Having lived through the L.A. riots and witnessed the chaos during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, I’ve often thought of buying a gun to protect myself when the police are overwhelmed by the situation. I think it’s reasonable to expect similar circumstances should a significant earthquake occur. I finally took the initiative last month and purchased a handgun for protection.

The process of purchasing and owning a gun has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I always believed that the U.S. Constitution protected our civil rights to protect ourselves and to bear arms, but apparently I was mistaken. It seems my Constitutional right expires the moment I leave my own property as I cannot carry a usable, unlocked weapon in public. How is this legal to limit a citizen’s Constitutional rights?

Can this legislation be applied to all of our rights? For example, should our first amendment rights to free speech be limited to our own property as well? I suppose we should arrest anyone protesting at the Federal Center or in Exposition Park for exercising their first amendment rights outside their own house. Legislators in this state are opposed to any “chipping away” at Roe v. Wade, but seem unconcerned about chipping away at our explicit Constitutional rights.

My newfound awareness will certainly influence my vote and support for my elected representatives. I will be watching very carefully and making my voice heard on what I consider to be unconstitutional limitations on my Constitutional rights.

Dianne Feinstein’s Response:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to gun control. I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I appreciate that there are many law abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting and sport in a safe and effective manner and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun for such purposes.

At the same time, the problem of gun violence in this country is a serious one. The assault weapon attack on four children and an adult at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles in 1999, the school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Universities are examples of the tragic results of gun violence.

During my tenure in the Senate, I have worked hard to introduce and support common-sense gun control legislation designed to keep our cities and neighborhoods safe. Additionally, I have worked to prevent criminals and children from having access to firearms. For example, I authored legislation to restrict large-capacity ammunition magazines and ban Assault Weapons, which was enacted into law in 1994. Unfortunately, that ban expired in 2004 and my efforts to reinstate the ban have been blocked.

Please know that while we may not agree on this issue, I value your opinions and have read your letter with interest. Be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as the gun control debate continues.

Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

My Comments on Sen. Feinstein’s Response:

So, Senator Feinstein supports our Second Amendment Constitutional rights, but for hunters and sportsmen only. I did not realize that our founding fathers sat down to write the Bill of Rights and said: “first, every citizen should have the right to free speech. Second, every citizen should have the right to shoot clay pigeons!” 

If fact, the Second Amendment was written so that every citizen has the right to defend our country from invaders and tyranny, and defend ourselves and our property from harm. There’s no better example of the consequences of disarming the law-abiding citizenry than those given by Senator Feinstein. It’s no coincidence that the states where those tragedies occurred are ranked in the top 20 states with gun control according to the Brady Campaign. California is the highest ranked by the Brady Bunch for gun control, so what exactly is the Senator’s point?

It may come as a shock to the Senator but criminals don’t obey her laws, only their victims do. She and her like have painted big red signs outside our schools and campuses that say “Welcome! No guns here, only victims.” I won’t go so far as to say that Senator Feinstein has blood on her hands; the perpetrators of the crimes are solely responsible; but, the Senator has certainly created an environment where they can thrive.

I would also encourage the Senator to view videotape of the L.A. riots and notice all of the merchants guarding their property from their rooftops with “assault weapons.” Those stores were not burned to the ground like their neighbors’ were. But, all we hear from the gun control nuts is “what would anyone ever need an assault weapon for?”

All Senators must take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Senator Feinstein has violated her oath of office.

As an aside; the Senator responded to my e-mail on April 1st. How appropriate.

The Washington Post reports that purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data. The economy and the recent elections are cited as the most common reason for the sales.

Obama believes in placing restrictions on gun ownership and supports making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent along with a handful of other restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Even if he doesn’t push the issue, he will most likely bend to the wishes of the most liberal Congress in U.S. history. 

I live in California, which puts more restrictions on guns than any other state. California is under the arrogant delusion that it should dictate Federal law and, unfortunately, Congress is stacked with California Democrats with the influence to make that a reality. So even if you don't live here, it's coming to your state soon.

I've had a few weeks to contemplate the recent elections, and while most of the controversy in California has focused on the Defense of Marriage Act, or Proposition 8, I've been contemplating Proposition 4, requiring parental notification for abortions. The arguments used against Prop 4 demonstrate an inconsistent application of the “law” in California and across the country. Any restrictions on abortion, even common sense proposals like parental notification or partial birth abortion bans, are opposed on the grounds that they will chip away at Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, those same people  (Democrats) have no problem chipping away at the Second Amendment which is an explicit Constitutionally guaranteed right as opposed to one granted by a split decision of nine judges, overturning the lawfully enacted legislation of 48 states.

However you feel about Roe or the Second Amendment, let's not be hypocrites; let's apply the same standards to both. Either we put restrictions on both, or we put restrictions on neither. Resolved:

A minor under 16 may not possess a handgun, unless they are accompanied by their parent or guardian. Therefore, a minor under 16 should not be able to obtain an abortion unless they are accompanied by their parent or guardian.

The purchaser of a firearm must present a valid California Driver’s License or a California Identification Card and supply their right thumbprint. The purchaser of a handgun must also provide additional proof of California residence, other than a document from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, anyone requesting an abortion must also present the same resident identification and thumbprints.

The licensed firearms dealer sends a copy of the application to the California Department of Justice and the local police chief or sheriff. The abortionist should be required to send a copy of an abortion application to the Medical Board of California and any city and county health services departments.

There is a 10-day waiting period before delivery of any firearm. Therefore, there must be a ten day waiting period before performing any abortion.

The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) will conduct a background check on each gun buyer and the fee is $25.00. Similarly, there should be a background check and fee for anyone applying for an abortion.

No person shall purchase or transfer a handgun to someone without a Handgun Safety Certificate (HRC). To receive a handgun safety certificate, a person must pass a written test that includes but is not limited to laws applicable to the ownership, use, handling, and carrying of firearms, particularly handguns. A CA DOJ certified instructor must administer the Handgun Safety Certificate test. So, a doctor or abortionist may not provide an abortion to someone without an Abortion Awareness Certificate (AAC). To receive an AAC, a person must pass a written test that includes but is not limited to abstinence, contraception, development of a fetus, and laws applicable to abortion and statutory rape.

California law places numerous limits on the types of guns a citizen can own. California law should allow only certain types of abortions and prohibit late-term and partial birth abortions.

No person shall make an application to purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person within a 30 day period. Consequently, no person is allowed to have more than one abortion within a 30 month period.

Obama and other Democrats voted against requiring doctors to provide medical care to infants who survive botched abortions. In that case, doctors (and police officers) should not be required to provide medical care to criminals who survive being shot during a botched crime.

U.S. Gun deaths in 2004 = 29,569

U.S. Abortions per year = 1.3 million

Guns don’t kill people, abortionists do.