Letter to Senator, fight HR-1022, Help please

This is a discussion on Letter to Senator, fight HR-1022, Help please within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am asking for assistance with the wording, grammar, etc... on this reply letter. I e-mailed the senator asking for him to fight HR-1022, his ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Letter to Senator, fight HR-1022, Help please

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,631

    Letter to Senator, fight HR-1022, Help please

    I am asking for assistance with the wording, grammar, etc... on this reply letter. I e-mailed the senator asking for him to fight HR-1022, his reply was that he was a fellow shooter and sportsman, but didn't see where the first ban effected the law abiding citizens wanting to hunt or sport shoot. Here is my reply so far, he did write a pretty lengthy letter, so I figured one back would be okay.

    Dear Senator Warner


    I would like to thank you for your letter in reply to my request that you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban, HR-1022. It was assuring to receive a letter that specifically addressed my concern, and not to have received a pre-written "cookie cutter" reply.

    In your letter, you stated that the previous ban on specific weapons deemed assault type weapons, or accessories deemed unnecessary was in no way a hindrance to the law abiding citizens of this country. On the other side of the argument, I submit that it also did very little if any to prevent criminals from carrying out there business as usual. So it became once again a law obeyed only by those whom choose to, and coincidentally are not the citizens to be concerned about.

    The current version of (HR-1022) has a lot of provisions that will negatively effect the law abiding citizens of this country in legitimate sporting, hunting, and personal protection uses.

    As a sportsman, you are aware of the need for properly fitted firearms, My wife and I currently shoot clays with the same shotgun, being 6+ inches shorter than I, we achieve this through the use of a telescoping stock, which is prohibited by HR-1022. The rifle we use for dealing with varmints on our farm is similarly equipped; and has an equal need to be a properly fitted firearm. What advantage does a criminal obtain by utilizing this feature; that he couldn’t otherwise obtain by cutting of the existing stock? Same reason on the folding stock, this feature allows citizens to store the firearm more conveniently and accessible for ready use in a defensive situation inside the home, also easily countered with a hacksaw by criminals who have already proven their inability to abide by the laws already on the books.

    As for other restrictions such as high capacity Magazines, heat shields, and other features such as pistol grips, and fore end vertical grips. This seems to be the answer to a question not asked or an effect with no cause. These specific features while giving firearms an “evil” appearance, do also aid disabled citizens and provide the ability to participate in shooting events, and allow them greater effective means of self protection that standard equipped firearms would not.

    Statistics already show that the weapons mentioned specifically in HR-1022 have been used in a very low percentage of firearm incidents. The most recent tragedy at Va Tech, the worst mass shooting in the US was carried out with two handguns, and at least some of the magazines fitting the proposed ten round restrictions, there is no reason to believe the outcome would have been any different with the proposed restrictions in place.

    The bottom line, as far as I see it, there are far better ways for yourself and your fellow legislators to fight crime, such as stronger enforcement of current laws, stronger penalties for committing crimes while using a weapon, or reducing parole options for violent offenders, you simply CAN NOT legislate the criminal intent out of criminals, they must be put away, and kept there. We as citizens of the United States will be made no safer by being handicapped in our ability to protect ourselves, while the stack of laws against crime grows ever taller, and are just as ignored by the criminals today, as they were Ten, a Hundred and even a Thousand years ago.


    I thank you again for your time.


    Sincerely
    Last edited by 4my son; June 21st, 2007 at 02:14 PM. Reason: more changes
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,371
    Your letter looks good to me, goes straight to the point, IMO. Just a suggestion, not a critisism, but be sure to use spell check before you send it. I found a few minor spelling errors.

    With some of the magazines being purchased from E-Bay, the shooter did use at least some 10 rounds magazines.
    I'm not sure this is relevant as worded. I'm not clear about what you're saying here.

    It's great to be pro-active, but remember that H.R. 1022 is still bottled up in the House. It has a long way to go before it gets to the Senate, if it ever does.

    FYI, I've written to my Montana Senators (both Democrats) asking them to oppose any AWB in the Senate. I received a wishy-washy reply from one; the other never bothered to answer me.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  4. #3
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,123
    Wording looks good to me, however, as a semi-offical correspondance I'd spell out any numbers, I.E. ten instead of 10.

    And as the Capn' pointed out, spell check is your friend.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array 4my son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,631
    Thanks guys,

    I changed the wording around the part that Cap'n mentioned, I think the sounds a little better now.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  6. #5
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,371
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    Thanks guys,

    I changed the wording around the part that Cap'n mentioned, I think the sounds a little better now.
    Yep, looks good.

    I forgot to ask, have you written your Representative about H.R. 1022? (Hopefully, he/she is not a co-sponsor of this atrocity)!


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array 4my son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Crunch View Post
    Yep, looks good.

    I forgot to ask, have you written your Representative about H.R. 1022? (Hopefully, he/she is not a co-sponsor of this atrocity)!
    Yepper, wrote them both, no reply yet, that was months ago, I wrote G.W. also, got the standard White House letter, (Thanks for writing, we will pass it along)
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  8. #7
    Member Array jackofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    On the other side of the argument, I submit that it also did very little if any to prevent criminals from carrying out there business as usual. So it became once again a law obeyed only by those whom choose to, and coincidentally are not the citizens to be concerned about.
    Minor grammatical errors. This chunk should read:

    On the other side of the argument, I submit that it also did very little, if any, to prevent criminals from carrying out their business as usual. So it became, once again, a law obeyed only by those who chose to obey it, and coincidentally, the people who chose to obey the law, are not the citizens that we need to be concerned about committing crimes with firearms.

    (ok, so I added a little to it also)

    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    Same reason on the folding stock, this feature allows citizens to store the firearm more conveniently and accessible for ready use in a defensive situation inside the home
    This needs to be reworded.. I'm not sure what you mean by "Same reason on the folding stock...." the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense to me with that part. You haven't provided any other examples of accessories being used to store the weapon. Perhaps saying "Another good reason to have a folding stock is..."


    Thats it that I noticed, other then what's been pointed out, I'll say also hit a grammar check, it'll help catch some of the words that are correctly spelled, but incorrect for the usage (their vs there for example).

  9. #8
    Member Array produman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sunny,Fl
    Posts
    322
    Great response. Let us know if he replies.
    "May God have mercy on my enemies, because I won't."
    General George Patton

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone want to critque my letter To Senator Alesi
    By Jmac00 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 8th, 2009, 06:39 AM
  2. A letter from / to my NJ Senator
    By rmilchman in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 19th, 2009, 09:29 AM
  3. My letter to my Senator
    By Tyler11B in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 09:52 AM
  4. Recieved a letter from Federal Senator
    By *SA-XD4ME* in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 03:49 AM
  5. Senator And Representative contact info. HR 1022
    By Cupcake in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 09:17 PM