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,

[Joe Brower]

Good stuff, El Gato.

If one simply steps back for a moment and considers the question, it's plain to see that, if George Washington and his contemporaries were alive today, they'd want belt-fed M240s, not muskets. Their comments referred directly to the modern miliary arms of the time. And the 1994 "assault weapons" ban doesn't even deal with such, but rather weapons of much less capability.

As for semi-auto AR-15s and the like not being good for "defensive purposes", tell that to the Korean shopkeepers in Los Angeles who saved their businesses during the 1992 Rodney King riots, after the local police told them, "you're on your own".

[Fearless Flyers]

Hey Joe & John,

I just posted this on another thread, you guys probably do much the same thing. But a little redundancy to alert others doesn't hurt.

Thanks for your inspiration.
_____________________________________________________

I talk to my neighbors and people where ever I go. I feel them out and get their views. I especially ask if they vote or are registered.

If I believe they are interested and worthy of informing I offer them a copy of the Constitution and share my views with them.

It may not be a greatly effective but it does help inform my voting district. If you break the country down district by district people would be amazed how few qualified voters actually understand and practice their Constitution. In most areas outside of large cities it doesn't take that many to tip the scales one way or another.

I never indorse anything but the Constitution and if people ask me, I tell them, I'd just as soon slit a Republican’s throat as a Democrats if they don't understand and defend the Constitution. You'd be surprised to know this is the majority opinion in the United States.

I believe if enough people tried this tactic together we could make the Democrats obsolete with in the next two election cycles and introduce a new Conservative Political Party, delegating the Republicans from their centrist position to the Liberal or Progressive Party and the Dems to forever be known as the American Socialist Party.

I also believe that we will never see a better opportunity to achieve this goal, than we do at this moment in our Nations history. This isn't a popular idea in the sheeple's Republican Party, but if they think about it the Republicans would be forced to caucus with another conservative or loose the majority.

My small neighborhood grocer from India has copies of the Constitution in pocket form available free to his customers as long as I can keep them in stock.

[RobbyS]

I gain the feelings that you want these weapons to more often used against cops than bad guys. Against the military, they are next to useless. We saw how effecive irregulars were in Iraq.

[Joe Brower]

"I gain the feelings that you want these weapons to more often used against cops than bad guys."

If you think this, then you need to examine your own prejudice. I want no such thing.

[RobbyS]

What he wrote is not engraved in stone. If everything in writing were that fixed in meaning, we wouldn't have courts. As Talleyrand once said, the purpose of language is to obscure thought. Write a contract and you but provide a departure point for controversy. You want to think that a rule book can determine the outcome of a game.

[RobbyS]

Yjos ne care ful not to give the example of a riot. When the police are unable to control a situation, then martial law in in order. not vigilante action.

[freeeee]

And has it occured to you that a formula laid down in 1789 might just have lost something of its meaning two hundreds years later?

Does power no longer corrupt?

Has human nature itself changed in the last 200 years, or even in the last 50?

[RobbyS]

The Constitution does not provide that "the Congress and Executive have a monopoly of the military power. ". For example it provides that the states shall raise the militia and appoint officers for it. It does provide that the Congress may provide laws allowing the miltia to be "called up" for federal service, but only for the limited purposes of quelling insurrection, repealing invasion and enforcing the laws, which themselves could only be of limited scope at the federal level. Again you forget the unpleasantness Called the War between the States. Every bit of military force in the states is subject to federal authority. For a state to attempt to act independently of that authority would be like a state trying to treat with a foreign government without Congressional approval. I suggest ypou read what the anti-federalists said before ratification. They saw even before ratification how strong the federal authority would be. In 1861 the South tried to reverse ratification and take back authority. It didn't work.

[RobbyS]

Th Founding Fathers had the same human nature we have, and the anti-ederalists shared every concern about federal authoirity that you do, but they did not prevail. As to the Bill of Rights, remember that thse are paper chains on government/The Alien and Sedition Acts written only a few years later. essentially ignored the Bill of Rights. A change in government, not legal action, settled the matter.

[husky ed]

Mine are Murray and Cantwell.

HELPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

[freeeee]

As to the Bill of Rights, remember that thse are paper chains on government

Part of that same paper established government itself. If the former are no longer recognized, why should the latter?

A change in government, not legal action, settled the matter.

I agree. I couldn't write a more stinging indictment of what happened.

I'm curious, seeing as how you recognize this, do you support or oppose it? If you support it, by what authority is it legitimate?

[Joe Brower]

"When the police are unable to control a situation, then martial law in in order. not vigilante action."

Yes, that's all very nice in theory. I had friends in L.A. during these riots (I was busy in San Francisco at the time), and when the National Guard was deployed, they weren't provided ammunition, leading to one truckload of "regulars" to wind up having their M-16s stolen by gangbangers at gunpoint. Yes, that works really well.

Next subject...

[RobbyS]

The legiamacy of every government depends on consent. This means not only the consent of our forefathers, those who ratifed the original Constitution, but all the generations since. The Civil War worked a revolution in government. The people of the South were conquered, and the form of government to which they were accustomed, was destroyed. But they have consented to the form that was put in its place. That does not mean that the government is incapable of tyrannical acts, or that the people generally consent to every action, but as the Declaration of Independence points out, unless a chain of abuse occurs, which pushes the peopole to the point of rebellion, then and only then does the government become illegitimate. I agree with the NRA types that any concerted action by government to disarm the people and establiush a European-style government on this country, would be very dangerous and should resisted by every legal means. What bothers me is those who think that certain weapons would be any more useful than a 30-06. against the kind of military power we have seen displayed in Iraq. It would take a rebellion of military forces to overthrow a truly tyrannical government.

[RobbyS]

Your solution is to put guns in the hands of people with less training and discipline than the Guard?

[Joe Brower]

Again, your prejudice is quite evident. By what criteria do you quantify "less training and discipline". Many shooters I know are superior to many NG in terms of ability, training and motivation. In fact, most are themselves ex-military, like myself. What makes the NG automatically "better" -- the sanction of the Almighty State, which you seem to have an unhealthy blind faith in? Spare me.

The proof is that the Koreans were effective where the NG was not.

[Feiny]

I agree...I stopped wasting my pearls on those swine long ago. But, you can write to others who are on the fence....or encourage those who are on our side.....