recon
01-28-2013, 11:25 AM
We need to make these a STICKY so all can send these out! THESE NEED TO DONE GUYS AND GALS!
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
Dear Elected Official,
I am writing to express my concerns with the recent efforts by the House and Senate chambers to infringe upon my rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I want you to understand that I am legally responsible for my own defense.
We, as a society, expect someone else to defend and protect us. Isn’t it the job of the police officers to protect us? That which we fail to accept is that it is not. In fact, it is impossible for them to do so. On June 27, 2005, after hearing the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no right to police protection under the federal Constitution, thus upholding what is known as public-duty doctrine. The police do not exist to protect individuals directly; they exist only to perform the general duties of deterring crime by general patrol and also to investigate after a crime has been committed to detect the perpetrator. They do not have the resources to provide individual protection to those threatened with criminal attack.
What this means is that I am the one legally responsible to defend and protect myself and my family. With the efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to strip Americans of defensive firearms, how will I be able to defend and protect myself and family? With brooms, mops, and feather dusters? I prefer the firearms that I have today that will give me the advantage required for me to meet my legal responsibility.
In summary, as a law-abiding American citizen I am deeply concerned and fearful of what our elected officials are trying to legislate in Congress. I recommend that all elected officials read and refresh their memory on the content of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to focus your legislative efforts on addressing the problems plaguing the mental health system, not the Second Amendment.
As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, then I cannot support you in future elections and will seek another candidate that will fight for my rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
I am writing to express my concerns with the recent onslaught of Gun Control legislation introduced in the House and Senate chambers. The legislation introduced by some lawmakers seriously infringes on my rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I would like to address:
H.R. 21, NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. James Moran, D-VA. This would require background checks for every gun purchase, require background checks on gun shop employees, bar those on the terrorist watch list from buying firearms, require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen, and establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits.
* This is nothing more than a legislation “blitz” effort by the anti-gun legislators to sway public opinion against law-abiding gunowners and to infringe upon the Second Amendment. These requirements are already addressed in existing laws. Enforce the existing laws, don’t waste time creating new ones.
H.R. 65, Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. This would raise the age of Handgun Eligibility to 21 and prohibit youth from possessing semi-automatic weapons.
* Handgun Eligibility is already 21 years of age. Also, youths already cannot legally own/purchase semi-automatic weapons, etc. when under the age of 18. Enforce the existing laws, don’t waste time creating new ones.
H.R. 133, Citizens Protection Act, Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. This would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes illegal the possession of a gun on school grounds or within 1,000 feet of a school.
* This legislation is one of the few coming out Congress that makes sense. Repealing this law would allow school teachers and administrators the ability to legally carry firearms to protect students from criminal and mentally ill persons that want to harm our children.
H.R. 321, Firearm Safety and Public Health Research Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. This would amend the continuing resolution to add money for research into gun violence.
* Will this taxpayer money be used to research why video games depicting gun violence, blood, gore, etc. are specifically targeted towards are children? Will this taxpayer money be used to research why Hollywood glorifies gun violence, blood, gore, etc. in the movies specifically targeted towards the American people?
H.R. 141, The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. This would require criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows.
* Is the Federal Government going to fund/provide free FBI NICS Background Checks for law-abiding citizens to utilize when legally selling their firearm to another individual? Or is this another example of the Federal Government forcing the America people to purchase something as in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
H.R. 137, Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. This would require background checks for every gun sale, make sure that those barred from buying firearms are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
* FBI NICS checks are already required for the legal purchase of firearms at gun stores that have Federal Firearms Licenses. Are you going to finally address the issue of requiring the Mental Health Care agencies and law enforcement agencies to identify persons with mental disorders, as well as persons that are the subject of Protection Orders and convictions of Domestic Violence to be identified in the NICS database? If so, I applaud the effort.
S. 22, A Bill to Establish Background Checks Procedures for Gun Shows, Sponsor: Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. This would ensure that those who buy guns at gun shows undergo background checks.
* Is the Federal Government going to fund/provide free FBI NICS Background Checks for law-abiding citizens to utilize when legally selling their firearm to another individual? Or is this another example of the Federal Government forcing the America people to purchase something as in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
Senate Assault Weapons Bill, Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. This bill would stop the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic.
* This is nothing more than an assault on law-abiding American citizen’s right to own guns under the Second Amendment. Senator Feinstein's measure would exempt weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel. Is this a precursor to effectively disarming the American people and paving the way for wholesale government tyranny?
In summary, as a law-abiding American citizen I am deeply concerned and fearful of what our elected officials are trying to legislate in Congress. I recommend that all elected officials read and refresh their memory on the content of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to focus your legislative efforts on addressing the problems plaguing the mental health system, not the Second Amendment.
As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, I cannot support you in future elections.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
I am writing to express my concerns with the recent speech from the President of the United States, concerning Executive Orders and Gun Control.
After reviewing the 23 Executive Orders signed by the President, I applaud all 23 as efforts to curb Gun Violence in America. After reviewing the Gun Control proposals, I take issue. Specifically, I would like to address my concerns with:
– The President of The United States wants to require universal background checks (background checks on anyone who would buy a gun, whether in stores or at auctions and conventions).
* This is only an inconvenience to law-abiding citizens and will have no effect whatsoever on criminals who are already bypassing through theft, or other means to acquire firearms to commit crimes against defenseless citizens. It is my opinion the focus should be on prosecuting individuals that commit “straw purchases” and provide firearms to criminals instead of making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms to protect their homes and family. They should focus on law enforcement and judicial agencies identifying individuals in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database when they are the subject of a Protection Order or convicted of Domestic Violence, Felonies, etc. This way they WILL NOT be approved at the point of sale when trying to acquire a firearm. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to purchase a firearm.
– The President of The United States wants to restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons"
*This is a resumption of a previously misguided and failed effort to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and infringed on law-abiding citizens for 10 years. It is nothing more than another method of disarming law-abiding citizens and making them virtually defenseless against criminals who will still carry such weapons, not to mention that banning them is an infringement on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Many of these weapons are now the most popular choice for hunting, Civilian Marksmanship Program(CMP) competition and recreational shooting, as well as self-defense, which all have absolutely nothing to do with the "military", as the name erroneously implies. The term "Assault Weapon" is a fallacy created by opponents of the Second Amendment. For the record, an assault weapon is capable of fully-automatic or burst fire, meaning multiple bullets fired by one pull of the trigger. The term was applied to semi-automatic weapons as a scare tactic to mislead unknowing Americans to back their cause. Reality is that semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance account for less than one percent of guns used in crimes here in the United States. They are no more or less deadly, no more or less likely to be used in crime than any other firearm. Banning them would be a direct violation of our rights given by God and reinforced by The Second Amendment. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to own a firearm.
– The President of The United States wants to ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds.
*This is just another attempt to deprive law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves against criminals. A reduction of legal magazine capacity would potentially cause more injuries or deaths than it would save. First of all, a criminal determined to kill will not abide by any magazine capacity ban. Second, if all a criminal has available is ten round capacity magazines, they will take as many of them as they can carry and be well-versed in changing them out quickly to carry out his crime. Finally, firearms serve as legitimate tools for the protection of lives. A father defending his family during a home intrusion may find himself facing the criminal that chooses to ignore the magazine ban. Reducing the number of rounds he has to defend his family would be akin to putting shorter fire hoses on our fire trucks. Additionally, I have to ask if the President would be willing to equip the Secret Service details that protect him and his spouse and children with the same type of firearms and the same magazine capacities as he is prepared to allow the public to use to protect their families. If he is not willing to equip the secret service that way, then he should make a public announcement as to why he feels that the lives of himself and his family are more important than any other citizen. The American people have a God given right to keep and bear arms for their protection, and full capacity magazines are a common-sense component of the Second Amendment. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to own a firearm with a magazine capacity sufficient to protect their home and family.
– The President of The United States wants tougher penalties on people who sell firearms to people who aren't allowed to have firearms.
*I understand the importance of prosecuting those who break firearm laws in regards to the illegal purchase of firearms. However, there are already sufficient penalties for purchasing/possessing a firearm for a Felon. The problem we face is “prosecutorial discretion” meaning it’s ultimately the decision of the prosecuting attorney to prosecute, or not prosecute someone that has broken the law. How can you get “tough” when the prosecutor has the discretion to not prosecute at all? A recent example was the incident with NBC Meet the Press Host David Gregory. Mr Gregory flagrantly violated District of Columbia law by possessing a prohibited firearm magazine in the District of Columbia. Prior to taping the interview, he was specifically told it was a violation of D.C. law to possess the magazine within the confines of the District of Columbia. He chose to violate D.C. law and showed the firearm magazine on national television. When law-abiding citizens brought it to the attention of the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and petitioned the White House to address the issue, the Attorney General of the District of Columbia declined to prosecute citing “prosecutorial discretion.” Another example is the botched Operation Fast and Furious. As you know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) violated Federal Law by allowing "Straw Purchases" to occur and allowing over 2000 firearms to "walk" to the country of Mexico, into the hands of drug cartels, with hundreds of Mexican citizens murdered to date. As you know, one of these weapons was used to kill US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry while he was on duty fighting illegal immigration. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in Contempt of Congress for not being forthcoming on providing Congress with answers and documents concerning Fast and Furious. To this day we still have no one brought to justice. It makes me question whether the government is serious about getting tough on those who violate existing firearm laws. Bottomline: If you are going to get tough then focus on existing firearm laws and do it.
- The President of The United States wants to protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
*This is another example of infringing on law-abiding citizens to purchase ammunition for their legally owned firearms. Body Armor is not the same as Armor Plating on vehicles, etc. “Armor Piercing” is typically addressed in the context of defeating Armor Plating. Most so called "Armor Piercing" bullets are not armor piercing, at all. Additionally, most popular rifle cartridges used for hunting are already capable of piercing most standard body armor, even though they are not "armor piercing" by technical definition. By making this proposal, the President is hinting that he wants the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition to be expanded in order to halt importation of certain types of economically viable surplus ammunition. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to purchase economically viable ammunition for legally owned firearms used to protect their home and family.
- The President of The United States wants to give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
*The most effective tool available to prevent crime is an armed citizen. Remember, in the majority of occurrences where police are called, they're only a reactionary AFTER the crime has already happened. Address the issue of “Prosecutorial Discretion” and start putting criminals and felons in jail where they belong. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens by taking the tools they use to prevent crime when protecting their home and family.
- The President of The United States wants to make our schools safer with more school resource officers, school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
*Make schools safer by abolishing gun free zones and encouraging Independent School Districts to hire armed guards when funds are available. As Americans continue to search for answers to the Newtown shooting, attitudes on gun ownership are “not likely to change in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens by taking the tools they could use to prevent crime occurring in schools, in their neighborhoods, and when protecting their home and family.
In summary, two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a firearm was intended to ensure their freedom. The majority of the President's proposals are intended to take away my Second Amendment rights which ultimately subject the American Citizen to tyranny.
As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, I cannot support you in future elections.
Respectfully,
Your Name
Dear Elected Official,
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose any legislation to ban so-called "assault weapons" and "large" ammunition magazines.
A previous ban on these inanimate objects was in effect from 1994-2004 and had no discernible effect on violent crime. In fact, a study of the ban mandated by Congress found: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."
Tens of millions of Americans choose to own semi-automatic firearms with ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for the same reason as law enforcement officers: they are effective for self-defense. One never knows how many rounds he or she will need for self-defense or defense of others, or how many criminals may attack. Thus having a firearm that allows its lawful user to discharge multiple shots can often be the difference between life and death. In fact, a number of studies have shown that firearms are used for self-defense hundreds of thousands of times to 2.5 million times annually. This amounts to guns being used 3-5 times more often for self-defense than to commit a crime.
Rather than expanding previously failed legislation that won't curb violence, but will affect law-abiding gun owners, I urge you to support legislation to enhance school security and improve our nation’s ailing mental health system.
Please reply to me indicating your position on Sen. Feinstein's most recent proposal. If you cannot support me on this issue, then I cannot support you in future elections.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
A few days ago I wrote to you to express my concerns with the Obama Administration’s desire to enact new Gun Control legislation in reaction to the recent tragedy in Newton Connecticut. All Americans mourn the loss of innocent young lives, but at the same time we still embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers gave us in the US Constitution.
With the recent tragedies committed by deranged individuals, all law-abiding citizens and permanent residents of the United States now face renewed challenges to their Constitutional rights. I truly understand how painful the loss must be for those at the heart of these recent tragedies, I have children of my own and would truly be at a loss if this happened to my family too, however blaming inanimate objects or their owners, and punishing the owners via additional statutes is not the answer to these challenges we face as a nation.
If your true goal is to protect our children, we must reevaluate our nation's system for treating mental illness. Unfortunately, too often mental illness goes undiagnosed and untreated. We must focus on increasing public awareness of the symptoms of mental illness and on improving access to mental health services, with a goal of identifying and treating mental illness earlier on in those it affects. We must have a national database for our health professionals (Doctors, Psychologists, and Psychiatrists). This database should be part of the FBI NICS background check. We also need to put armed security guards in our schools. We put Air Marshals on civilian aircraft after 9/11. Why can’t we do this for our public schools?
The issue of Gun Violence can be addressed without stripping law-abiding citizens of our Constitutional rights and personal property by passing additional statutes that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.
I ask you again to reflect on our gun laws and future bills thoughtfully, as the consequences of your decisions will affect the civil rights of every inhabitant within our United States of America. As a constituent, I can make this promise to you…I will donate time and money for campaigns in every upcoming election. I will donate time and money to participate in every grass roots effort to defend the Second Amendment. I will donate time and money to pursue every legal course of action against those who attempt to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. If you cannot support me on this important matter, then I cannot support you representing me in the future.
Thank you for your time.
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
It is my understanding that the President of the United States has decided to take on the issue of Gun Rights for Americans as a result of the recent tragedy in Newtown Connecticut. The President has appointed the Vice President of the United States to lead an administration-wide effort to curb gun violence in America, and has vowed to use “whatever power this office holds” in efforts to prevent “more tragedies like this” referring to the massacre that occurred in Newtown Connecticut.
The Mainstream Media continues to portray that all Americans are asking for gun control as a result of the massacre in Newtown Connecticut. That is not true. A recent Gallup Poll showed Americans feel that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. I encourage you to research this as you draft the way-ahead on curbing gun violence in America.
As my elected official, you will undoubtedly be asked to participate on committee in order to draft a way-ahead to solve the problem of gun violence in America. As my elected officials, you will undoubtedly be asked to vote on potential bill(s) that may affect my gun rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, the Second Amendment which reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
As a law-abiding citizen of the United States of America, it is imperative that you not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution written by the Founding Fathers. It is your responsibility as my elected official to dutifully represent the will of The People, correctly interpret The United States Constitution, and diligently reflect on court cases throughout our proud history as you draft the way-ahead to curb gun violence.
There are approximately 65 million gun owners in the United States who enjoy the protection of our Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment protects their right and the right of every citizen to legally own and operate guns. This right has been protected in courts over the course of a hundred plus years.
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Court also recognized that the right pre-existed the Constitution. Most recently in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment, which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, also applies to state and local governments.
Since our inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot exercise those rights if we are not safe. Self-protection and the ability to fight against tyranny are core values our Founding Fathers believed and embedded within The Constitution. They envisioned a citizenry that must protect itself. The Second Amendment guarantees my right to protect myself and my family.
Attempts to institute a Ban on certain types of weapons is nothing short of telling the American People what type of guns they can own as it pertains to the Second Amendment. What will you do next? Tell the American People what kind of religion they can practice as it pertains to the First Amendment?
Those who oppose our Second Amendment would like for us to believe in a government that protects its people. They would like to strip peaceful citizens of their basic right to safety in an attempt to achieve safe neighborhoods. However, a vibrant democracy demands that we protect ourselves, because we are the embodiment of democracy and government is but our tool. Further regulating gun ownership only affects law-abiding citizens, resulting in criminals operating guns.
As a law-abiding citizen of this great land, it must be said that the focus should rest upon education and the enforcement of current laws. Gun safety education has lowered accidental deaths to less than 1% of all accidental deaths. Therefore, those who willingly use guns irresponsibly must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
As it can be seen, there are choices we must face individually and as a nation. If we decide to give our government too much control, we will be making it an arbiter for determining our fate instead of helping us to determine our own fate. Restricting every citizen’s freedom is a dangerous proposition with grave consequences.
Do we want a larger government that envelopes our lives in the name of safety or do we want a smart government that helps teach us to be responsible and free? Some people believe that we can only be safe when government inhibits our basic freedom, making it harder to protect ourselves. This is a government that evades issues of personal responsibility, holds the actions of criminals against those who are law-abiding, and regulates our lives for us.
Our other choice is that we fashion a smart government that helps teach us to be responsible and free. The millions of Americans who support this view believe that we can only be safe when we are informed of the issues and make decisions for ourselves. These Americans know the danger of fashioning a powerful government and a weak citizenry. Reflect on the war that was fought against England to attain our freedom; remember what risks our Founding Fathers took to obtain a free society and a government that was not intrusive.
I ask you, which government would you rather fashion? Which government helps you to be free?
Reflect on our gun laws and future bills thoughtfully, as the consequences of your decisions will affect the civil rights of every inhabitant within our United States of America. As a constituent, I can make this promise to you…I will donate time and money for campaigns in every upcoming election. I will donate time and money to participate in every grass roots effort to defend the Second Amendment. I will donate time and money to pursue every legal course of action against those who attempt to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
Dear Elected Official,
I am writing to express my concerns with the recent efforts by the House and Senate chambers to infringe upon my rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I want you to understand that I am legally responsible for my own defense.
We, as a society, expect someone else to defend and protect us. Isn’t it the job of the police officers to protect us? That which we fail to accept is that it is not. In fact, it is impossible for them to do so. On June 27, 2005, after hearing the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no right to police protection under the federal Constitution, thus upholding what is known as public-duty doctrine. The police do not exist to protect individuals directly; they exist only to perform the general duties of deterring crime by general patrol and also to investigate after a crime has been committed to detect the perpetrator. They do not have the resources to provide individual protection to those threatened with criminal attack.
What this means is that I am the one legally responsible to defend and protect myself and my family. With the efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to strip Americans of defensive firearms, how will I be able to defend and protect myself and family? With brooms, mops, and feather dusters? I prefer the firearms that I have today that will give me the advantage required for me to meet my legal responsibility.
In summary, as a law-abiding American citizen I am deeply concerned and fearful of what our elected officials are trying to legislate in Congress. I recommend that all elected officials read and refresh their memory on the content of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to focus your legislative efforts on addressing the problems plaguing the mental health system, not the Second Amendment.
As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, then I cannot support you in future elections and will seek another candidate that will fight for my rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
I am writing to express my concerns with the recent onslaught of Gun Control legislation introduced in the House and Senate chambers. The legislation introduced by some lawmakers seriously infringes on my rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I would like to address:
H.R. 21, NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. James Moran, D-VA. This would require background checks for every gun purchase, require background checks on gun shop employees, bar those on the terrorist watch list from buying firearms, require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen, and establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits.
* This is nothing more than a legislation “blitz” effort by the anti-gun legislators to sway public opinion against law-abiding gunowners and to infringe upon the Second Amendment. These requirements are already addressed in existing laws. Enforce the existing laws, don’t waste time creating new ones.
H.R. 65, Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. This would raise the age of Handgun Eligibility to 21 and prohibit youth from possessing semi-automatic weapons.
* Handgun Eligibility is already 21 years of age. Also, youths already cannot legally own/purchase semi-automatic weapons, etc. when under the age of 18. Enforce the existing laws, don’t waste time creating new ones.
H.R. 133, Citizens Protection Act, Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. This would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes illegal the possession of a gun on school grounds or within 1,000 feet of a school.
* This legislation is one of the few coming out Congress that makes sense. Repealing this law would allow school teachers and administrators the ability to legally carry firearms to protect students from criminal and mentally ill persons that want to harm our children.
H.R. 321, Firearm Safety and Public Health Research Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. This would amend the continuing resolution to add money for research into gun violence.
* Will this taxpayer money be used to research why video games depicting gun violence, blood, gore, etc. are specifically targeted towards are children? Will this taxpayer money be used to research why Hollywood glorifies gun violence, blood, gore, etc. in the movies specifically targeted towards the American people?
H.R. 141, The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. This would require criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows.
* Is the Federal Government going to fund/provide free FBI NICS Background Checks for law-abiding citizens to utilize when legally selling their firearm to another individual? Or is this another example of the Federal Government forcing the America people to purchase something as in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
H.R. 137, Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. This would require background checks for every gun sale, make sure that those barred from buying firearms are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
* FBI NICS checks are already required for the legal purchase of firearms at gun stores that have Federal Firearms Licenses. Are you going to finally address the issue of requiring the Mental Health Care agencies and law enforcement agencies to identify persons with mental disorders, as well as persons that are the subject of Protection Orders and convictions of Domestic Violence to be identified in the NICS database? If so, I applaud the effort.
S. 22, A Bill to Establish Background Checks Procedures for Gun Shows, Sponsor: Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. This would ensure that those who buy guns at gun shows undergo background checks.
* Is the Federal Government going to fund/provide free FBI NICS Background Checks for law-abiding citizens to utilize when legally selling their firearm to another individual? Or is this another example of the Federal Government forcing the America people to purchase something as in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
Senate Assault Weapons Bill, Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. This bill would stop the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic.
* This is nothing more than an assault on law-abiding American citizen’s right to own guns under the Second Amendment. Senator Feinstein's measure would exempt weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel. Is this a precursor to effectively disarming the American people and paving the way for wholesale government tyranny?
In summary, as a law-abiding American citizen I am deeply concerned and fearful of what our elected officials are trying to legislate in Congress. I recommend that all elected officials read and refresh their memory on the content of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to focus your legislative efforts on addressing the problems plaguing the mental health system, not the Second Amendment.
As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, I cannot support you in future elections.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
I am writing to express my concerns with the recent speech from the President of the United States, concerning Executive Orders and Gun Control.
After reviewing the 23 Executive Orders signed by the President, I applaud all 23 as efforts to curb Gun Violence in America. After reviewing the Gun Control proposals, I take issue. Specifically, I would like to address my concerns with:
– The President of The United States wants to require universal background checks (background checks on anyone who would buy a gun, whether in stores or at auctions and conventions).
* This is only an inconvenience to law-abiding citizens and will have no effect whatsoever on criminals who are already bypassing through theft, or other means to acquire firearms to commit crimes against defenseless citizens. It is my opinion the focus should be on prosecuting individuals that commit “straw purchases” and provide firearms to criminals instead of making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms to protect their homes and family. They should focus on law enforcement and judicial agencies identifying individuals in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database when they are the subject of a Protection Order or convicted of Domestic Violence, Felonies, etc. This way they WILL NOT be approved at the point of sale when trying to acquire a firearm. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to purchase a firearm.
– The President of The United States wants to restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons"
*This is a resumption of a previously misguided and failed effort to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and infringed on law-abiding citizens for 10 years. It is nothing more than another method of disarming law-abiding citizens and making them virtually defenseless against criminals who will still carry such weapons, not to mention that banning them is an infringement on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Many of these weapons are now the most popular choice for hunting, Civilian Marksmanship Program(CMP) competition and recreational shooting, as well as self-defense, which all have absolutely nothing to do with the "military", as the name erroneously implies. The term "Assault Weapon" is a fallacy created by opponents of the Second Amendment. For the record, an assault weapon is capable of fully-automatic or burst fire, meaning multiple bullets fired by one pull of the trigger. The term was applied to semi-automatic weapons as a scare tactic to mislead unknowing Americans to back their cause. Reality is that semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance account for less than one percent of guns used in crimes here in the United States. They are no more or less deadly, no more or less likely to be used in crime than any other firearm. Banning them would be a direct violation of our rights given by God and reinforced by The Second Amendment. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to own a firearm.
– The President of The United States wants to ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds.
*This is just another attempt to deprive law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves against criminals. A reduction of legal magazine capacity would potentially cause more injuries or deaths than it would save. First of all, a criminal determined to kill will not abide by any magazine capacity ban. Second, if all a criminal has available is ten round capacity magazines, they will take as many of them as they can carry and be well-versed in changing them out quickly to carry out his crime. Finally, firearms serve as legitimate tools for the protection of lives. A father defending his family during a home intrusion may find himself facing the criminal that chooses to ignore the magazine ban. Reducing the number of rounds he has to defend his family would be akin to putting shorter fire hoses on our fire trucks. Additionally, I have to ask if the President would be willing to equip the Secret Service details that protect him and his spouse and children with the same type of firearms and the same magazine capacities as he is prepared to allow the public to use to protect their families. If he is not willing to equip the secret service that way, then he should make a public announcement as to why he feels that the lives of himself and his family are more important than any other citizen. The American people have a God given right to keep and bear arms for their protection, and full capacity magazines are a common-sense component of the Second Amendment. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to own a firearm with a magazine capacity sufficient to protect their home and family.
– The President of The United States wants tougher penalties on people who sell firearms to people who aren't allowed to have firearms.
*I understand the importance of prosecuting those who break firearm laws in regards to the illegal purchase of firearms. However, there are already sufficient penalties for purchasing/possessing a firearm for a Felon. The problem we face is “prosecutorial discretion” meaning it’s ultimately the decision of the prosecuting attorney to prosecute, or not prosecute someone that has broken the law. How can you get “tough” when the prosecutor has the discretion to not prosecute at all? A recent example was the incident with NBC Meet the Press Host David Gregory. Mr Gregory flagrantly violated District of Columbia law by possessing a prohibited firearm magazine in the District of Columbia. Prior to taping the interview, he was specifically told it was a violation of D.C. law to possess the magazine within the confines of the District of Columbia. He chose to violate D.C. law and showed the firearm magazine on national television. When law-abiding citizens brought it to the attention of the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and petitioned the White House to address the issue, the Attorney General of the District of Columbia declined to prosecute citing “prosecutorial discretion.” Another example is the botched Operation Fast and Furious. As you know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) violated Federal Law by allowing "Straw Purchases" to occur and allowing over 2000 firearms to "walk" to the country of Mexico, into the hands of drug cartels, with hundreds of Mexican citizens murdered to date. As you know, one of these weapons was used to kill US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry while he was on duty fighting illegal immigration. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in Contempt of Congress for not being forthcoming on providing Congress with answers and documents concerning Fast and Furious. To this day we still have no one brought to justice. It makes me question whether the government is serious about getting tough on those who violate existing firearm laws. Bottomline: If you are going to get tough then focus on existing firearm laws and do it.
- The President of The United States wants to protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
*This is another example of infringing on law-abiding citizens to purchase ammunition for their legally owned firearms. Body Armor is not the same as Armor Plating on vehicles, etc. “Armor Piercing” is typically addressed in the context of defeating Armor Plating. Most so called "Armor Piercing" bullets are not armor piercing, at all. Additionally, most popular rifle cartridges used for hunting are already capable of piercing most standard body armor, even though they are not "armor piercing" by technical definition. By making this proposal, the President is hinting that he wants the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition to be expanded in order to halt importation of certain types of economically viable surplus ammunition. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens rights to purchase economically viable ammunition for legally owned firearms used to protect their home and family.
- The President of The United States wants to give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
*The most effective tool available to prevent crime is an armed citizen. Remember, in the majority of occurrences where police are called, they're only a reactionary AFTER the crime has already happened. Address the issue of “Prosecutorial Discretion” and start putting criminals and felons in jail where they belong. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens by taking the tools they use to prevent crime when protecting their home and family.
- The President of The United States wants to make our schools safer with more school resource officers, school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
*Make schools safer by abolishing gun free zones and encouraging Independent School Districts to hire armed guards when funds are available. As Americans continue to search for answers to the Newtown shooting, attitudes on gun ownership are “not likely to change in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard. Bottomline: Don’t infringe on law-abiding citizens by taking the tools they could use to prevent crime occurring in schools, in their neighborhoods, and when protecting their home and family.
In summary, two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a firearm was intended to ensure their freedom. The majority of the President's proposals are intended to take away my Second Amendment rights which ultimately subject the American Citizen to tyranny.
As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, I cannot support you in future elections.
Respectfully,
Your Name
Dear Elected Official,
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose any legislation to ban so-called "assault weapons" and "large" ammunition magazines.
A previous ban on these inanimate objects was in effect from 1994-2004 and had no discernible effect on violent crime. In fact, a study of the ban mandated by Congress found: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."
Tens of millions of Americans choose to own semi-automatic firearms with ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for the same reason as law enforcement officers: they are effective for self-defense. One never knows how many rounds he or she will need for self-defense or defense of others, or how many criminals may attack. Thus having a firearm that allows its lawful user to discharge multiple shots can often be the difference between life and death. In fact, a number of studies have shown that firearms are used for self-defense hundreds of thousands of times to 2.5 million times annually. This amounts to guns being used 3-5 times more often for self-defense than to commit a crime.
Rather than expanding previously failed legislation that won't curb violence, but will affect law-abiding gun owners, I urge you to support legislation to enhance school security and improve our nation’s ailing mental health system.
Please reply to me indicating your position on Sen. Feinstein's most recent proposal. If you cannot support me on this issue, then I cannot support you in future elections.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
A few days ago I wrote to you to express my concerns with the Obama Administration’s desire to enact new Gun Control legislation in reaction to the recent tragedy in Newton Connecticut. All Americans mourn the loss of innocent young lives, but at the same time we still embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers gave us in the US Constitution.
With the recent tragedies committed by deranged individuals, all law-abiding citizens and permanent residents of the United States now face renewed challenges to their Constitutional rights. I truly understand how painful the loss must be for those at the heart of these recent tragedies, I have children of my own and would truly be at a loss if this happened to my family too, however blaming inanimate objects or their owners, and punishing the owners via additional statutes is not the answer to these challenges we face as a nation.
If your true goal is to protect our children, we must reevaluate our nation's system for treating mental illness. Unfortunately, too often mental illness goes undiagnosed and untreated. We must focus on increasing public awareness of the symptoms of mental illness and on improving access to mental health services, with a goal of identifying and treating mental illness earlier on in those it affects. We must have a national database for our health professionals (Doctors, Psychologists, and Psychiatrists). This database should be part of the FBI NICS background check. We also need to put armed security guards in our schools. We put Air Marshals on civilian aircraft after 9/11. Why can’t we do this for our public schools?
The issue of Gun Violence can be addressed without stripping law-abiding citizens of our Constitutional rights and personal property by passing additional statutes that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.
I ask you again to reflect on our gun laws and future bills thoughtfully, as the consequences of your decisions will affect the civil rights of every inhabitant within our United States of America. As a constituent, I can make this promise to you…I will donate time and money for campaigns in every upcoming election. I will donate time and money to participate in every grass roots effort to defend the Second Amendment. I will donate time and money to pursue every legal course of action against those who attempt to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. If you cannot support me on this important matter, then I cannot support you representing me in the future.
Thank you for your time.
YOUR NAME
Dear Elected Official,
It is my understanding that the President of the United States has decided to take on the issue of Gun Rights for Americans as a result of the recent tragedy in Newtown Connecticut. The President has appointed the Vice President of the United States to lead an administration-wide effort to curb gun violence in America, and has vowed to use “whatever power this office holds” in efforts to prevent “more tragedies like this” referring to the massacre that occurred in Newtown Connecticut.
The Mainstream Media continues to portray that all Americans are asking for gun control as a result of the massacre in Newtown Connecticut. That is not true. A recent Gallup Poll showed Americans feel that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. I encourage you to research this as you draft the way-ahead on curbing gun violence in America.
As my elected official, you will undoubtedly be asked to participate on committee in order to draft a way-ahead to solve the problem of gun violence in America. As my elected officials, you will undoubtedly be asked to vote on potential bill(s) that may affect my gun rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, the Second Amendment which reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
As a law-abiding citizen of the United States of America, it is imperative that you not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution written by the Founding Fathers. It is your responsibility as my elected official to dutifully represent the will of The People, correctly interpret The United States Constitution, and diligently reflect on court cases throughout our proud history as you draft the way-ahead to curb gun violence.
There are approximately 65 million gun owners in the United States who enjoy the protection of our Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment protects their right and the right of every citizen to legally own and operate guns. This right has been protected in courts over the course of a hundred plus years.
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Court also recognized that the right pre-existed the Constitution. Most recently in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment, which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, also applies to state and local governments.
Since our inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot exercise those rights if we are not safe. Self-protection and the ability to fight against tyranny are core values our Founding Fathers believed and embedded within The Constitution. They envisioned a citizenry that must protect itself. The Second Amendment guarantees my right to protect myself and my family.
Attempts to institute a Ban on certain types of weapons is nothing short of telling the American People what type of guns they can own as it pertains to the Second Amendment. What will you do next? Tell the American People what kind of religion they can practice as it pertains to the First Amendment?
Those who oppose our Second Amendment would like for us to believe in a government that protects its people. They would like to strip peaceful citizens of their basic right to safety in an attempt to achieve safe neighborhoods. However, a vibrant democracy demands that we protect ourselves, because we are the embodiment of democracy and government is but our tool. Further regulating gun ownership only affects law-abiding citizens, resulting in criminals operating guns.
As a law-abiding citizen of this great land, it must be said that the focus should rest upon education and the enforcement of current laws. Gun safety education has lowered accidental deaths to less than 1% of all accidental deaths. Therefore, those who willingly use guns irresponsibly must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
As it can be seen, there are choices we must face individually and as a nation. If we decide to give our government too much control, we will be making it an arbiter for determining our fate instead of helping us to determine our own fate. Restricting every citizen’s freedom is a dangerous proposition with grave consequences.
Do we want a larger government that envelopes our lives in the name of safety or do we want a smart government that helps teach us to be responsible and free? Some people believe that we can only be safe when government inhibits our basic freedom, making it harder to protect ourselves. This is a government that evades issues of personal responsibility, holds the actions of criminals against those who are law-abiding, and regulates our lives for us.
Our other choice is that we fashion a smart government that helps teach us to be responsible and free. The millions of Americans who support this view believe that we can only be safe when we are informed of the issues and make decisions for ourselves. These Americans know the danger of fashioning a powerful government and a weak citizenry. Reflect on the war that was fought against England to attain our freedom; remember what risks our Founding Fathers took to obtain a free society and a government that was not intrusive.
I ask you, which government would you rather fashion? Which government helps you to be free?
Reflect on our gun laws and future bills thoughtfully, as the consequences of your decisions will affect the civil rights of every inhabitant within our United States of America. As a constituent, I can make this promise to you…I will donate time and money for campaigns in every upcoming election. I will donate time and money to participate in every grass roots effort to defend the Second Amendment. I will donate time and money to pursue every legal course of action against those who attempt to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME