What I'm asking is that you guys and gals look this over, it would be great if one of you were english majors because I know I have grammer errors and could use a little assistance with this.

The reason I'm asking the consesses of AR15.com is because the local english major here is quite anti gun and will probally not read this.  Try not to steal it because I'm finishing this up before mailing.

Recently I have been doing research into some of the laws pertaining firearms and I have come to the conclusion that many of them are unconstitutional.  These are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion, What I am asking is that you rule the laws that are unconstitutional and still in effect Unconstitutional.  By letting these laws stay in effect you are in fact allowing the government to break the constitution and therefore you are allowing the government to break the law. In United States VS Cruikshank (1876) the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only protects citizens against the government.  There are a number of laws that have broken that ruling and in some cities like Chicago hand guns are illegal.  In addition there are a number of cases where private citizens were arrested for owning a legal hand gun in their own homes and therefore the government took away their handguns.  By the ruling in said case the events should not have occurred in fact by that ruling this law is unconstitutional.  In addition to restrictions on handguns in Chicago there is a law that from my research states that you MUST register your weapons with the city, not doing so will cause you to be arrested.  Thought history weapon registration has led to weapon confiscation and therefore this law is unconstitutional. In United States VS  Miller (1939) Miller was in possession of a sawed off shotgun, though it is not a weapon normally used by the militia of present day I can understand to an extent the ruling that occurred.  There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the bush AWB.  This ban prevented the manufacture of “Assault Weapons,” though I believe justice was served through the fact that the majority that were for it were not reelected into office by the ruling of US VS Miller this law was unconstitutional as well as the second AWB that is being proposed.  Though the ruling that Miller should not have been in possession of the sawed off Shotgun would be unconstitutional when you take into account that according to several historical text stating that state that individual citizens, the militia, were required to appear for duty with their own weapons.  Therefore the previous statement could be stated that all weapons available could be used by the militia and therefore protected by the 2md Amendment. In Presser VS Illinois, though the case was not directly related to the 2nd Amendment there are interesting facts that arose from it.  One of said fact I am referring to is all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute to the militia and therefore every law that violates or infringes an individual’s right to bear arms is unconstitutional.  Another fact that arose from this case is the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.  There are a number of laws and regulations that prevent people capable from bearing and keeping arms, and due to this ruling those laws and regulations are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment, “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,” just does not protect military’s ability to keep and bear arms, it protects individual citizens right to keep and bear arms.  I agree that there are some laws that are instituted to protect citizens but there are a number that violate and desecrate the second amendment.   I’m asking is that the Supreme Court breaks their restriction on ruling on 2nd Amendment cases and decree that the second amendment is being routinely violated therefore the laws that violate the responsible citizens from owing militia armaments unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Not a happy American citizen. Madmann135

I’m asking is that the Supreme Court breaks their ...

this jumps out

my 0.02

Reads okay, but I wouldn't sign it Madman

include your real name and address, that lends more credability

I like your attitude

I like it, but you need to edit it a little.


  ETA Maybe if we sent in enough letters they would listen to us.

Typo

Quoted: In United States VS  Miller (1939) Miller was in possession of a sawed off shotgun, though it is not a weapon normally used by the militia of present day I can understand to an extent the ruling that occurred.  There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the bush AWB.  This ban prevented the manufacture of “Assault Weapons,” though I believe justice was served through the fact that the majority that were for it were not reelected into office by the ruling of US VS Miller this law was unconstitutional as well as the second AWB that is being proposed.  Though the ruling that Miller should not have been in possession of the sawed off Shotgun would be unconstitutional when you take into account that according to several historical text stating that state that individual citizens, the militia, were required to appear for duty with their own weapons.  Therefore the previous statement could be stated that all weapons available could be used by the militia and therefore protected by the 2md Amendment.

Quoted: What I'm asking is that you guys and gals look this over, it would be great if one of you were english majors because I know I have grammer errors and could use a little assistance with this. The reason I'm asking the consesses of AR15.com is because the local english major here is quite anti gun and will probally not read this.  Try not to steal it because I'm finishing this up before mailing. Recently I have been doing research into some of the laws pertaining firearms and I have come to the conclusion that many of them are unconstitutional.  These are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion, What I am asking is that you rule the laws that are unconstitutional and still in effect Unconstitutional.  By letting these laws stay in effect you are in fact allowing the government to break the constitution and therefore you are allowing the government to break the law. In United States VS Cruikshank (1876) the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only protects citizens against the government.  There are a number of laws that have broken that ruling and in some cities like Chicago hand guns are illegal.  In addition there are a number of cases where private citizens were arrested for owning a legal hand gun in their own homes and therefore the government took away their handguns.  By the ruling in said case the events should not have occurred in fact by that ruling this law is unconstitutional.  In addition to restrictions on handguns in Chicago there is a law that from my research states that you MUST register your weapons with the city, not doing so will cause you to be arrested.  Thought history weapon registration has led to weapon confiscation and therefore this law is unconstitutional. In United States VS  Miller (1939) Miller was in possession of a sawed off shotgun, though it is not a weapon normally used by the militia of present day I can understand to an extent the ruling that occurred.  There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the Clinton AWB.  This ban prevented the manufacture of “Assault Weapons,” though I believe justice was served through the fact that the majority that were for it were not reelected into office by the ruling of US VS Miller this law was unconstitutional as well as the second AWB that is being proposed.  Though the ruling that Miller should not have been in possession of the sawed off Shotgun would be unconstitutional when you take into account that according to several historical text stating that state that individual citizens, the militia, were required to appear for duty with their own weapons.  Therefore the previous statement could be stated that all weapons available could be used by the militia and therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment. In Presser VS Illinois, though the case was not directly related to the 2nd Amendment there are interesting facts that arose from it.  One of said fact I am referring to is all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute to the militia and therefore every law that violates or infringes an individual’s right to bear arms is unconstitutional.  Another fact that arose from this case is the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.  There are a number of laws and regulations that prevent people capable from bearing and keeping arms, and due to this ruling those laws and regulations are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment, “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,” just does not protect military’s ability to keep and bear arms, it protects individual citizens right to keep and bear arms.  I agree that there are some laws that are instituted to protect citizens but there are a number that violate and desecrate the second amendment.   I’m asking is that the Supreme Court breaks their restriction on ruling on 2nd Amendment cases and decree that the second amendment is being routinely violated therefore the laws that violate the responsible citizens from owing militia armaments unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Not a happy American citizen. Madmann135

I think i fixed it to what you meant, becuase later you then bring up the proposed 2nd AWB.
EDIT: for sure fixed.

There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the bush Assault Weapon Import Ban, and the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.quote]

I would change this line, since Bush Sr. didn't really institue a 'ban', and the real AWB was signed by Clinton.  I believe if you have your facts straight they would be more likely to listen.

Just my .02.

Thanks all.

I'm adjusting the letter accordingly.

Ahh, writing a letter to the Supremes about guns... now you will be on "the list".

I wish I was on the list.  :)  Not.

Good idea, post a reply here if they ever get back to you.

Quoted: I’m asking is that the Supreme Court breaks their ... this jumps out

hmmm...

Recently I have been doing research into some of the laws pertaining firearms and I have come to the conclusion that many of them are unconstitutional.  These are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion, What I am asking is that you rule the laws that are unconstitutional and still in effect Unconstitutional.  By letting these laws stay in effect you are in fact allowing the government to break the constitution and therefore you are allowing the government to break the law. In United States VS Cruikshank (1876) the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only protects citizens against the government.  There are a number of laws that have broken that ruling and in some cities like Chicago hand guns are illegal.  In addition there are a number of cases where private citizens were arrested for owning a legal hand gun in their own homes and therefore the government took away their handguns.  By the ruling in said case the events should not have occurred in fact by that ruling this law is unconstitutional.  In addition to restrictions on handguns in Chicago there is a law that from my research states that you MUST register your weapons with the city, not doing so will cause you to be arrested.  Thought history weapon registration has led to weapon confiscation and therefore this law is unconstitutional. In United States VS  Miller (1939) Miller was in possession of a sawed off shotgun, though it is not a weapon normally used by the militia of present day I can understand to an extent the ruling that occurred.  There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the Clinton Assault Weapon Import Ban, and the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.  This ban prevented the manufacture of “Assault Weapons,” though I believe justice was served through the fact that the majority that were for it were not reelected into office by the ruling of US VS Miller this law was unconstitutional as well as the second AWB that is being proposed.  Though the ruling that Miller should not have been in possession of the sawed off Shotgun would be unconstitutional when you take into account that according to several historical text stating that state that individual citizens, the militia, were required to appear for duty with their own weapons.  Therefore the previous statement could be stated that all weapons available could be used by the militia and therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment. In Presser VS Illinois, though the case was not directly related to the 2nd Amendment there are interesting facts that arose from it.  One of said fact I am referring to is all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute to the militia and therefore every law that violates or infringes an individual’s right to bear arms is unconstitutional.  Another fact that arose from this case is the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.  There are a number of laws and regulations that prevent people capable from bearing and keeping arms, and due to this ruling those laws and regulations are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment, “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,” just does not protect military’s ability to keep and bear arms, it protects individual citizens right to keep and bear arms.  I agree that there are some laws that are instituted to protect citizens but there are a number that violate and desecrate the second amendment.   I’m asking is that the Supreme Court adjust their restriction about ruling on 2nd Amendment cases and decree that the second amendment is being routinely violated therefore the laws that violate the responsible citizens from owing militia armaments unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Not a happy American citizen. Madmann135

The letter so far.
I will sign my name I'm just putting my Internet name on it for the time being.

Quoted: WHAT I’m asking is that the Supreme Court breaks their ... OR I'm asking is that the Supreme Court break s their

Madmann135,

I'll buy you dinner if the surpreme courts actually overturns their policy of not hearing 2nd Amendment cases and overturns all of these UnConstitutional laws.


In other words, great job, but I doubt you'll even get a response out of them.

However, if you want to be really effective with this mindset, talk to every pro-gun person you know, get them to become teachers, journalists and politicians! That's the way we'll change the anti-gun climate.

I have a really hard time with closing statements.

Plan on mailing this at latest on Wensday.
Don't care if I get on the "List" I just care that I don't sound like an un educated person.

I know the chances of the results I want being enacted are nill to Zip but I have to try.  
I am not the kind of person that likes being pushed and run over.

Get rid of the first 'is' in the last paragraph and I think it should be 'owning' not 'owing', also last paragraph.

I know the subject is mainly on the 2nd Amendment, but you may want to consider providing some recent statistics on gun crime, gun ownership, etc, etc.  Just to boot the liberal in the face.

The NRA-ILA has some interesting stuff (I'm sure you knew that but nonetheless).  
http://www.nraila.org

Quoted: Quoted: What I'm asking is that you guys and gals look this over, it would be great if one of you were english majors because I know I have grammer errors and could use a little assistance with this. The reason I'm asking the consesses of AR15.com is because the local english major here is quite anti gun and will probally not read this.  Try not to steal it because I'm finishing this up before mailing. Recently I have been doing research into some of the laws pertaining firearms and I have come to the conclusion that many of them are unconstitutional.  These are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion, What I am asking is that you rule the laws that are unconstitutional and still in effect Unconstitutional.  By letting these laws stay in effect you are in fact allowing the government to break the constitution and therefore you are allowing the government to break the law. In United States VS Cruikshank (1876) the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only protects citizens against the government.  There are a number of laws that have broken that ruling and in some cities like Chicago hand guns are illegal.  In addition there are a number of cases where private citizens were arrested for owning a legal hand gun in their own homes and therefore the government took away their handguns.  By the ruling in said case the events should not have occurred in fact by that ruling this law is unconstitutional.  In addition to restrictions on handguns in Chicago there is a law that from my research states that you MUST register your weapons with the city, not doing so will cause you to be arrested.  Thought history weapon registration has led to weapon confiscation and therefore this law is unconstitutional. In United States VS  Miller (1939) Miller was in possession of a sawed off shotgun, though it is not a weapon normally used by the militia of present day I can understand to an extent the ruling that occurred.  There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the Clinton AWB.  This ban prevented the manufacture of “Assault Weapons,” though I believe justice was served through the fact that the majority that were for it were not reelected into office by the ruling of US VS Miller this law was unconstitutional as well as the second AWB that is being proposed.  Though the ruling that Miller should not have been in possession of the sawed off Shotgun would be unconstitutional when you take into account that according to several historical text stating that state that individual citizens, the militia, were required to appear for duty with their own weapons.  Therefore the previous statement could be stated that all weapons available could be used by the militia and therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment. In Presser VS Illinois include the ?docket? number, though the case was not directly related to the 2nd Amendment, there are interesting facts that arose from it.  <-- rephrase. "In Presser VS Illinois there are interesting facts that arose from it."  goes no where.One of said facts I am referring to is all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute to the militia huh? and therefore every law that violates or infringes an individual’s right to bear arms is unconstitutional.  Another fact that arose from this case is the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.  There are a number of laws and regulations that prevent people capable from bearing and keeping arms, and due to this ruling those laws and regulations are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment, “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,” just does not protect military’s ability to keep and bear arms, it protects individual citizens right to keep and bear arms.  I agree that there are some laws that are instituted to protect citizens but there are a number that violate and desecrate the second amendment.   I am asking is that the Supreme Court break their i thing their should be "it's", as the SC is refered to as a indivudual thing, not plural restriction on ruling on 2nd Amendment cases and decree that the secondit is either 2nd or second. be consistent. amendment is being routinely violated therefore the laws that violate the responsible citizens from owing militia armaments unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Not a happy American citizen. Madmann135 I think i fixed it to what you meant, becuase later you then bring up the proposed 2nd AWB. EDIT: for sure fixed.

Having a little trouble ending it...

Here it is so far.

Doing my best to keep it compact and right to the point.

Recently I have been doing research into some of the laws pertaining firearms and I have come to the conclusion that many of them are unconstitutional.  These are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion, What I am asking is that you rule the laws that are unconstitutional and still in effect Unconstitutional.  By letting these laws stay in effect you are in fact allowing the government to break the constitution and therefore you are allowing the government to break the law. In United States VS Cruikshank (1876) the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only protects citizens against the government.  There are a number of laws that have broken that ruling and in some cities like Chicago hand guns are illegal.  In addition there are a number of cases where private citizens were arrested for owning a legal hand gun in their own homes and therefore the government took away their handguns.  By the ruling in said case the events should not have occurred in fact by that ruling this law is unconstitutional.  In addition to restrictions on handguns in Chicago there is a law that from my research states that you MUST register your weapons with the city, not doing so will cause you to be arrested.  Thought history weapon registration has led to weapon confiscation and therefore this law is unconstitutional. In United States VS  Miller (1939) Miller was in possession of a sawed off shotgun, though it is not a weapon normally used by the militia of present day I can understand to an extent the ruling that occurred.  There are as well a number of violations of this law in recent American history, namely the Clinton Assault Weapon Import Ban, and the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.  This ban prevented the manufacture of “Assault Weapons,” though I believe justice was served through the fact that the majority that were for it were not reelected into office by the ruling of US VS Miller this law was unconstitutional as well as the second AWB that is being proposed.  Though the ruling that Miller should not have been in possession of the sawed off Shotgun would be unconstitutional when you take into account that according to several historical text stating that state that individual citizens, the militia, were required to appear for duty with their own weapons.  Therefore the previous statement could be stated that all weapons available could be used by the militia and therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment. In Presser VS Illinois (1886), though the case was not directly related to the 2nd Amendment there are interesting facts that arose from it.  One of said fact I am referring to is all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute to the militia and therefore every law that violates or infringes an individual’s right to bear arms is unconstitutional.  Another fact that arose from this case is the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.  There are a number of laws and regulations that prevent people capable from bearing and keeping arms, and due to this ruling those laws and regulations are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment, “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,” just does not protect military’s ability to keep and bear arms, it protects individual citizens right to keep and bear arms.  I agree that there are some laws that are instituted to protect citizens but there are a number that violate and desecrate the second amendment.   Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and "[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply,” (James D. Wright, U.S. Dept of Justice, The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons 2 of 1986).   Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so (Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology).  Firearms are used, approximately, 60 more times to defend than to harm. Numerous believe that only police should be in possession of hand guns, yet most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police (Wright and Rossi, “”Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, 1986). An interesting myth concerning Concealed Carry permits and weapons is Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection. Even more interestingly enough, about 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000 (C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”.  Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994).159 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year. There are numerous myths about guns and crime, yet they are just that myths and can not be proven with factual research and/or data.  Every citizen had an individual right to own a firearm and have every right to defend themselves from attack, Various Courts have proven this in numerous rulings yet states enact and pass laws that prevent honest citizens from owning a firearm.   What I am asking is that the Supreme Court adjust their restriction about ruling on 2nd Amendment cases and decree that the second amendment is being routinely violated therefore the laws that violate the responsible citizens from owing militia armaments unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Many anti-gun people do not listen to facts concerning firearms and the advantages they possess in society, they only focus on the disadvantages which are remarkably disproportionate in the news.  Yet there are numerous reports and surveys that state firearms are more likely to defend an individual than take a life for instance Http://www.GunFacts.info has an article or report that tells the myths and how valid they are in society.   As Walter Mondale, a former vice president and U.S. Ambassador to Japan stated, “Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." Not a happy American citizen. Madmann135

The appropriate information, contact and such will be added to the letter

The Supreme Court is not supposed to base its decisions on whether citizens having guns is good or bad for society.  Your statistics are impressive, but ultimately they shouldn't enter into the court's decision at all.


The ONLY criteria the Supreme Court is supposed to use for striking down or upholding laws is whether or not they are constitutional.

The supreme court SHOULD strike down all laws which infringe on my ability to acquire arms because:

1.  All able bodied males between the ages of 18-45 are a member of the unorganized militia. The Dick Act in 1903 split the militia into joint controlled state National Guards and the unorganized militia (the unorganized militia is an almost identical mirror image of the miltia of the revolutionary war).

2.  The founders, recognizing that the people were the militia, codified the right of those people to keep and bear arms.

3.  The federal government is nowhere in the constitution given the power to regulate ownership of weapons by individual citizens.  According to the 10th Amendment, individual weapons ownership is therefore a reserved right of the people.

Those are the constitutional issues in play.  And those are the only issues which should carry any weight in their decision making.


So how do we go about getting these judges who like to legislate from the bench impeached?

Thanks 1Andy2, working on inputing the information into the letter.