Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate knowing your views.

In 1994, the assault weapons ban established a comprehensive regulatory scheme of prohibiting the manufacture, transfer, or possession of assault weapons, as well as the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds. These magazines are used by millions of Americans and are customary in handguns and other firearms. Nineteen specific weapons and their copycats were banned by the original legislation signed into law by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. The weapons ban was contained in a larger Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004. As a member of the House of Representatives in 1994, I voted against the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 because of the undue restrictions on weapons, among other reasons . . .

Semi-automatic assault weapons function similarly to other semi-automatic firearms, as they fire one round per pull of the trigger. It is important to note that under the assault weapons ban, the defining features of a semi-automatic assault weapon are mostly cosmetic. For example, a handgun is classified as a semi-automatic assault weapon if its magazine is visible, despite the fact that it fires one bullet per pull of the trigger and the speed of fire remains the same. Therefore, the law banned certain guns that are functionally identical to other weapons that are still considered to be legal.

While supporters of the ban may point out that the violent crime rate dropped after the 1994 ban, they do not mention that violent crime was dropping before the ban was instituted in 1994 and that gun ownership, including ownership of newer designs of the banned weapons, rose during that same time period. It is also important to note that these weapons were rarely used in the commission of crimes before the 1994 ban.

Additionally, a provision of the 1994 law required a study of the effectiveness of the weapons ban. The Congressional study showed that, according to police reports and federal felon surveys, the type of weapons banned in 1994 were only used in one to two percent of violent crimes. Murders committed by knives, clubs, and bare hands outnumbered murders by weapons 20 to one. According to a recent study, existing data does not show whether the number of people shot and killed with semi-automatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-2004).

Should any attempt be made to reinstate the semi-automatic assault weapons ban, I will strongly oppose it. Law-abiding gun owners should be free to use their firearms for hunting, marksmanship, and self-defense. The statistics demonstrate that a true ban on these weapons will not significantly decrease crime but will significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. When I was sworn in as a member of Congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As your representative in the Senate, I will continue to staunchly oppose any attempt to tamper with our nation’s Constitution or undermine our Second Amendment rights.

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

51 Responses to Senator James Inhofe: I Support The Second Amendment But . . . Nothing

  1. he will oppose the AWB, but other portions of gun grabber plans, like private sales, ammo through the mail, etc, not so sure….

    • If the private sales and internet bans are part of an omnibus bill that includes an AWB, he won’t vote for it. Democrat strategists are presently considering whether to bundle their invasion of the Constitution or proceed by several, separate bills.

      • agree, if its all in one, and the AWB is part of it, he wont sign…actually, probably none of the reps or senators from oklahoma will sign, but I can see inhofe or coburn caving..maybe

    • Eh. Never mind. He’s right on guns but wrong on everything else. Why can’t we have our guns and other rights too?

      • Exactly. We need more supporters of gay rights, free speech rights, the right to freedom of religion, and gun rights–and any other rights that I don’t have space to name here.

      • Have a feeling I’ll regret this- but what other ‘rights’ of yours are being withheld from you, exactly?

        Just point them out in the Constitution one by one, if you’d be so kind.

        • The dread of regret is mutual here, particularly because other posters have already outlined concerns like gay rights and religious freedom, but here goes.

          During his career, the Senator has shown blatant disregard for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10 amendments to the constitution, largely through his religious bigotry, support of the war on drugs, the patriot act, cyber security acts and the indefinite detention and killing of American citizens.

          Oh, and by the way, rights don’t belong to me. They belong to everyone, granted to us by our creator. I’m not gay, but restricting the pursuit of happiness for gays makes all of us less free.

  2. My biggest concern is that private transfers will be eliminated. I hear lots of defenses for Modern Sporting Rifles and Standard Capacity Magazines, I don’t hear much defense for private transfers. If I want to give a firearm to a family member as a gift or in a swap, with no FFL and NICS paperwork and cost, I should be able to continue to do so. I don’t think enough people on our side are thinking about what eliminating the “gun show loophole” really means. It means full registration and documentation of all transfers at all.

  3. This is what makes me proud to say I’m from Oklahoma. This is the only state in the US to have ALL representatives rated as A+ by the GOA and NRA (correct me if I’m wrong, please). We’re making strides, while others are stepping back. In February, there’s a tentative bill to remove the “Gun Free Zones”, and give CCL holders a free pass at all federal building checkpoints. Open carry, silencers for hunting, nullifying UN Agenda 21, etc… Now, if they’d just take a stronger stance on the NDAA, FISA and whatnot, it’d be perfect.
    Loves me some Oklahoma.

      • Just head out this way, Javier! We’ve got plenty of space. We should just take all the 2nd Amendment lovers and annex ourselves…

        • I’ve got to much invested here. I won’t run and I refuse to give up. “Hope springs eternal” you know. But thanks for the invite.

  4. So, if the statistics did show that the ban had an effect on gun violence, would he abandon the 2nd amendment? Is his support only for whatever statistics support?

    • He’s been pretty consistent in all his votes for pro-2A issues. He’s just using the statistics in making a counterpoint to Senator Fineswine’s political hackery.

  5. Take a little money and instead of buying a few rounds put it toward elected officials who support the Constitution.

  6. Looks like this man has his head screwed on straight. I love his work on “global warming” as well.

    • Casey sent me a canned reply.. I stopped reading after …weapons of war need to be taken off the street or something to that effect.

      Now Senator Pat Toomey mentioned only about supporting more mental health and related laws.. Hopefully he sticks to that.

      All this isn’t too surprising since one is a Democrat and one is a Repulican.

  7. I spoke to his staff on the phone last time I was making my phone calls. Inhofe will more than likely stand up for the second amendment.
    I have less trust in Inhofe than I do Coburn or the others, but I think he’ll do the right thing here.
    Inhofe probably wouldn’t make a very good president, but I’m glad that he’s one more that’s on our side for now.

  8. It’s nice to see legislators at least pay lip service regarding gun control. But we should expand our efforts closer to home. Particularly as it applies to some of the legislation we most fear, gun confiscation.

    We need to get local law enforcement, especially Sheriffs, to commit to standing firm against any new laws regarding gun controls…outright.

    The left seemed to be in support of this notion when border states passed laws directing LEO’s to check for ID’s and green cards when they suspected the person they pulled over of not being legally in the states.

    I have asked a number of law enforcement officers, and I haven’t had one say they would comply with any sort of confiscation mandates.

    • I got pretty much the same pro 2nd Amendment response from Mr Inhofe and my house guy, James Lankford. Have not heard back from Senator Coburn, but I expect much the same. If the Dems succeed in any of this nonsense, I don’t expect them to get any help from the OK delegation.

  9. This is why you will continue to be my senator – btw why does obama get a kill list? I mean the 4th amendment is pretty clear here – due process – I’m not seeing it.

    Thanks,
    Scott

    • I’ll tell you why he gets a kill list. It’s because if you complain too loudly about the kill list you just may become next on the list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *