Response from Senator Murray

At least I had fun. I wonder if she and her staff will enjoy reading my response as much as I did writing it:

From: Senator Murray
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:30 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Response from Senator Murray

Dear Mr. Huffman:

Thank you for writing to me regarding S. Amdt. 1618, Senator Thune (R-SD)’s amendment to provide for uniform reciprocity for concealed weapon possession across the country.  It is good to hear from you.

Senator Thune’s amendment would allow gun owner with a right to carry concealed weapon in one state the right to carry a concealed weapon across the United States.  Like you, I am concerned about the level of violence in this country, and its effect on our families and communities.  Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.  I believe that our national crime-fighting strategy should include reasonable measures to control firearms that strike a balance between reducing street crime and maintaining individuals’ rights.

As a U.S. Senator, I have supported common-sense measures to reduce or restrict gun violence while posing the least possible inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners.  Please know that as the Senate considers this and other firearms legislation, I will keep your concerns regarding this important issue in mind.  If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at  Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.

I hope all is well in Kirkland.


From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:58 PM
To: Senator Murray
Subject: RE: Response from Senator Murray

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this important issue.

Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

Since you are opposed to Federal regulation of firearms I cannot help but conclude you are also opposed to any new Federal firearm regulations. I was concerned that you might be considered a supporter of a new ban on “assault weapons” or think there was some utility in restricting both the First and Second Amendments by some law that claims to “close the gun show loophole”. As I’m sure you know there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. All Federal laws that are applicable at a gun shop are also applicable at gun shows.

Thank you for your support. I will be sharing your email and my response on my blog and with my friends at NRA-ILA. This will allow other Washington State gun owners know what a good friend they have in you and for the NRA-ILA people to start a dialog with you to begin getting some relief from the stifling and bewildering array of Federal gun laws.

If you meet any resistance in your efforts to roll back the infringements on the Second Amendment I would like to suggest you ask them Just One Question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

I’ve been asking that question of gun-control supports for several years now without once getting a defendable answer.


Joe Huffman

For those of you that don’t know the Honorable Senator Patty Murray, I don’t think there has ever been a piece of gun control legislation that she didn’t support.

And just as an FYI, I Bcc’d my contact at NRA-ILA.

I saw another piece of email she sent someone else on the same topic that is even more hilarious. I’m working to get permission to blog about it as well.


11 thoughts on “Response from Senator Murray

  1. Isn’t it funny that those fools think we’re all as supid as they think we are?

  2. Damn – supid = stupid. Computer posts faster then I can make corrections.

  3. Opinion of Patty Murray held by an intern in Murray’s office as relayed by the intern’s mother: “Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.”

    I suspect she “thinks” _enough_ people are as stupid as she knows _she_ is.

  4. From Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

    And I’m including the voters who put & keep her in office on that one.

  5. I’ve long wondered why it is that some good, conservative Congresscritter or Senator hasn’t let a LA add a repeal of the NFA’34 or GCA68 into some amendment to a porkulus bill which some ranking Democrat wants pushed through.

    I saw all manner of opportunities with unread bills such as the Scamulous Package or Cap’n Trade. I’m sure there will be others to come, knowing the Legislative Process as it currently is. If nothing else, it might work as a poison pill for something the majority of constituency considers abhorrent, such as Universal Healthcare.

    Bueller? Bueller?


  6. Wow, Joe; that’s some hard core snark as it is coming from you. But what else do such creatures deserve? They go all “state’s rights” when it suits their purpose, and then argue the exact opposite when it suits them. Just as you’ve said before.

    I find her tone at the same time amusing and outrageous. I read it like this; “Now see here little boy, my positions are “Reasonable” and “Common Sense”, see? So stick to what you know and go play on your swing set. There’s a good boy. Mommy loves you.”

    That’s their argument. They’re “Reasonable” or they’re “Compassionate” (or whatever the favorite word of the day is) or they’re for “Safety” so shut up or you’ll be accused of being unreasonable, lacking in compassion, or reckless. A good high school debate class would net them a D minus at best.

  7. Following up on Lyle’s point, I don’t think “reason” or “compassion” or even gender per se has anything to do with the topic, either.

    The issue here is some people scared of guns, not knowing even what they are never mind how to use them, not caring to know, not caring about the people who do know nor why they (we) know. The issue is these scaredy people wanting to build and keep political and social power, with the appeal to fear and control as the engine of that power. It’s like the cosmetics and weight loss industry–convince everybody they’re ugly and fat, and just when they feel scared that no one will ever love them, offer to sell them salvation. It’s like religion as well, come to think of it.

    One excellent and socially sanctioned means to accomplish this is Mommyism. Remember, Patty ran the first time as Just a Suburban Mommy In Tennis Shoes. She’s constantly harking back to that when she talks to roomfuls of women. Which I’ve always considered condescending and sexist in the extreme, but let’s not digress there.

    With only rare exceptions, the women I’ve known who define themselves as Mommies (rather than as, say, citizens or humans or tool-using primates) generally want to tell everyone else what to do, how to do it, when, and to their whim and satisfaction. They think they know best for everyone, because, after all, didn’t they do the incredibly complicated, unprecedented mammalian thing of getting nailed and delivering an infant of their species? Surely that miracle indicates their unquestionable superiority and their unalterable status as the Mothers of the Saviors Of The Planet.

    I’ve met only a minority of women who bred who considered their kids nice kids, but pretty much average (and loved them genuinely all the more). All the rest are squirting out Indigo Babies, Rainbow Drops, Baby Mozarts/Einsteins, Very Special Offspring who Are Our Hope For The Future, Little Arrows In The Quiver Of Jeebis, and so on. Funny how, from all those infant geniuses and divine goddessy mothers and comic book superhero arrowheads, so many utterly unexceptional adults result, with many way over toward the Pathological end of the spectrum. And those are the Most Very Specialest of all.

    This Mommyism, and natalism in general, is in today’s society what the old obnoxious idiotic patriarchy used to be. People using gender and biology to assert their superiority, using bigotry against others as the mechanism, and setting up straw men (CHILLLDRUNNNN) in order to tell everyone else what to do. I’m sick of all of it. Yo, parents–you’re supposed to be raising adults, not children.

    Patty Murray’s mommyism is the same. Mommy’s going to protect us all from bad scary guns! She has the power! She knows what’s right for all of us! We don’t need to protect ourselves–mommy is a SUPER MOMMY! And when you tell mommy that she isn’t listening, she is more reasonable, and concerned, and common sense than you could EVER BE, and more so if you disagree.

    Having said all this, a PS: I’ve known women who have kids and are gun-totin’ mama bears who’ll NEVER play the victim card where they or their families or neighbors are concerned.

    Go ahead, Sen. Murray. Tell me that those women aren’t concerned, reasonable, compassionate citizens.

    My point with all this? This kind of elected official response is what comes of organizations like NRA marginalizing women, queerfolk, blacks, liberals, leftists, atheists, etc., where RKBA is concerned. It is well past time for us all to come together across all previous marketing demographics, and stand up for the Bill of Rights. My problem with that is that most GOP candidates would take away all other rights in supplying the Second. How can anyone ask me to vote for the Second Amendment, and in doing so give up other rights as a liberty-loving woman who doesn’t want anybody–men OR women–telling me that their choices are superior to mine.

  8. That’s funny, I received a response from her too, only mine was different…
    It didn’t have the words “Huffman” or “Kirkland”.

  9. Pookie; I haven’t seen the NRA marginalizing women. Their recent president was a woman. If that’s marginalizing I’d like to be marginalized more often. I don’t see them marginalizing anyone except anti gun rights activists. Keep in mind that their primary purpose is promoting marksmanship. The political bit came only much later and only in response to anti 2A politics. They wouldn’t have the ILA at all otherwise.

    As for the GOP; I completely agree, and you may be surprised to learn just how many Americans agree also. I submit that that is precisely why McLame lost the election. Lets not forget that the federal budget doubled under Reagan, and doubled again under Bush 43 before TARP, and then it went nuts. No; the GOP does not stand for liberty. Never has, as far as I can tell. The Democrats? Forget about it. I’d never vote for a Dem unless they suddenly and magically transmogrified into libertarians, and that’s about as likely as the KKK adopting a mixed marriage policy for all its members. I can’t vote for another Republican unless it’s someone like Janice Rogers-Brown promising to clean out the Party come hell or high water. As unlikely as that seems today, it’s far more likely than the Dems suddenly coming out in favor of the American Principles of Liberty.

Comments are closed.