Defensive Carry banner

Let's draft a well-tailored letter to our Senators and Representatives

3K views 17 replies 13 participants last post by  Glock36carry 
#1 ·
Obviously this will be only one of many things needed to counter the new proposed Assault Weapons Ban, but I figure it can't hurt to craft together a nice letter to our representatives in Washington. I'm going to start by suggesting that we include this report by the DoJ on the ineffectiveness of the last ban.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

There's a later update here also:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

Later this evening or tomorrow I'll try to draft up the letter itself, but feel free to take a crack at it before that if you'd like.
 
#3 ·
Just a tip I once got from a Congressman's Chief of Staff--- don't send e-mail, no one pays attention. Don't send stuff
through regular mail, it takes a long time to get there because of screening post the anthrax scares.

Use FAX. It gets there quickly and gets attention. YMMV, but I think the man knew what he was talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadowwalker
#4 ·
Here's some food for thought.

First, consider the ideas being circulated:
• banning so-called assault weapons
• banning high-capacity magazines
• unauthorized use of firearms
• keeping firearms out of the hands of mental deficients without compromising the rights and privacy of citizens (this is a very tough nut to crack)

Then - define the boundaries of the problem:

• don't discriminate against some firearms and not others. a practiced cowboy-action shooter can shoot a revolver or lever-action rifle as quickly as a semi-automatic
• respect the intentions of the Second Amendment; we set ourselves apart from tyrannical governments by preserving the right for civilians to keep and bear arms, but the problem is firearms in the hands of those bent on evil
• the idea of "gun free zones" was flawed from the outset, and has resulted in the worst imaginable unintended consequences - "criminal empowerment zones." How many attempted massacres have there been at shooting ranges and police stations compared to schools and shopping malls since "gun free zones" were established? Take away the false security of gun free zones.
• keep your minds open to the types of security measures the Israelis have established for their schools, which involve trained, armed civilians

These are just 'starter' ideas. I suggest not establishing "hard lines" at this point, but instead acknowledging that problems exist and being open to conversations about fixing what's broken.

Now - keep in mind that overall, schools are pretty safe places. The likelihood of being murdered in a school in the US is far less than being struck by lightning. Compared to deaths resulting from tobacco use and automobiles, firearm murders are way, way down on the list. But when a high-profile tragedy strikes, emotions rule the day... we just need to keep that in mind.
 
#9 ·
This is based on a combination of drafts from another thread. I just finished emailing and faxing it.

Senator "," I want to write to you in the hopes that you will oppose any future assault weapons ban, such as that being discussed by Senator Feinstein. Although I am not aware of any specific proposals yet, it is likely that any new assault weapons ban (AWB) will be similar to the last, implemented under President Clinton.

Assuming the goal is to actually reduce the number of homicides and mass murders in this country, a new AWB will be nothing more than a wasted opportunity. The last ban had restrictions on the capacity of new magazines, restricting them to no more than ten rounds, and any new proposal will likely contain this as well. The tragic shooting at Columbine Highschool took place while the previous AWB was in effect. The shooters, instead of modifying their magazines to carry additional rounds (something remarkably easy to do, especially considering the shooters were able to illegally shorten their shotgun below the legal length), decided to bring with them thirteen, ten-round magazines. Clearly, magazine restrictions did not stop crime, nor will they in the future.

The second, main prong of the previous AWB was a restriction on various cosmetic features of rifles, for instance, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts. I understand that many deem these to be military accoutrements with little to no civilian purpose, but that does not make these features inherently dangerous, nor does it make a rifle sporting such features any more lethal. In fact, the Department of Justice concluded, in two studies (one included with this letter) of the previous assault weapons ban that these provisions “target…a relatively small number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapon legal.” What’s more, the Justice Department concluded that, viewed as a whole, a reinstatement of the AWB would have such a miniscule effect on crime as to be “too small for measurement.”

I implore you to please show vigorous opposition to any new AWB. It is a wasted opportunity to take real action in reducing gun violence. Strengthen the background check system by requiring stronger reporting from universities (which may have caught the V-Tech killer, as he was diagnosed by his school with mental illness and charged by the school with harassment and stalking) and mental health institutions; require background checks on private gun sales, or allow private individuals to perform checks on the buyer without having to transfer the firearm through a licensed dealer; most importantly, strengthen the mental health system to provide better care upfront to those members of society who fall through the cracks of our understaffed and overworked mental health system. I would even support mandatory safety education and licensing, say every four years, to be allowed to purchase firearms. We cannot make people store their weapons safely, but we can give them the knowledge required.

I also ask that you reconsider the efficacy of “gun free zones.” One must consider how many children would have been saved had the teachers or administrators of Sandy Hook been allowed to be armed. What purpose is served by laws that create “soft target” zones in which we concentrate our most vulnerable and innocent? So many of the recent public mass shootings have occurred in places were either legally or nominally banned. Criminals do not respect gun-free zones, only law abiding citizens, by definition, do.

I know that reasonable measures can be reached; reasonable in that the second amendment and the individual right to own and carry a gun is protected (something extremely important to me and many other New Mexicans), and yet reasonable in that steps to reduce unnecessary and preventable gun violence are taken. I hope that you will carefully consider an appropriate response to these continuing tragedies. I would love to hear back from you about this issue, whether through a public statement on gun control or a private message to me. Thank you for your service.
 
#14 ·
Sir - I thank you for this thread and applaud your contacting your senator.

I would not, however, from my perspective, send your letter - it gives up far too much. Given the content of your letter, and there are some good points in it, I would rather give up the right to buy ARs and AKs than to be saddled with all the new restrictions you ask for to purchase any gun. From my perspective, you are giving up a lot to save a little.

I have an AR, I like it a lot, but if i had to pick between a deal where I could give up the right to buy ARs and AKs, and be saddled with all the new regs you propose OR keep the status quo on regs but loose the right to buy ARs and AKs and even a mag restriction, I would go with the latter. Neither if these approaches are, however, constitutional.

Again, I applaud you for getting involved, I just disagree with your solution.
 
#13 ·
Have at it. Mine were send last weekend not that it will do any good with entrenched libs like levin or stabenow. Career politicians are just like criminals: they want what they want and getting it is the only thing that matters. Facts don't matter here. Well crafted sound arguments don't matter. Playing within the confines of the Constitution and established case law doesn't either. None have for a while in case you haven't noticed. If it helps you feel like you stood up for what's right when you were tested, I salute you. Just try not to get too discouraged when your best efforts fail to yield the desired result.
 
#15 ·
They are all drafting/have drafted canned letters to send to constituents. I sent an email to my senator and rep and this is what I received the very next morning. I love living in Idaho by the way. My email was short and to the point. He did address my concerns but I knew what his answer would be anyway. They still need to hear from us.


Dear Stephanie,

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the recent tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As a father and grandfather, words cannot adequately describe the profound sadness that I feel for all those affected by this senseless act of a troubled young man. On Friday, December 14, 2012, we all witnessed the unfolding scene whereby the police responded to a shooting at a Connecticut school where at least 26 lives were taken, and all far too soon. Our children are our most vulnerable members of society and it is our duty to keep them out of harm’s way.

This devastating act was a terrible tragedy that stuns the nation. As an ongoing investigation, the exact situation and motive of the shooter remain uncertain, but the devastation it has had on the community, and to citizens all across the country, does not. My sincerest and heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to all the innocent victims and their families.

In the days and weeks going forward, a number of ideas will be brought forward relating to guns and mental health. As Congress acts, it must be in full recognition that the choices we make must reflect the realities that we cannot completely legislate away risk and violence out of society. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks, and weakening Second Amendment rights is not an appropriate response to this tragic act of a lone gunman.

Let me reassure you that I do not support gun control. We must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. Our country should have a thoughtful and reasoned debate on how to address mental health issues and crime control, while still preserving our constitutional rights. The Second Amendment 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." I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying law-abiding citizens this right.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, U.S. Senator Mike Crapo's Homepage.

Sincerely,

Mike Crapo
United States Senator
 
#16 ·
I caution against a bunch of copy/paste letters being sent as they'll be quickly recognized for what they are--a mass mailing campaign. If one chooses to contact your representatives (and I encourage that), make your own arguments and points. It's okay to paraphrase an example posted here, but please do individualize it.
 
#17 ·
While I agree that the original AWB did not work, I can't help but wonder if attacking it is a bit like a double edged sword. There is a nagging voice in my head that makes me think that the anti 2-A folks can agree that the original AWB did not work and that admitting as such, does not lose them the argument. For instance, there is nothing preventing them from saying, "the original AWB did not work, because we did not go far enough". To them our efforts to discredit the AWB may simply fuel their fire to make a new AWB much more restrictive than the last.

I realize my concerns may be moot, but it is something that has bothering me of late.
 
#18 ·
My letters and E-mails went out two days ago. The sheer numbers of responsible gun owners reaching out to all levels of State and Federal Government is far more important than the content IMO. Be respectful of their office, voice your concerns and tell them your final statement on the matter will be made at the polling booth. If 20 million gun owners did this it would be game over for the gun grabbers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top