-----Original Message-----
From: VTGUNS@aol.com <VTGUNS@aol.com>
To: VTGUNS@aol.com <VTGUNS@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: Response of Sponsor of Vermont Gun Control Bill (H.97)
>Folks:
>
>Directly below is the E-mail response of Rep. Michael Kainen, the sponsor of
>H.97, to an E-mail I sent to him on his bill. His E-mail address is
>MKainen1@aol.com
>
>He must incorrectly believe that our folks cannot understand where the
>structure
>of H.97 will lead to further prohibition misdemeanor and Politically Correct
>areas
>in the future. Just look at the title of his E-mail "Re: Violent and Drug
>Felons in possession of firearms," and compare it to the title of his bill:
>PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS. The title does not limit the
>legislation to "Violent and Drug Felons."
>
>Again, look at the title of his E-mail and compare it to the text of H.97
>and look at the text of his bill, which I have provided as an attachment to
>this E-mail. He is not being honest with us.
>
>My response to Rep. Kainen is below his E-mail. I am not usually so forward
>with an elected official, but I do not like attempts by a legislator to
>intentionally deceive a voter who has contacted them on a bill. I was born
>at night, but not last night.
>Evan
>
>In a message dated 1/27/01 2:49:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, MKainen1 writes:
>
><< Dear Sirs:
>
>I believe there may be some misinformation about my bill. Given my belief
>that the federal law is overly encompassing, I took the federal law and
>deleted provisions. The federal law concerns all felonies. H-97 has a list
>of specific enumerated drug and violent felonies. I did not want to get the
>guy with the DWI III or the person who wrote a large bad check.
>
> If I missed something and you think there is an arm where H-97 is broader
>than the federal law, let me know and I will take it out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rep. Michael Kainen >>
>
>
>Rep. Kainen:
>
>The body of your E-mail was a nice attempt to frame the issue on your terms.
>The title of your E-mail also attempts to mislead the reader as to the extent
>of H.97.
>Obviously you harbor the mistaken belief that those who oppose YOUR bill do
>not understand the bill.
>
>YOUR bill lists disabling factors that are not felonies. The title of YOUR
>bill does not limit the bill in the present form to just violent felonies.
>Nor does it limit the further expansion of the law, if this bill were
>enacted, to just violent felonies, or to only felonies, or even just
>misdemeanors. The title and strucuture of this bill is designed to be
>expanded into any Politically Correct area. The title and strucuture
>reveals where the future of this bill will lead.
>
>In addition, had you wanted to limit it just violent felonies you would have
>limited it the crimes listed in Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13, Section
>11(a), but you did not and your reasons are only too clear.
>
>The gun owners, hunters and shooting sports people of Vermont are not a bunch
>of rubes at the county fair. I can read the federal statute United State
>Code Title 18, Section 922 (g). I can also read the Vermont Statutes
>Annotated. I was formerly a federal agent and Burlington Police Officer and
>I am not misled by your assertion that H.97 only covers "Violent and Drug
>Felons." The mere fact that you are compelled to make this disingenuous
>argument discredits H.97 as worthy legislation.
>
>There is no need for additional gun laws in Vermont, we continuously have one
>of the lowest crimes in the nation. If the State of Vermont has so much
>money to spend that we can senselessly duplicate federal functions, I would
>like a state tax cut.
>
>The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has a huge budget that simply
>dwarfs the budget of the Vermont State Police. Our Vermont law enforcement
>agencies are already thinly stretched and you want to duplicate the work of
>already funded federal agencies.
>
>Perhaps you have missed the media attacks on gun owners for the last year and
>a half. Rep. Vinton and you have opted to thrust your face into a political
>hornet's nest of gun owners that have been viciously and needlessly subjected
>to political character smearing for a very long time. This is why the NRA
>membership grew from 2.6 million members in mid-1999 to 4.2 million members.
>Our folks will not tolerate any more slander of the quality of their
>character
>
>I have spoke repeatedly with NRA-ILA State Liaison Greg Costa and he is
>prepared to strenuously fight this bill, as are many Vermonters.
>
>YOUR bill is a solution in search of a problem.
>
>I strongly suggest that you withdraw H.97, for you have not yet begun to
>experience the adverse political reaction to this legislative exercise in
>legal and political folly.
>
>Evan Hughes
>Central Vermont Chapter ARPA/GOA
>
From: VTGUNS@aol.com <VTGUNS@aol.com>
To: VTGUNS@aol.com <VTGUNS@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: Response of Sponsor of Vermont Gun Control Bill (H.97)
>Folks:
>
>Directly below is the E-mail response of Rep. Michael Kainen, the sponsor of
>H.97, to an E-mail I sent to him on his bill. His E-mail address is
>MKainen1@aol.com
>
>He must incorrectly believe that our folks cannot understand where the
>structure
>of H.97 will lead to further prohibition misdemeanor and Politically Correct
>areas
>in the future. Just look at the title of his E-mail "Re: Violent and Drug
>Felons in possession of firearms," and compare it to the title of his bill:
>PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS. The title does not limit the
>legislation to "Violent and Drug Felons."
>
>Again, look at the title of his E-mail and compare it to the text of H.97
>and look at the text of his bill, which I have provided as an attachment to
>this E-mail. He is not being honest with us.
>
>My response to Rep. Kainen is below his E-mail. I am not usually so forward
>with an elected official, but I do not like attempts by a legislator to
>intentionally deceive a voter who has contacted them on a bill. I was born
>at night, but not last night.
>Evan
>
>In a message dated 1/27/01 2:49:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, MKainen1 writes:
>
><< Dear Sirs:
>
>I believe there may be some misinformation about my bill. Given my belief
>that the federal law is overly encompassing, I took the federal law and
>deleted provisions. The federal law concerns all felonies. H-97 has a list
>of specific enumerated drug and violent felonies. I did not want to get the
>guy with the DWI III or the person who wrote a large bad check.
>
> If I missed something and you think there is an arm where H-97 is broader
>than the federal law, let me know and I will take it out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rep. Michael Kainen >>
>
>
>Rep. Kainen:
>
>The body of your E-mail was a nice attempt to frame the issue on your terms.
>The title of your E-mail also attempts to mislead the reader as to the extent
>of H.97.
>Obviously you harbor the mistaken belief that those who oppose YOUR bill do
>not understand the bill.
>
>YOUR bill lists disabling factors that are not felonies. The title of YOUR
>bill does not limit the bill in the present form to just violent felonies.
>Nor does it limit the further expansion of the law, if this bill were
>enacted, to just violent felonies, or to only felonies, or even just
>misdemeanors. The title and strucuture of this bill is designed to be
>expanded into any Politically Correct area. The title and strucuture
>reveals where the future of this bill will lead.
>
>In addition, had you wanted to limit it just violent felonies you would have
>limited it the crimes listed in Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13, Section
>11(a), but you did not and your reasons are only too clear.
>
>The gun owners, hunters and shooting sports people of Vermont are not a bunch
>of rubes at the county fair. I can read the federal statute United State
>Code Title 18, Section 922 (g). I can also read the Vermont Statutes
>Annotated. I was formerly a federal agent and Burlington Police Officer and
>I am not misled by your assertion that H.97 only covers "Violent and Drug
>Felons." The mere fact that you are compelled to make this disingenuous
>argument discredits H.97 as worthy legislation.
>
>There is no need for additional gun laws in Vermont, we continuously have one
>of the lowest crimes in the nation. If the State of Vermont has so much
>money to spend that we can senselessly duplicate federal functions, I would
>like a state tax cut.
>
>The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has a huge budget that simply
>dwarfs the budget of the Vermont State Police. Our Vermont law enforcement
>agencies are already thinly stretched and you want to duplicate the work of
>already funded federal agencies.
>
>Perhaps you have missed the media attacks on gun owners for the last year and
>a half. Rep. Vinton and you have opted to thrust your face into a political
>hornet's nest of gun owners that have been viciously and needlessly subjected
>to political character smearing for a very long time. This is why the NRA
>membership grew from 2.6 million members in mid-1999 to 4.2 million members.
>Our folks will not tolerate any more slander of the quality of their
>character
>
>I have spoke repeatedly with NRA-ILA State Liaison Greg Costa and he is
>prepared to strenuously fight this bill, as are many Vermonters.
>
>YOUR bill is a solution in search of a problem.
>
>I strongly suggest that you withdraw H.97, for you have not yet begun to
>experience the adverse political reaction to this legislative exercise in
>legal and political folly.
>
>Evan Hughes
>Central Vermont Chapter ARPA/GOA
>