July 23, 1997
The Honorable, RICHARD RAINEY
California State Senate
On Tuesday, July 15th, the Senate Public Safety Comm.
passed out three extremely onerous bills. I am very
disappointed that you voted to support AB 23 (Perata)
and
AB 304 (Scott), wile absent,abstaining, or not voting on
AB 488.
Mistakenly, I thought you would protect my Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Did you swear to defend
it?
I presume, you will respond to this letter with an
explanation of the political reality of the situation,
or
that your trying to get the best DEAL possible.
During the 1996, election campaign, I contributed a
considerable amount of my time, money and resources, to
the republican (yours)effort . I'm sure you are aware
that only a small percent of people get that involved.
Your Senate race was extremely close, and I don't
think you would have won or will repeat a win without
the
pro-gun voters.
I urge you to oppose any legislation that would ban,
ration, or tax,firearms or ammunition. Specifically, SB
500 (Polanco), SB 513 (Hayden), SB 1339 ( Calderon), AB
1124 (Aroner), AB 23 (Perata), AB
304 (Scott) and AB 488 (Caldera).
Sincerely,
MARK FULFORD
================================
July 29, 1997
Dear Mr. Fulford:
Thank you for your letter regarding AB 23 (Perata). I
would like to take this opportunity to explain why I
supported this legislation.
First, I assure you that my position has not
changed since you elected me: I support the Second
Amendment and will continue to carefully review any
legislation which would burden this right. A review of
my voting record on firearms related measures indicates
I have voted consistently to enhance penalties for
criminals who use firearms while protecting the rights
of gun owners.
As you may know, I served as Contra Costa County Sheriff
for 14 years prior to being elected to the State
Legislature. My experience as a law enforcement officer
strongly influences my position on any gun control bill.
Moreover, several law enforcement agencies in the
seventh Senate district advocated their strong support
for AB 23. While I do not believe in unnecessary burdens
on law abiding owners of firearms, I will continue to
support police and sheriffs departments in their efforts
to keep weapons from ending up in the hands of
criminals.
The district I was elected to represent has been
distinctly divided on this issue. Gun control
advocates have made their voices heard by enacting
local ordinances. For example, voters in the City of
Livermore approved an ordinance this year which would
ban Saturday night specials. While I do not support
local regulation of firearms,and voted against a measure
which would allow cities and counties to enact stricter
firearms regulations (SB 643), these ordinances
highlight the fact the a large portion of my
constituency wants tougher gun control laws which I
must consider before casting my
vote.
Finally, I was elected to represent you and take this
responsibility seriously. Although we may not agree on
every issue, I appreciate knowing your viewpoint and
will keep this in mind when considering future
legislative proposals.
Sincerely,
RICHARD K. RAINEY
Senator, 7th District
Sorry Senator! You can't
have it BOTH ways!
Response to Rainey from Dennis Towner
3 August 1997
The Honorable Richard Rainey
Senator - 7th District
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Rainey:
I
was astounded and perplexed when I received a copy of
correspondence to you from Mark Fulford of
Livermore.
Your
response was evasive and avoided the salient
questions put to you by Mr. Fulford.
It is
a sad commentary on our times when We, the people
must remind YOU, our "elected" representatives that you
swore and oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of
these United States. May I remind you that "Murdock
vs. Pennsylvania" (319 U.S. 105) specifically held
that "A State cannot impose a charge for the enjoyment
of a right by the Federal Constitution. NO State shall
convert a liberty into a "privilege, license it, and
attach a fee to it". Nothing thrown at that has ever
been overturned. Further, in "Shuttlesworth vs.
Birmingham" (373 U.S. 262) clearly it states that
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege, the
citizen can engage in the right with impunity". In
"U.S. vs. Miller"(230 F2d 486) the holding was
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot
be converted into a crime." Finally, in "Miranda vs.
Arizona" (384 U.S. 436) it is clear that "Where
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule [law] making or legislation which would
abrogate [abolish] them."
I led
the fight against the SNS/Junk-gun ban here in
Livermore. Just so you have a real clear focus on what
that represented, it was NO mandate for gun-control. The
difference in votes was approximately 248 and those were
absentee ballots. We know this. Part of the reason that
the absentee ballots went the way they did was due to
the abominable way in which the Livermore City Attorney
wrote the Ballot discussion. It was tantamount to and
"editorial" in support of the measure and We, the People
had no say in how that was done. The wording was so
vague and the terms so scrambled, that unless you were
real educated on the issues at hand it would have
seemed a good thing to vote for. So do not consider what
happened here in Livermore as "mandate" of the people
because it surely was not that!
I
imagine 14 years as a cop WOULD influence your
position on gun control. Most "politicians in uniform"
are for gun control. It gives them strength. But we are
also VERY aware of what the "working" rank and file
officers think and it is NOT anti-gun sir. You never
really addressed the concerns of Mr. Fulford and ,
instead, chose to deliver him a vague "position paper";
a generalization that avoided the hard questions.
I took the liberty of posting the correspondence to the
Internet so that more people can see the kind of
tap-dancing that goes on with our elected officials. It
is deplorable.
You
said a "large part of your constituency wants
tougher `gun-control'". We ALL want tougher "crime and
penal" law, but I doubt that a "large part" of your
constituency wants honest, law-abiding citizens to
relinquish their right to arm themselves and, if
necessary, protect themselves with those arms. I am
your constituent sir, and I have yet to talk to anyone
here who wants gun "control". The fact is this State
SHOULD be exploring the "shall-issue" criteria already
adopted by many other States. That in and of itself
would have more of a deterrent on crime than all of the
cockamamy legislation you people can conjure up!
You
know and I know and hundreds of thousands realize
that there is a definite effort underway in this country
and in this State to "socialize". You must be aware as
are we that a major hurdle to that socialization is the
regulation and ultimately confiscation of firearms from
the people. I doubt that Americans and Californians
will allow that to happen.
It
would be in the best interests of our Republic and
the Republic of California for our "elected
representatives" to stop attempting to decimate the
Constitution and Bill of Rights and allow We, the People
to pursue our God-given RIGHTS to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
One
forward thinking individual in our country had great
foresight. He said:
"...God forbid we should ever be twenty years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all,
and always, well informed. The part which is wrong
will be discontented, in proportion to the importance
of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet
under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the
forerunner of death to the public liberty...And what
country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are
not warned from time to time, that this people preserve
the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The
remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century
or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time
to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is
the natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson
Let
us hope that is not what becomes necessary and that
we can work with enlightened legislators on the
preservation, rather than abrogation of our liberties
guaranteed us by the Constitution and Bill of
Rights.
Thank you.
Yours in Liberty,
Dennis Towner
NOTE! Subsequent
to writing this letter I have learned that Rainey sent
the SAME letter to anyone who disagreed with him on his
gun-control voting.
He is a waffler and has flown in the face of the
pro-gunners who helped elect him. Perhaps it is time to
rethink his re-election!
You are guest number