Draft Letter Against Gun Ban - Feel Free to Use

[Mr Phil]

Feel free to use the following - edit as you wish

December XX, 2012

Honorable XXXX
233 Cannon House Office Building,
District of Columbia 20515-4610

Congressman:

My wife and I are constituents in your district (optional – who have voted for you consistently.)

Today for the first time we call for your swift and dedicated action as our elected representative. The so called “assault weapon” ban legislation as proposed by Senator Feinstein’s is a gross abuse of the American public’s rights as enumerated under the U.S. Constitution.

As you well know, the US Constitution provides every American protection from government abuse under the Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not provide for merely a Bill of Needs – As such, the U.S. Government has no right to limit our rights based on its interpretation of our needs.

Further, the proposed Firearm Ban provides for the uncompensated seizure of private property by banning the inheritance or transfer of legally purchased and processed firearms to family members. It thus requires upon the death of the owner that those guns be surrendered to the government. This is yet, another abridgement of our Constitutional rights against unlawful seizure.

Let us remember that from the adoption of the Constitution until the National Firearms Act of 1934, the intent of our founders was clear and unchallenged – the right to bear arms was the second most fundamental right we process as Americans, and is specially designed to protect against the tyranny of our Government.

The red-herring and false arguments of the Anti-Gun ownership leaders fall flat in face of the fact that not one founding father acted to modify the 2nd Amendment or limit the ownership of firearms to only state chartered militia members, even after such periods as the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. Their intent is clear and ratified by their actions.

Also, the U.S. Supreme court has already ruled in Haynes v. United States against the forced federal registration of firearms as a violation of the Constitution. Yet, we see the willing disregard for well settled law and trampling our Constitutional rights by Senator Feinstein and the supporters of her efforts to violate the rights of every American. The Ban also ignores and would violate the rulings of Heller v The District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago the most recent Supreme Courts cases related to the 2nd Amendment.

While, additional arguments and facts are available to defeat every element of the Gun Ban bill basis, the fundamental element of our rights, as established in the Bill of Rights, reduces the proposed ban and its seizure of property to an intolerable affront of our rights as enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

The only true cause of the recent tragedies has been ignored and untreated mental health issues. Firearms, like the automobiles used to drive to the site of the crimes, were only tools used … not the cause of the actions. Let us address the true cause of these crimes – the lack of mental health treatment because of invented privacy laws which impede the identification and treatment of these persons.

We call upon you as our elected representative to ensure the proposed Ban in its entirety is blocked or defeated. We also call for the mental health laws of this country to be modified to ensure that those in need get the treatment they require, and the public is protected from their untreated violent natures.

Sincerely

 

[Tom Servo]

Haynes v. United States might not be the best argument against registration. The court ruled in Haynes' favor because, in his case, registering his gun would have been an act of self-incrimination.

A better argument is found in the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A good letter but not likely to actually be read. The thing is that a legislator's staff reads the letters and really only to tally the "fors" and "againsts." A simple, "I oppose [identify the legislation] as bad policy" or "I support [identify the legislation] as good public policy" will usually be sufficient. What legislators are really looking for is a count of how many people are on each side of an issue.

You can add a bit more argument if you like. But you want to keep it short and be very clear about what side of what question you're on.

Our lobbyists are the ones the legislators listen to for argument -- assuming that they've been able to conclude that there's enough support for that side of the question to warrant paying attention.

 

[GeeJ]

Writing letters are a critically important task that we need to be aggressively staying on top of. As a reminder for those now interested or have not been made aware of, I have put together a somewhat automated letter writing PDF form/template that includes contact links to any legislator, their position on the 2nd Amendment, as well as automatically generating an addressed mailing envelope. Also, most every field in this PDF template can be edited so that you can tailor it to your specific voice if you are so inclined.

The thread containing the template has been stickied to the top of this forum (Law and Civil Rights) and is included below. NOTE: I was unable to update my original post so I attached the current version (12-14-2012) to reply #13.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498588

If I can even get one person who normally would not have written to become proactive in writing legislators, then I think it's worth the work put into it. In the end, all I care about is getting more people than ever before to stand up and make their voices heard to lawmakers. With that, if I can help facilitate action by providing this template, then please feel free to use it anyway you see fit.

 

[Jo6pak]

The red-herring and false arguments of the Anti-Gun ownership leaders fall flat in face of the fact that not one founding father acted to modify the 2nd Amendment or limit the ownership of firearms to only state chartered militia members, even after such periods as the Whiskey Revelation and the Civil War. Their intent is clear and ratified by their actions.

Don't you mean "whiskey rebellion"

Good letter. I think I'll be pirating someparts of it for my next round of correspondence.

Thanks for posting

 

[Mr Phil]

Thanks for heads up - Typo fixed

In regard to a prior post:

I was a senior executive consultant to a governor for 5 years. As such, – I would encourage everyone to send a letter regardless of length – it will make a difference to a politician.

However, I will tell you that the politicians (and their staffs) pay more attention to letters than just counting nays and yeas… if your letter demonstrates that you are an informed voter … your opinion will carry more weight!

Your letter should be firm but respectful, make clear arguments, show that you know the facts... and cannot be swayed by media based sound bites.

If your represenative or senator is a Democrat, you may wish to point out that it is only the Democratic party that have violated our 2nd Amendment rights by passing gun ownership restrictions: Franklin Roosevelt in 1934, Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and Bill Clinton in 1994.

Finally adding, a statement indicating that any vote for a reduction in firearms owners’ rights, or increase in government oversight will result in you supporting (with time and money) the congressman’s opponent in the next election.

 

[Rifleman1776]

While I commend your efforts, the letter is too long and pointless. Congressmen do not read letters sent to them. They do receive breifings on the general drift of support or opposition to issues.
A short letter will be just as effective.
Plus, the issue will not be decided, or voted on, based on logic or the Constitution. The votes will be decided by political pressure, emotion and the beliefs of the Members voting. Meaning only heavy lobbying will have any effect.

 

[Mr Phil]

Rifleman

Thank you for your post –

I must respectfully disagree as someone who has worked in a senior political office and dealt with our state’s congressional delegation on a regular basis.

Yes, lobbying is very important – However, in my experience, well informed public pressure is more important.

The impact of a detailed letter demonstrates to the politician that he/she will be unable to spin their position... and thus applies greater pressure.

With that said, there certainly are greedy politicians who ignore constituents and are primarily motived by the lobbyist (and the related campaign contributions).

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Here's my effort

Dear Senator ,

As your constituent, I am contacting you to express my opposition to any attempt to ban so-called “assault weapons” or “high-capacity” magazines. In my view, any further restrictions on the sale or possession of these items would clearly infringe our right to keep and bear arms as specified in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

The “assault weapon” of the late 18th Century was the Brown Bess Musket. It had many of the same characteristics as modern “assault weapons” in that it wasn’t particularly useful for hunting, but was militarily advantageous because it could be loaded and fired rapidly, and could mount a bayonet for close-quarters combat. It was, unarguably, the weapon our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, because keeping and bearing it encouraged proficiency in its use, and gave the musket-armed militiaman parity with regular army troops.

Today, keeping and bearing an AR-15 rifle encourages proficiency which is militarily useful in case of a national emergency, and the skilled possessor of an AR-15 rifle with military-specification magazines has a large degree of parity with hostile military forces of an invading foreign government or our own government turned tyrannical. Further restrictions on its sale and possession would clearly violate the Second Amendment and would be futile in any case, since existing weapons, if well maintained, can easily be expected to last for more than a century.

Please do everything in your power to defeat “feel good” legislation that would infringe on our Second Amendment rights. Your efforts will not be unappreciated at election time.

Sincerely,