Turn Your RNC Donation Letter into a Demand to Allow the AW Ban to Expire (ctext)

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78587&highlight=politicians ^ | 06/27/2003 | NYPatriot

[NY Patriot]

First off, I want to thank Thorshammer for transplanting my topic from one of the many gun forums that I posted it on.

I'm embarrassed I didn't think to post it to FreeRepublic myself... Good work my friend!


Secondly, even if you are not on the RNC's mailing list, you can still get our message across to the powers that be, by writing to RNC Chairman Marc Racicot.

Here is the letter I sent him not too long ago...

---

Mr. Marc Racicot
Republican National Committee
310 First St SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Chairman Racicot,

As a registered voter, life long Republican, and financial contributor to the RNC, I want to express my utter dismay at President Bush's support for the reauthorization of the so called "assault weapons" ban, and I want to urge you, in your capacity as party Chairman, to do everything within your power to ensure that the Republican Party supports the right of individuals to keep & bear arms.

I could argue that the "assault weapons" ban is clearly an unconstitutional infringement to anyone who has even a basic understanding of our nations founding documents, and the political & philosophical sentiments that went into their creation...but I won't.

I might point out that in every major federal, state, & privately commissioned crime study that has ever been conducted, "assault weapons" play a statistically insignificant role in violent crime...but I won't.

I'm not going to remind you that when the current law sunsets, Pres. Bush would like to see it replaced with a newly crafted & enacted law, thus breaking his campaign promise that he would not seek the passage of any new gun control legislation.

No... what I am going to point out to you Mr. Racicot, is that continued support for a renewed "assault weapons" ban could cost Pres. Bush reelection in 2004. Please understand that he will never win over anti-gun voters, regardless of his position on this matter, but that he does run the serious risk alienating the pro-gun voters who helped him win the Presidency in 2000.

For the sake of perspective, I will point out that the "assault Weapons" ban was originally passed in a Democrat-controlled Congress by a very slim margin and by a slightly larger margin in the Senate. The result... In the 1994 national elections, three months after passage, the Democrats lost nine seats in the Senate and 54 seats in the House. There is no denying that gun control, specifically the "Assault Weapons" ban" was a very large part of why the Democrats lost the House for the first time in 50 years. Former President Bill Clinton once even estimated that voting for the ban cost 20+ Democrat Representatives their seats.

President Bush is a good & decent man, Mr. Racicot, and I sincerely want to continue my support for him, but I know that I speak for many gun owning & non-gun owning Americans alike, when I say that how he handles this issue will deeply influence our actions in the voting booth come November of next year.

Hence, I once again ask you to urge Pres. Bush, and every other Republican candidate & representative to turn their backs on the Clinton era "assault weapons" ban, & to advocate and embrace personal freedom. Their oaths to the Constitution, their obligation to their core voters, and their adherence to campaign promises hang in the balance.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

---

As always, feel free to borrow liberally from the text & message in order to compose your own letter.

We are in a rare position here folks... WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SECOND CHANCE TO DEFEAT THE AW BAN!!!

CARPE DIEM

[Cold Heat]

I will leave you all in peace so that you can pat each other on the back and beat on GWB as required.

Keep this in mind though, as you stir up the anti-gunners again and come out of this with nothing but a head ache.

The reasons given during the progress of this thread are not going to convince anyone to allow the ban to sunset.

The only thing you can hope for is a compromise. It is clear that you will not do that so there is no hope to win your battle.

As far as GWB's base is concerned, a political party must alienate some of the base in order to win and keep a majority. Those parties who hold onto the base to the exclusion of others will become a minority party. That is not what the RNC is wanting to do. Your votes, while important, will not change the outcome as the democrat DINO's will come over like they did in the Reagan years. Reagan dumped a portion of his base as well.

If I were you, I would try to extend the sunset a few more years in exchange for no further banned items. But what the hay! You folks are all or nothing and that is what you will get.

Having said that, it has been a good exchange and maybe I touched someones imagination. LOL! Probably not.

FReegards........wirestripper

[votelife]

good letter. Thanks for posting. This is think kind of thing the anti-Bush bots need to do more of. I don't really know where you stand on Bush, but I bet many who complain about this or judges or anything don't take the time to write or call. This is an effective letter.

[votelife]

I doubt there will be public assurance. Either way, whatever happens will happen quietly.

[NY Patriot]

Votelife, I just want to make one point here...

I'm not so naive as to think that Pres. Bush is going to be pressured into publicly reversing himself concerning the AW ban.

The point of this exercise is to levy pressure on the Republican Party, & let them know that we are paying attention, and that we are as serious as a heart attack!

The message must get through loud & clear that we will no longer tolerate the infringement of that which "...shall not be infringed."

Either the Republicans begin to respect our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms suitable for militia use, or we deny them campaign funds & we vote them out of office!

Plain & simple.

[litehaus]

Judas Priest! Millions of instant criminals on the way!

[DoctorMichael]

Nevermind just the gun legislation, in scanning the Thread quickly since I left my responce, I think you've tapped into some general growing dissatisfaction here.

I really DON'T want to say these things because, on the whole, the ballsey foreign policy of Cheney, Wolfowiz, Rummey and Rice has been good. The Klintoons left Bush holding the bag in this area and he's had to clean up some awful messes that were left festering.

Domestically, the tax cuts have been good although my understanding is that the old nemisis of 'Bracket Creep' will raise it's ugly head, so the gubmint will give with one hand and take with the other. Nonetheless........

.......government is being made larger and more intrusive by THIS administration and I'm starting to get a little feisty over this.

[DoctorMichael]

P.S. I have a Concealed Carry Permit as a resident of Virginia.

[gatex]

"The legal authority is under the commerce law the the courts have granted..."

And you agree that the commerce clause overrides the Second Amendment ?

[gatex]

"...The AK is their signature weapon of choice and you are advocating the legalization of the import and sale of said weapon...."

Sarah Brady propaganda.

Read the list of prohibited weapons.

[NY Patriot]

Folks...you might also want to send a letter off to Pres. Bush's top policy advisor Karl Rove...

The Office of Mr. Karl Rove
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Just use the letter to the RNC Chairman, and change all the references to "Marc Racicot'" into "Karl Rove" & "Party Chairman" into "President Bush's top policy advisor."

Easy as pie!!!

Every news account I have read about Rove states that he has the confidence & trust of GWB to a degree that no other presidential advisor has possessed in modern American history.

In other words, when Rove voices an opinion, GWB really listens!

If we get Rove's attention, we get the President's as well!!!

[galt-jw]

You all are being played like chumps.

IF you have to THREATEN the group to follow principles that they are SUPPOSED to believe in...you are a total sucker. They don't give a DAMN about YOU or PRINCIPLES, or they wouldn't even have CONSIDERED selling out.

They are INTERESTED in maintaing power at any price, including adopting liberal socialist policies and calling it "stealing the other guys agenda."

This is the same as YOU giving away all your goods to a thief in order to "prevent your home from being robbed."

[El Gato]

The commerce clause was intended to regulate interstate commerce ( to avoid conflict among the states & facilitate trade-not end it ). It was not meant to restrict the God given rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme's recently over-turned one Texas law, explaining this very clearly. Gun free school zones was the point of the law-the commerce clause was unsuccessfully employed to justify the law.

Even if the commerce clause hadn't been misused to regulate firearms, the power to regulate interstate commerce, whatever that might mean, cannot be used to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which it has been, any more than it could be used to deny freedom of the press, speech or assembly. The nature of the Bill of Rights, as amendments to the Constitution, means that they overide or trump anything in the body of the original document if and when there is a conflict. That is what amendments to any contract or other document do.

[El Gato]

However, not all those specs are needed to accommodate a bullet launcher.

Funny then that even after all this time, there are no "undetecable" or all "plastic" guns on the market. The Glock, with a steel barrel and slide, was detecable on standard airport screening devices, of the era in question, let alone more modern and sensitive ones. You could even see the "plastic" parts quite well. It is also detectable by the magnetic detectors, both the kind you walk through and the wand type. Those will detect my smallest belt buckle and the metal eyelets in my shoes. Any firearm with a steel barrel is going to set those off, and there aren't any without a magnetically detectable barrel.

[El Gato]

It does not say what kind of arms. The courts have been quite clear on that

That's right it doesn't, which means keeping and bearing of all arms is protected. As far as the Courts go, the Supreme court hinted, but that's all they did, in Miller (also see Miller documents) that militarily usefull arms was the test. In fact only a few years later, the appeals court in Cases aknowledged that was what the Supreme Court said. From the "Cases" decision:

Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feet that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities, -almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon.

So the "Cases" Court didn't approve of the "Miller" rule, and chose to disregard it as "not general". Which is hardly the normal Appeals court response to Supreme Court decisions, especially recent ones.

Besides, there are some people with howitizers in their driveway, or at least their gargage/shed, and not merely deactivated ones either.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

I've been consistely writing with a thick, red sharpie, comments regarding illegal immigration problems. Might as well add this to the list. I'm done contributing to the RNC. I see no champion of conservatism on the horizon. No point in wasting my hard-earned money to feed the beast. They have no backbone.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

AK-47, AK-74

Guess I need to pickup another two or three AK's before they take them off the shelf. I love my SAR-1. Fun gun and with a plentiful supply of cheap magazine clips and ammunition, you can spend hours plinking without bothering to reload. Man the barrel gets hot though! Burned myself a few times.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[DarthRaven]

That letter to the RNC was a great idea. However, after hearing recently that the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress just passed a watered downed version of "Hillary Care"(Prescription Drug Program), there's the possibility that the so-called "Assualt Weapons" Ban may get extended. We got to really give them rascally Republicans "what fer" on this issue before they sell us "gun nuts" out!

[Cold Heat]

I only brought up the plastic gun issue to illustrate what I feel was a mistake made by NRA in opposing the legislation. It cost them dearly in prestige and trust.

As to it's efficacy, If I had the tools, and the desire, I personally could make you one that would fire a reasonably effective round made of a hard compound that would penetrate and disable, even kill. (zip gun concept)

The fact that none are being produced is not material to the prohibition. The prohibition was based on a potential loophole in the scanners of the day. Not a worry that a major company would put thousands of undetectable guns on the market.

Many long term members of NRA protested the NRA policy. I did and probably the most famous protester was Bush 41. He withdrew his membership as many other did. It was quite a fight.

I think you see only what you want to see regarding this issue. Please remove the blinders and try to understand the fears of the day when hijacking was a weekly/monthly occurrence.