LETTERS to counter 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban renewal

JB'z RKBA Cafe ^ | 5/8/2003 | Myself

[Joe Brower]

The media assault in preparation for the upcoming battle over the sunset or renewal of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban has begun. For an example, go HERE.

To counter this, last week I snail-mailed my two (crappy) senators (Nelson and Graham), my Rep (Katherine Harris), and President G.W. Bush letters which I include below for your copy-paste-and-edit convenience, along with a fourteen-page copy of David Kopel's excellent article (URL below). Please take the time NOW to do likewise!

THE RIGHTS YOU SAVE WILL BE YOUR OWN!

***

Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition, David Kopel, 1994

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

FREEREPUBLIC THREAD

***

THE LETTERS:

*** President George W. Bush ***

Dear President Bush;

I am writing to urge you to disavow any and all support for the renewal of the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994, which is due to automatically sunset in 2004 unless specifically resurrected by Congress. While there is a chance that this bill may never reach your desk, I must tell you that comments made recently by White House spokesman Scott McClellan have incensed many law-abiding firearms owners, people upon whom your narrow win in November of 2000 hinged. Personally, I worked my fingers to the bone to support your election as President, and if this political pandering is how my loyalty and support is to be rewarded, I will be forced to reconsider my vote in 2004, not to mention my affiliation with the Republican party itself.

Laws of this nature are a de facto vote of no confidence in the American people, and, as such offensive and in contradiction to the spirit of Liberty upon which this great nation was founded. The real truth behind this law is the fact that fear has been utilized to stigmatize and demonize a general class of firearms that are, in reality, no more "deadly" than common hunting rifles. The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" was and is an ill-advised, knee jerk reaction to crime, a farce perpetrated by anti-gun activists which has done nothing but confuse law abiding gun owners and law enforcement.

With this letter I have attached a 14-page essay by The Independence Institute's David Kopel, from a 1994 issue of The Journal of Contemporary Law. It is my hope that you will read it in order to come to a more informed conclusion regarding so-called "Assault Weapons".

Again, I urge you to let the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban sunset in 2004.

Respectfully,

*** Rep. Katherine Harris ***

Dear Ms. Harris;

I am writing to urge you to disavow any and all support for the renewal of the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994, which is due to automatically sunset in 2004 unless specifically resurrected by Congress. It is my understanding that Senator Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has recently introduced a bill for the continuance of this law. I strongly urge you to withhold your support from this bill should it reach the House, as well as any other efforts made in this regard.

Last November, I worked my fingers to the bone to support your election as House Representative of Florida's 13th Congressional District, and if the re-enactment of laws of this nature is how my loyalty and support is to be rewarded, I will be forced to reconsider my efforts and my vote in 2004, not to mention my affiliation with the Republican party itself.

Laws of this nature are a de facto vote of no confidence in the American people, and, as such offensive and in contradiction to the spirit of Liberty upon which this great nation was founded. The real truth behind this law is the fact that fear has been utilized to stigmatize and demonize a general class of firearms that are, in reality, no more "deadly" than common hunting rifles. The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" was and is an ill-advised, knee jerk reaction to crime, a farce perpetrated by anti-gun activists which has done nothing but confuse law abiding gun owners and law enforcement.

With this letter I have attached a 14-page essay by The Independence Institute's David Kopel, from a 1994 issue of The Journal of Contemporary Law. It is my hope that you will read it in order to come to a more informed conclusion regarding so-called "Assault Weapons".

Again, I urge you to let the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban sunset in 2004.

Respectfully,

*** U.S. Senators ***

Dear Senator Stalin;

I am writing to urge you to disavow any and all support for the renewal of the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994, which is due to automatically sunset in 2004 unless specifically resurrected by Congress. It is my understanding that Senator Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has recently introduced a bill for the continuance of this law. I strongly urge you to withhold your support from this and any other effort made in this regard.

Laws of this nature are a de facto vote of no confidence in the American people, and, as such offensive and in contradiction to the spirit of Liberty upon which this great nation was founded. The real truth behind this law is the fact that fear has been utilized to stigmatize and demonize a general class of firearms that are, in reality, no more "deadly" than common hunting rifles. The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" was and is an ill-advised, knee jerk reaction to crime, a farce perpetrated by anti-gun activists which has done nothing but confuse law abiding gun owners and law enforcement.

To highlight just one of the many ironies of this law, let me point out that twenty years ago, at the tender age of eighteen, I was somehow magically "anointed" when I entered the armed services and handed weapons of much more fearsome nature and capability than anything that can be bought here in the "land of the free" as a civilian, twenty years ago, when I was one-fourth a personally responsible as I am now. This is wrong, and this wrong must be rectified.

With this letter I have attached a 14-page essay by The Independence Institute's David Kopel, from a 1994 issue of The Journal of Contemporary Law. It is my hope that you will read it in order to come to a more informed conclusion regarding so-called "Assault Weapons".

Again, I urge you to let the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban sunset in 2004.

Respectfully,

[TheAngryClam]

My senators are Dianne "Concealed Carry Permit Holder" Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and my congressman is Henry Waxman.

Writing them will do no good. I did write the White House though.

The worst part is even when this stupid law sunsets, California's ban, which is far, far worse than the federal ban, will still be in effect.

[RobbyS]

Why should any private citizen own a weapon of war,comparable to the old "tommy gun," except under very controlled conditions? Exceptions would be member of the Guard or active reserve.

[Aric2000]

yo, Robby, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Go back to DU, unless of course you were being sarcastic.

[oyez]

legislaioon = legislation (note to self: fire the proofreader)

[BlessingInDisguise]

A rock is a "weapon of war".

You may not like shooting, but that doesn't give you any right to infringe upon other's rights.

[Fearless Flyers]

The 2nd Amendment warns because of the necessity for the State to keep a well regulated Militia, our right to keep and bear Arms, when the States fails to regulate and control that Militia, will not be infringed.

When the government decides to promote a foreign invasion force protected by work visas that amount to ¼ of the amount of unemployed Americans. The government has good reason to believe “We the People” may just decide to exercise our power under the 2nd amendment to return our Government to the People and eliminate that foreign invasion force.

Maybe I'm not the right person to start mailing letters

[RobbyS]

And where do you get the idea that the Congress cannot regulate the use of military weapons? I have gave doubts about their right to regulate hand-guns, precisely because these are instrument of personal defense. But obviously some weapons are not meant for private use. I think we can agree that even heavy weapons are no threat to the Republic, having just seen what our military is capable of,and I think that individuals might be allowed their "Toys" in shooting clubs. But I don't buy the unrestricted right. You would have to convince me that the law as written is essentially arbitrary.

[Joe Brower]

"Maybe I'm not the right person to start mailing letters."

LOL! Yeah, ya don't want to scare 'em! That's why I posted my letters as samples. Just copy, paste and mail. Hell, the people they're addressed to don't really read them anyway -- that what they have all those taxpayer-funded flunkies for!

[Joe Brower]

"Why should any private citizen own a weapon of war, comparable to the old "tommy gun," except under very controlled conditions?"

I have a question for you. Why was it A-OK in the eyes of people like yourself for me, at age 18, to be given a belt-fed .50 caliber machine gun with no restrictions and no supervision, and now that I am twice that age and ten times as personally responsible, suddenly it's a bad thing?

[Fearless Flyers]

The 2nd amendment is clearly a warning to the government and a tool for the People to protect themselves from the Government. This is why the words “shall not be infringed” were placed at the end of the sentence, to keep Congress from regulating a defensive weapon meant to protect the People from an oppressive Government.

Their will always be lilly livered people afraid to stand up for themselves but they have no right to keep the brave and free from defending themselves. It is precisely because the Government can build a stealth bomber, That I can keep AAA in my driveway.

In 1786 not long before the opening of the Constitutional Convention there was a Civil Uprising called the Shays’ Rebellion in the New England States. The Convention, Congress and State legislatures were quite aware of the possibility of Rebellion. Shays’ Rebellion was discussed during the Convention and in Congress and State legislatures during the debates over the Constitution. Still even with the threat of Rebellion the States returned their Ratification of the Constitution with a demand that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” to the Constitution. Out of this demand came the “Bill of Rights” with the 2nd amendment and the warning that the power of “We the People” “shall not be infringed”.

[in the Arena]

Way to go guys in making my point for me!

Regardless of who is responsible, the fact remains that the bill needs to sunset. Following Joe's lead will help towards that end. Making a point about the past will not.

[RobbyS]

For every right there is an attendent duty. Reproductive rights are matched by the duty to nurture the child. The spliting of rights and duties result in the absurdity of unfettered liberty to abort or to own an atomic bomband the means of delivering it? Because that is what you must have if you insist on rebelling against the US government.

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[RobbyS]

Why was it A-OK in the eyes of people like yourself for me, at age 18, to be given a belt-fed .50 caliber machine gun with no restrictions and no supervision, and now that I am twice that age and ten times as personally responsible, suddenly it's a bad thing? No restrictions and no supervision? My son, who is an officer in the army, says that it is his JOB to set restrictions and to supervise. Training and discipline was the difference between the Romans and the Gauls, and today between American and Arab armies.

[Joe Brower]

The USMC did things differently in 1980.

Incidentally, you didn't answer my question.

[PatrioticAmerican]

No letters needed. Bush signs it, he is out. Period.

This is a single issue for many people and Bush would blow many votes if he signs it.

[kidao35]

The issue is not whether there are already restrictions on our rights, but whether there is a compelling interest that is served by such restrictions. For example, we all know the shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater is not protected under the 1st Amendment, because the compelling interest lies in protecting the health and well-being of other patrons in the movie theater. In the case of the Assault Weapons Ban, there is no compelling interest served.

Now let me proceed to the arbitrary nature of the 'assault weapons' ban. This law is so arbitrary, the lawyers in Congress had to first invent the term 'assault weapon', then go about banning it. Contrary to what you may believe, this is NOT a machine gun, or assault rifle, or any other weapon capable of firing more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. The term 'assault weapon' was specifically coined by the anti-gun crowd to cause such confusion.

An 'assault weapon' is any semi-automatic (i.e. ONE trigger pull, ONE shot) rifle with a pistol grip, a detachable magazine, and one or more of the following features. I will point out the silliness of banning each feature.

1) flash suppressor - redirects flash; serves to keep the shooter from blinding him/herself while firing in low-light conditions. Does not hide flash from others.

2) bayonet lug - when was the last time a bayonet was used in the commission of a crime?

3) Collapsable stock - allows stock length to be adjusted to suit shooter's size and arm length

4) grenade launcher - grenades themselves are illegal/destructive devices. See comment about bayonet lug.

The Dept of Justice was required to do a study in 1997 to determine the effectiveness of this ban. The problem was that before and after the ban, 'assault weapons' had been used in less than 1% of gun crimes. No conclusion as to the effectiveness of the law could be drawn. The agreement was to study the issue again in 2000. No follow up study ever took place.

What it boils down to is getting the public used to the idea of silly, ineffective laws that whittle away at their rights while creating more silly laws for a growing bureaucracy to manage.

It seems to me the BATF would be better off looking for terrorists with smuggled in machine guns and explosives, than worrying about whether the bayonet lug on your post-ban rifle has been sufficiently ground off, or whether said rifle has a real or fake collapsable stock.

[Fearless Flyers]

The splitting of rights and duties result in the absurdity of unfettered liberty

What kind of gibberish is that crap, you obviously don’t believe in the Constitution. It takes very little comprehension skills to understand what the 2nd amendment means, and it does separate rights and duties in one simple sentence.

The 2nd amendment announces the duty of the States to keep a well regulated Militia and the right of the People to keep and bear Arms should that militia or the governments become corrupt.

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.

Read it, understand it, and go hide under your bed.

[El Gato]

Senator Stalin

??? A senator from Georgia no doubt? :)

[RobbyS]

I don't "believe" in the Constitution as one might believe in the Bible. At bottom it is an instrument of government, generally defining the rights of that government. and like all legal instruments subject to manipulation and change. Lik a peace treaty it looks forward to the next war. Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton expected it to last for more than 20 years. They would be astounded that we still feel bound, even to a limited extent by its language.