themselves, such as those with past felony convictions or severe mental illness. I also voted to limit access to military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. I believe sensible regulation of firearms, such as that proposed in these measures, would keep our children and our law enforcement officers safe from the mass-casualty crimes in which these weapons are often used. I was disappointed that these safety measures, which are overwhelmingly supported by the American public, failed to achieve the necessary votes to overcome opponents' filibusters. Senate leaders have now set aside S. 649 while negotiations continue.

Knowing that those responsible for some of the most recent mass shootings have suffered from mental illness, it is clear that we must also consider mental health services available to our citizens. A more robust mental health care system may help identify and treat individuals who need help before they resort to violence. I am strongly committed to expanding access to mental health services, which is why I voted for an amendment to S. 649 to reauthorize and improve programs related to the use of intervention and support services in schools, suicide prevention, helping children recover from traumatic events, and integrating behavioral and primary care. I also supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as "Obamacare," which will expand important mental health coverage when it is fully implemented in 2014.

You may be interested to know that during consideration of S. 649 I also voted in support of a measure that would penalize state and local governments who wrongfully release information about gun owners to the public. I also voted in support of our nation's veterans when I supported an amendment that would ensure veterans receive due process before a Veterans Administration determination can remove a veteran's right to own a gun.

While the debate over appropriate gun safety measures is divisive, it is far from over. I firmly believe that this nation can unite in support of sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens--especially innocent children--while we continue to respect the Constitution. Please know that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind when Congress again considers gun-related legislation.


Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,



Claire McCaskill
United States Senator [LESS]

Thank you for writing me regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I understand this is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I hold the fundamental belief the Second Amendment should not be altered. At the same time, I have... [MORE]

Thank you for writing me regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I understand this is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I hold the fundamental belief the Second Amendment should not be altered. At the same time, I have always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

In light of recent tragedies, some have suggested restricting gun ownership as a way to curb gun violence. I am always open to ideas on how to stop violent crimes, however, I have concerns when these suggestions are solely directed toward restricting gun ownership. To that end, I cosponsored a bipartisan piece of legislation, the Excellence in Mental Health Act or S.264, along with Senators Debbie Stabenow D-MI and Roy Blunt R-MO, to improve quality standards and expand access to mental health services. I believe mental health access is an important step to ensure tragedies like the ones we have seen recently do not occur again.

As you may know, the Senate recently voted on gun-control legislation, S. Amdt. 715 to S. 649 introduced by Senators Pat Toomey R-PA and Joe Manchin D-WV, which targeted law-abiding citizens. I believe this legislation would have had a profound impact on an individual's right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment. I opposed this legislation because it was not directed toward the major issue surrounding the gun control debate: violence. We should work to reduce tragic acts of violence by addressing violence at its source, including untreated mental illness, a lack of adequate information-sharing on mental health issues, and the breakdown of the family, not by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve you as your United States Senator. I appreciate you offering your opinion on this issue. If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,


Marco Rubio
United States Senator [LESS]

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent gun control proposals considered before the Senate. As the discussion unfolded over the past six months, I reiterated to my fellow Oklahomans that my commitment to our Second Amendment right to bear arms remained steadfast and I would not support any measure infringing upon this fundamental constitutional right. I appreciate this opportunity to... [MORE]

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent gun control proposals considered before the Senate. As the discussion unfolded over the past six months, I reiterated to my fellow Oklahomans that my commitment to our Second Amendment right to bear arms remained steadfast and I would not support any measure infringing upon this fundamental constitutional right. I appreciate this opportunity to answer your specific questions and to discuss my vote allowing for debate, my opposition to the "Manchin-Toomey" proposal considered by the Senate, and the alternative solution I offered to protect the rights of gun owners. I encourage you to watch my speech on the Senate floor discussing these issues, as well as the root cause of violence-criminal activity and mental health. You can view my speech here: http://bit.ly/Y4U4rC.

First, I would like to address my vote in favor of the motion to proceed to the debate of gun legislation on the Senate floor. While some special interest groups tried to misconstrue this as a vote in favor of unconstitutional gun control laws, my vote was only supporting a debate and amendment process in the Senate. What our Founding Fathers expected of the Senate, and what the American people elect us to do, is openly and transparently debate the critical issues in our country. In my view, not participating in this debate would do more to jeopardize Americans' Second Amendment rights than participating. Senators should be on record of where they stand on unconstitutional provisions such as "assault weapon bans" in order to hold them accountable to their constituents. I also believe that there are opportunities to improve our nation's gun laws, including a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would allow an American's right to self-defense to extend beyond the border of one's home state.

As you likely know, the Senate voted down several gun control proposals, including the Manchin-Toomey proposal to require Federally Firearms Licensed dealers FFLs to conduct National Instant Criminal Background Checks NICS on all sales at gun shows or initiated by internet advertisements. I agree with the intent of their proposal to stem the transfer of firearms to those that are a danger to themselves or others. However, their approach to accomplish this goal prioritizes taxing, burdening, and criminalizing law-abiding gun owners at the expense of an effective proposal to keep firearms out of the hands of the dangerous. I therefore voted against the Manchin-Toomey proposal and offered my own alternative proposal, which I would like to describe in detail.

As a firm believer of the Second Amendment, I support longstanding federal law that prohibits illegal aliens, pedophiles, spousal abusers, drug dealers, felons, and mentally-dangerous individuals from purchasing and possessing firearms, as well as the current procedures at retail stores to prevent prohibited people from procuring firearms. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited convicted felons, those with dangerous mental illness and illegal aliens from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Since 1994, every firearm that has been bought at a gun store has required a NICS check be conducted prior to the final transaction to prevent these prohibited individuals from purchasing firearms. These laws were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in the majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia in the DC v. Heller decision that struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. Justice Scalia clearly stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill."

Current laws intended to keep firearms out of the hands of the dangerous are rendered ineffective when a prohibited purchaser can just as easily procure a firearm from a gun show or an internet marketplace without a NICS check as they can at a gun store. I believe this is a legitimate flaw in our nation's laws that necessitates the reasonable expansion of NICS checks into secondary and private markets for the sole purpose of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. However, I believe Congress can find a better solution to this policy gap than a new regime of de facto transfer taxes and burdensome regulations on law abiding gun owners, as proposed by the Manchin-Toomey proposal. Unfortunately, their approach of rerouting all gun commerce through federally designated persons and charging a $30-$125 fee would incentivize evasion over compliance.

Unlike the Manchin-Toomey approach, I believe gun owners must be treated as part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. I submitted an alternative amendment that would give law abiding gun owners the tool to know the person they are selling their firearm to is not on the "do not buy list." Under my proposal, a potential gun purchaser could log into a website and obtain a temporary permit, or use an open or concealed carry permit, to confirm to the seller that they are legally able to purchase the firearm. Under this plan, a concealed or open carry permit holder would not feel any impact. Those that do not possess a concealed carry permit would only require an extra two minutes to run a NICS check to obtain the temporary permit. My amendment would also allow states to create their own methods if they can improve upon this policy and take primacy of enforcement of the new policy. My proposal is a simple solution that focuses on empowering the individual gun-owner to keep firearms out of the hands of the dangerous, not a big government solution that penalizes gun-owners. Unfortunately, Senator Reid refused to allow a vote on this common-sense approach I offered. I encourage you to read the text, background, and summary of my proposal here: http://1.usa.gov/14PYWE4.

Responsible gun owners should be leading the effort to make sure firearms are used for the purpose our founders' intended-self-defense and freedom, not mayhem and murder. We cannot legislate away all acts of violence, and criminals will undoubtedly continue to break the law regardless of what Congress does. However, making it more difficult for people like violent felons to procure weapons will increase the chances of them getting caught trying to procure the weapon, rather than doing the harm post-acquisition. In order to accomplish this, Congress should provide gun owners a tool to make transfers of firearms in the secondary markets safer-not more expensive, onerous, or invasive.

Undoubtedly, the urgency for Congress to reform gun laws was sparked by tragic, senseless acts of violence in communities like Newtown and Aurora, and a desire to prevent such despicable acts from occurring again. The national conversation about preventing violence should continue, and it is essential that we as a society address the root cause of the problem-not just the symptoms. We must consider the impact of violent and graphic entertainment within our culture, the breakdown of the family unit and its long-term consequences, and the challenges of effective mental health care systems and treatments. Most importantly, addressing the root cause of the problem means restoring the value society places on the life and liberty of every human being, and upholding our commitment to protect it. As I have stated before, there is no greater protector of life and liberty than the U.S. Constitution, and it will continue to guide every action I take in the Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me. God bless.

Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator [LESS]

Thank you for contacting me about policy proposals that seek to reduce gun violence.

I support reinstating the assault weapons ban and restoring the 10-round limit for ammunition magazines. AK 47s are intended for killing, not hunting. I support universal background checks, and voted for them in the Senate this April.

Solutions for reducing gun violence must address many areas,... [MORE]

Thank you for contacting me about policy proposals that seek to reduce gun violence.

I support reinstating the assault weapons ban and restoring the 10-round limit for ammunition magazines. AK 47s are intended for killing, not hunting. I support universal background checks, and voted for them in the Senate this April.

Solutions for reducing gun violence must address many areas, from protecting law enforcement and keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, to school safety and access to mental health services.

I will continue to seek a path forward to reform our nation's gun laws. I appreciate hearing your views on this very important issue, and I will keep them in mind as the debate on gun control moves forward. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
Bill Nelson [LESS]

Thank you for your recent communication. I appreciate this opportunity to correspond with you.

As you may know, on December 19, 2012, the president assembled a task force in an effort to come up with proposals that would reduce gun violence in our nation. The task force was led by Vice President Joe Biden and included members of the Administration and outside organizations. Recently, the... [MORE]

Thank you for your recent communication. I appreciate this opportunity to correspond with you.

As you may know, on December 19, 2012, the president assembled a task force in an effort to come up with proposals that would reduce gun violence in our nation. The task force was led by Vice President Joe Biden and included members of the Administration and outside organizations. Recently, the president signed an executive order containing 23 proposals to attempt to bring down gun violence. I am currently reviewing the president's proposals and believe the proposals need to go through the regular legislative process. Since the vice president has worked with key Senate Democrats like Senator Feinstein on these proposals, I believe the appropriate place for the legislative process to begin is in the Senate.

The tragic events that happened in Newton, CT, Aurora, CO, Blacksburg, VA, and in other communities across the country are unthinkable and require a comprehensive examination of the facts. It's time that we as a society take a broad look at the level of violence we find acceptable in our everyday lives. This examination combined with an evaluation of the effectiveness of our mental health system to preempt acts like these rather than react to them is a step in the right direction.

Additionally, we must start enforcing the laws we already have on the books. You may be interested to know that the Brady Act of 1993 requires Federal Firearms Licensees to request background checks on individuals attempting to receive a firearm. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICS is managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI. This system already runs database checks on criminal records.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act, which was enacted after the Virginia Tech shooting, provides incentives for states to make more records available for use during NICS checks. The total number of mental health records that states made available to the NICS Index increased by approximately 800 percent-from about 126,000 records in October 2004 to about 1.2 million records in October 2011-according to FBI data. This increase largely reflects the efforts of 12 states that had each made at least 10,000 mental health records available by October 2011. However, nearly half the states still do not regularly provide records to the federal database intended to keep guns out of the hands of people with histories of mental illness.

Rest assured, as the father of four young children, this is a matter that I take very seriously. I will closely review legislation that addresses these issues should they be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns.

Sincerely,

Patrick J. Tiberi
Representative to Congress [LESS]

Hi There,

Thank you for taking the time to contact our office and voice your views. I truly appreciate having the benefit of your opinions as Congress continues to review and debates this issue of national importance. Understanding your ideas and concerns is important because it allows me to better represent you and the Third District of New Jersey. It has been my great honor and privilege... [MORE]

Hi There,

Thank you for taking the time to contact our office and voice your views. I truly appreciate having the benefit of your opinions as Congress continues to review and debates this issue of national importance. Understanding your ideas and concerns is important because it allows me to better represent you and the Third District of New Jersey. It has been my great honor and privilege to serve as your Congressman, and I will remain committed to keeping our district and its constituents together by identifying ways to improve our state and our nation through the legislative process.

Please know that if your concern is a TIME SENSITIVE matter, in the nature of casework, contact my staff immediately in either the Burlington County Office at 856-780-6436 or the Ocean County Office at 732-279-6013. They will be happy to assist with you with any problems you are facing with our federal agencies, programs, and/or benefits.

If this is a TOUR request for the Capitol Building or the White House, please email my staff at TourRunyan@mail.house.gov. If this is an official MEETING request, please email your name, organization, contact information, and list of issues/bills you wish to discuss to my staff at ScheduleRunyan@mail.house.gov.

Finally, if you have any further questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact me at either of my District Offices or in my Washington, DC office at 202-225-4765. You may also visit my website at www.runyan.house.gov to stay up to date on my work in Congress, and to subscribe to my e-newsletter, which has the latest updates from Washington and around the district.

Other great ways to follow my work in Congress is on my Facebook page at www.facebook.com/CongressmanJonRunyan, on my YouTube page at www.youtube.com/RepRunyan, or via Twitter @RepJonRunyan. [LESS]

Dear Friend,


Thank you for contacting my office via e-mail. I appreciate having the benefit of your views. Due to the volume of mail I receive, it can sometimes take my office a while to respond. I did, however, want to let you know that I have received your email.


If this is a scheduling request or if you need immediate assistance, please contact my Washington, D.C., office at... [MORE]

Dear Friend,


Thank you for contacting my office via e-mail. I appreciate having the benefit of your views. Due to the volume of mail I receive, it can sometimes take my office a while to respond. I did, however, want to let you know that I have received your email.


If this is a scheduling request or if you need immediate assistance, please contact my Washington, D.C., office at 202-225-4431, or my Denver office at 303-844-4988.


Sincerely,


Diana DeGette
Member of Congress [LESS]

Thank you for contacting me about national firearms policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Like many Pennsylvanians, I have long been a supporter of the Second Amendment. Americans have an individual right to bear arms for self-protection, hunting and recreation. In fact, during my tenure in the House of Representatives 1999-2005, my record of supporting gun owners'... [MORE]

Thank you for contacting me about national firearms policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Like many Pennsylvanians, I have long been a supporter of the Second Amendment. Americans have an individual right to bear arms for self-protection, hunting and recreation. In fact, during my tenure in the House of Representatives 1999-2005, my record of supporting gun owners' rights earned me an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association NRA.

As important as Second Amendment rights are, our society recognizes that these rights do not apply to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. Writing for the conservative majority in the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down the D.C. gun ban, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In other words, Justice Scalia affirmed that laws preventing criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

As you know, I recently introduced an amendment, along with Senator Joe Manchin D-WV, to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 S. 649. Our amendment had three parts. The first was to improve state compliance with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICS. The second part was to expand background checks to commercial sales at gun shows or through the internet. These first two parts of our amendment were designed to make it more difficult for criminals and dangerously mentally ill persons to acquire firearms. The third part would have provided law abiding citizens with expanded opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.

With regard to the first part of the amendment, NICS relies on states to provide records of persons who should not possess firearms. Compliance varies greatly with some states providing very few records. The amendment requires states to completely participate in NICS in order to be eligible for certain types of federal grant funding.

Full state participation in NICS would help prevent the kind of tragedy that took place at Virginia Tech in 2007. Prior to that mass shooting, in which 32 people were murdered and 23 were injured, shooter Seung Hui Cho had been found mentally ill by a Virginia judge. However, Virginia did not submit that court record to NICS. The absence of this critical information in NICS enabled Cho to pass a background check and purchase the handguns he used for the shooting. This is one example of how the threat of gun violence can be reduced through improvement of the NICS system, a salient objective of the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

The second part, expansion of background checks to other venues such as gun shows, is not a new idea. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School tragedy in 1999, the NRA supported expanding background checks at gun shows during consideration by the House of Representatives of the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act H.R. 2122. I agreed with the NRA then, and so did many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted in favor of this legislation.

Current law already requires a background check through NICS for all sales conducted through a federally licensed gun dealer. The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have required individuals seeking to purchase firearms from a non-dealer at a gun show to undergo the same background check as required for purchases from licensed dealers. The amendment would not have mandated "universal" background checks. Personal, non-commercial transfers would not have required background checks.

The third part of our amendment would have been achieved through a number of measures. These measures included allowing active duty military service members to buy a gun in their home state and providing a new legal process for restoring the Second Amendment rights of veterans who, under current law, can be unfairly prevented from acquiring a firearm. Another benefit included protecting law abiding gun owners from arrest or detention by fixing interstate travel laws.

Contrary to some reports, the amendment would not have created or enabled a national gun registry. I have always strongly opposed a gun registry, so our amendment prohibited the creation of a registry and would have established a new felony offense, punishable by a 15-year prison sentence, for any official who attempted to create a federal registry.

Senator Manchin and I posted the text of our amendment on our websites on April 11, 2013, thereby providing six days for our colleagues and the public to review the 49-page measure before a vote. On April 17, 2013, despite bipartisan support and a 54-46 vote in favor, the amendment was defeated due to a 60-vote threshold that was agreed to by unanimous consent.

I acknowledge that some will disagree with the Manchin-Toomey amendment. I am under no illusion that the amendment would necessarily prevent a determined criminal or dangerously mentally ill person from acquiring a firearm. No system can be 100 percent effective in denying firearms to those that should not have them, but that does not mean we should not try to improve the current system. In my view, keeping guns out of the hands of these people is not gun control, but common sense.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania [LESS]