(mods, please tack!)

Certainly you've read that recently President Bush, through his spokesman Scott McClellan, has announced his support for the current Aw ban.  This sends a clear message that we really don't know on which side the president falls.  He supports the current ban, but will he vocally support a tougher ban?  Will allow the ban to sunset without encouraging Congress to reauthorize it?  We simply don't know.
 
The only way to make sure that the president does not exert influence on this critical firearm control issue is to let Congress know exactly how we feel.  It is within the chambers of Congress that any Aw ban replacement must be defeated.  
 
America's firearm owners must respond.  Therefore, [url]AWBansunset.com[/url] is calling for a letter drive in May.  We want to flood the desks of our representatives and Congressional leaders letting them know exactly where we stand.  Here is a list of people we recommend you write.
 
Your rep and Senators
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist
Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle
House Majority leader Tom DeLay
House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi
House Judiciary Co Chair James Sensenbrenner
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Committee, George Allen
Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Tom Reynolds
Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, John Corzine
Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Robert Matsui
 
You can start with templates listed at [url]http://www.awbansunset.com/writeofficials.html[/url].  The addresses to write these members of Congress can be found at [url]http://www.house.gov/writerep/[/url] or [url]http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm[/url].  For the House Leaders simply click on the "House Leadership" section on the left side.
 
On May 5th, drop the letters you've written into the mail.
 
We urge all who read this to inform as many firearm owners as possible about this drive.  Certainly, this won't be the last Congress hears from us before September 13, 2004, but we can make a lasting impression now.
 
Thanks for supporting our 2nd Amendment rights,
Staff of [url]AWBansunset.com[/url]

bump!

[b][blue]* * * I hope you guys don't mind if I keep reposting this every time this topic comes up * * * [/blue][/b]


The goal is to kill these bills before they ever see the light of a CNN camera. We have to make sure that anti-RKBA bills get buried in committee - and STAY buried.

Towards that end, we need to SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE these particular House members because they have these and all other anti-RKBA bills in THEIR hands [b]right NOW[/b].

The Senate is almost a lost cause - but we have strength in the House and THAT'S where we need to focus our efforts - and our emails, letters and phone calls.


[b]108th US Congress - [/b]

[b]HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - [/b]
[i](this is where all gun-control bills are introduced in the House)[/i]
[B]Chairman - [url=http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/contact.htm]Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-WI:[/url] GOA rating: A[/b]

[b]HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY - [/b]
[i](this is the judiciary subcommittee that is the first to vote on (or bury) all gun-control bills)[/i]
[b]Chairman - [url=http://www.house.gov/coble/]Rep. Howard Coble, R-NC:[/url] GOA rating: A
Subcommittee Members -
* [url=http://www.tomfeeney.com/cf/prs_47.cfm]Rep. Tom Feeney, R-FL:[/url] GOA rating: A
* [url=http://www.house.gov/keller/Frset.htm]Rep. Rick Keller, R-FL:[/url] GOA rating: A
* [url=http://mikepence.house.gov/]Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN:[/url] GOA rating: A
* [url=http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/]Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-VA:[/url] GOA rating: A-
* [url=http://www.house.gov/forbes/]Rep. Randy Forbes, R-VA:[/url] GOA rating: A-
* [url=http://www.house.gov/chabot/]Rep. Steve Chabot, R-OH:[/url] GOA rating: A-
* [url=http://www.house.gov/markgreen/]Rep. Mark Green, R-WI:[/url] GOA rating: B-[/b]
* Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Adam Schiff, D-CA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Martin Meehan, D-MA: GOA rating: F-

[b]HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP -[/b]
[i](this is who is most responsible for either "moving" or "sidetracking" bills in the House)[/i]
[b]* [url=http://tomdelay.house.gov/contact.htm]Rep. Tom DeLay, R-TX:[/url] GOA rating: A[/b]

[size=3][blue][b]Just look at that straight-A line-up! [bounce][/b][/blue][/size=3]

[b][size=3]THIS[/size=3][/b] is what a Republican-majority can do - but the battle's just beginning now!

This is our [b]BEST[/b] chance to kill these kinds of bills.

Now we can piss and moan all we want to about what bills are introduced and who introduced them - but [b]THESE PEOPLE[/b] are the ones who can keep or kill them.

Contact them and let them know that these anti-gun bills are blatant violations of the 2nd Amendment and "remind" them that the 'gun-control' issue was a MAJOR factor in the success of conservative Republicans in both the 2000 and 2002 elections and will continue to be so in the future.

And if you live in any of these Rep's States (or better yet their districts) [b][size=3]you MUST[/size=3][/b] contact them [b]OFTEN[/b] and let them hear from the people who will be voting in their next election.

Just think...
...it only takes EIGHT people in this one subcommittee to bury these bills - [b]DEAD[/b].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[b][blue]Brief History Of AWB And Voting Record Of Republicans On House Judiciary Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism And Homeland Security:[/b][/blue]

[b][u]1994 Assault Weapons Ban[/u][/b] (103rd Congress, 5/5/94):
H.R. 4296 (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) that bans the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. This measure is similar to the amendment to the Senate-passed crime bill, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The bill passed 216-214. (by ONE FRICKIN' VOTE!!!)

[b][u]Final Passage of 1994 Crime Bill[/u][/b] (103rd Congress, 8/21/94):
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, containing a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and a ban on juvenile possession of handguns.  The bill passed 235-195.  Signed into law by Clinton on September 13, 1994 (P.L.103-322).

[b][u]1996 Repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban[/u][/b] (104th Congress, 3/22/96):
H.R. 125, "The Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996." Repeal of the federal assault weapon ban originally passed in the 1994 crime bill. The bill passed 239-173. The Senate never voted on the bill to repeal the AWB.

[blue][b][u]How They Voted[/u]:  '94 AWB / Final '94 Crime Bill+AWB / '96 Repeal of AWB[/b][/blue]

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/contact.htm]Sensenbrenner, R-WI[/url][/b]  = NO / NO / YES

SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/coble/]Coble, R-NC[/url][/b]  = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS:
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/]Goodlatte, R-VA[/url][/b] =  NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/chabot/]Chabot, R-OH[/url][/b]  = Not around in '94 but voted YES to '96 Repeal of AWB.
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/forbes/]Forbes, R-VA[/url][/b]  = Not around in '94 but voted YES to '96 Repeal of AWB (but he likes gun-show background checks)
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/markgreen/]Green, R-WI[/url][/b]  = Not around in '94 or '96 (but has 8/9 pro-RKBA voting record)
[B]* [url=http://www.house.gov/keller/Frset.htm]Keller, R-FL[/url][/b]  = Not around in '94 or '96 (but has 4/4 pro-RKBA voting record)
[B]* [url=http://mikepence.house.gov/]Pence, R-IN[/url][/b]  = Not around in '94 or '96 (but has 4/4 pro-RKBA voting record)
[B]* [url=http://www.tomfeeney.com/cf/prs_47.cfm]Feeney, R-FL[/url][/b]  = NEWBIE ALERT (has 1/1 pro-RKBA voting record - yes to HR1036)

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP:
[B]* [url=http://tomdelay.house.gov/contact.htm]DeLay, R-TX[/url] [/b] = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:
[b]* [url=http://www.house.gov/hastert/]Hastert, R-IL[/url][/b] = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)


[b]Now [size=4]THIS[/size=4] is what voting for Republicans will get you - a virtually STACKED pro-RKBA House Leadership and Subcommittee majority!! [bounce]

[SIZE=3]But we [/size=3][size=6]MUST[/size=6][size=3] keep the pressure on these guys - ESPECIALLY the newer House members!![/b]

[url=http://www.house.gov/writerep/]Contact YOUR Representative HERE![/url]

Write LETTERS, make PHONE CALLS as well as sending emails!!!

Remember, this one is OURS - to win or lose!!!


LET'EM HEAR FROM YOU!!![/b][/size=3] [soapbox]

Perfect... thanks!

--Mike

I don't want too sound too lazy, but how 'bout some good references of facts of 'assault weapons' being rarely used for crime?  I have a lot going on in my personal life and have so little free time.  I have time to write, but not enough for do do the background fact searching.  This sticky posts seems a good place to post some references.

I would think some letters that point out a few facts from good sources (like National Health and Crime Statistics) would be more effective than "I don't thunk you should take mah guns, mah heah assault weapon ain't dun hurt noone"

Just what makes you think anyone here is going to write a dumb-hick sounding letter like you implied???


I've written (and continue to write) plenty of letters that include stats and have posted them here too. Do a search for "AWB" and you'll find them.

But here's a few stats to get ya' started:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In referring to the Assault Weapon Ban, Rep. Charles Schumer (one of the bill's sponsors) said this:
[i]"...there's a 10-year sunset on this. In other words, it ends after 10 years. Let's wait and see--if it's working"[/i]
~ [url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/gun_ban_3-21.html]Charles Schumer, PBS, March 21, 1996.[/url]

Well, THIS report to Congress clearly states that the ban is NOT working:

According to the [b][url=http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf]NIJ 1999 Report To Congress:[/url] "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96" -[/b]

[b]*[/b][i] "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."[/i]
[b]*[/b][i] "The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."[/i]
[b]*[/b][i] "The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."[/i]

-------------------------------------------------------------------


And here's some stats showing that "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes and do NOT pose a major threat to public safety:

According to the [b][url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf]Dept. of Justice; Firearm Use by Offender, 1997 Data -[/url][/b]

[b][blue]FACT:[/blue] "Assault weapons" are RARELY possessed by criminals during commission of a crime.[/b]
- Of State and Federal prison inmates who possessed firearms during the crime for which they are being incarcerated:
* 9.9% of state and 7.3% of federal inmates possessed "single-shot" firearms.
* 7.9% of state and 7.7% of federal inmates possessed conventional semiautomatic firearm.
* [b]1.5%[/b] of state and [b]1.7%[/b] of federal inmates possessed military-style semi-auto or full-auto firearms.

[b][blue]FACT:[/blue] "Assault weapons" are RARELY involved in ANY crimes.[/b]
- Of State and Federal prison inmates who have ever possessed firearms during ANY crime:
* 14.2% of state and 10.6% of federal inmates possessed "single-shot" firearm during ANY crime.
* 10.9% of state and 9.8% of federal inmates possessed conventional semiautomatic firearm during ANY crime.
* [b]2.5%[/b] of state and [b]2.3%[/b] of federal inmates possessed military-style semi-auto or full-auto firearms during [b]ANY[/b] crime.

[b][blue]FACT:[/blue] "Assault weapons" possessed by criminals during crimes are USUALLY obtained [u]illegally[/u] (and are are RARELY obtained through [u]gunshows[/u]).[/b]
- Of state prison inmates who possessed military-style semi-auto or full-auto firearms in crimes for which they are incarcerated:
* [b]48.5%[/b] obtained them through [u]illegal sources[/u] (theft, drug dealer, black market, etc.)
* 25.2% obtained them from family or friend.
* 19.3% obtained them from retail sale.
* 1.9% obtained them from gun shows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


[b]Lastly, "military-style" firearms are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in [i]U.S. v. Miller[/i] (1939) and [i]Lewis v. U.S.[/i] (1980). [/b]

[b]*[/b] In the [b]Miller[/b] decision the Supreme Court stated, [i]"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".[/i]

[b]*[/b] In the [b]Lewis[/b] decision, the Supreme Court stated, [i]"the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'".[/i]

[b]* Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "military-style" firearms are [u]EXACTLY[/u] the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment.[/b]

In addition to what Macallan posted, you can also find information here:

[url]www.awbansunset.com/crime.html[/url]
[url]www.awbansunset.com/effects.html[/url]
[url]www.awbansunset.com/whyown.html[/url]

--Mike

Has this been posted on any other firearms boards??

TS

I just moved from Virginia to Kentucky.  Before I left Fairfax, I sent off letters to all my reps expressing my feelings regarding the AWB issue and control in general.  Figure I might as well vent my opinion to them one more time before I'm out the door.  

Now that I'm in Northern KY, I'll be doing the same here.  From what I've read, my two senators (R both) and my house rep (D) are pro gun.  I'll be making sure they know what my feelings are on these issues and I will tell them that I expect a certain votes from them on bills if they want to have my vote the next time they are up for reelection.

GET INVOLVED PEOPLE!  This isn't going to be easy, and it's NEVER going to end.  Write your reps.  Write the Whitehouse.  Write your state legislators, the gov.  Everyone you can think of!  Feinstink and Schtuper will not stop at this.  Keep the pressure up!

Thank for all the vital information...

The LETTER drive is a great idea! I have BOTH of my senators and rep in my cell phone! I call them ANYTIME a bill comes up that I think needs their attention!!!

LETTERS work! Email gets deleted! (They get PILES of spam!!!!)

Write, write, write!!!

Don't forget to tell all your friends about the online petition.

[url]http://www.petitiononline.com/AWB/[/url]

2231 signatures and counting.

Bilster

With Bush's "I support renewal of the current ban" statement, the stage is set for a nasty surprise if we don't stay on top of things.  While a good number of congressmen will oppose the ban no matter what, there are undoubtedly many who may be leaning towards supporting renewal of the existing ban, but not a more restrictive version.

To many of these moderately pro-gun politicians, this would appear to be a deceptively easy way out.  They get to avoid being given nasty labels by the anti-gun crowd and the media, while at the same time thinking they'll be able to brag to gun owners about how hard they worked to ensure a more restrictive ban was not passed.

In other words, when you write to your reps and senators, you need to be sure to stress that simply renewing the existing ban is NOT at all acceptable to you.

With Bush's recent statement, we need to put forth a concentrated effort to not allow the debate to turn into renew as-is vs. expand (with expiring not even being an option).  As far as we are concerned, it is the opposite... sunset vs. renew (with expanding the ban not even open for discussion).

--Mike

I have my letters ready to go. I really hope everyone joins in. Really glad this was posted.

Mailing on May 5th!!!!!!

Apparently Clinton/Feinstein will introduce a bill in the next few weeks about this.

From the editorial page of my local, OC Register.

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

A cosmetic gun law




Next year a law restricting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is scheduled to expire. Unfortunately, the Bush administration wants to keep the law on the books.

In 1994, President Clinton signed a bill outlawing 184 types of "assault" rifle. It's important to put the adjective in quotes because these aren't really "assault" rifles at all.

"It is a law that is about the cosmetics of firearms," David Kopel told us; he's research director at the Independence Institute and author of "Guns: Who Should Have Them?"

One criterion in the law that makes a regular rifle an "assault" weapon, he said, is if it has "a bayonet lug, as if someone were to go out and commit drive-by bayonetings. In reality, these guns don't fire faster than other guns, don't have internal parts different from other guns.They are not battlefield machine guns. The guns are banned based only on their looks."

He also said that, even before the 1994 ban, so-called "assault" weapons were used in only "1 or 2 percent of crimes of any type in which guns are seized by the police."

[b]California Sen. Dianne Feinstein will introduce a bill in the coming weeks to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban, according to the Contra Costa Times.[/b]

It's not surprising that gun-control advocates want to extend the ban. What's odd is that President Bush does.

Although President Bush supported the existing ban in his 2000 campaign, he was vague about supporting its continuance. Mr. Kopel said that gained him key support - against gun-controlling Al Gore - from gun owners in such closely contested states with high gun ownership as Florida and West Virginia.

If the president persists in offending gun owners, Mr. Kopel said, he risks losing their votes. That actually happened when his father, President George H.W. Bush, supported an earlier "assault" weapons ban in 1989 and lost many gun owners' votes in his 1992 campaign.

Fortunately, this time the Republican Congress has a chance to make sure he doesn't do so by making sure the Clinton-Feinstein ban extension never is passed.

The Rally for America is a great rally to partisipate in. I attended the Rally for America in San Antonio, Texas about a month ago and it was incredible! About 8,000 people showed up to support the troops that are deployed. Glenn Beck is setting up a Rally for America in Huntington, WV on Memorial day and he needs to collect $250,000 to put on a "Rally no one will ever forget." He is asking for $1 per person so that the anti-war libs can't say that the rally was sponcered by "big corporations," it will in fact be sponcered by the American people. If $250,000 is not collected the Rally will not be put on, but the contributions will still be given to the U.S.O. If you want more information go to Glenn Beck's Web site at www.glennbeck.com and check it out yourself.

DONE!!!!!!!!!!!
         

In addition to the above please consider doing this. I have just faxed this letter to President George Bush as per GOA instructions.

***********************************

Last week's GOA alert has resulted in thousands upon thousands of e-mails going to the President. There is still no official retraction from the White House, however.

If you haven't sent the pre-written e-mail to President Bush yet, please go to http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to do so. For those of you desiring additional ways to contact the President regarding the semi-auto ban, you can use the following information to call, fax or snail mail him:

President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Fax: 202-456-2461 or 202-456-1907
Phone: 202-456-1414

If you have not contacted the White House at all yet, please use this opportunity to make your voice heard. It is absolutely vital that we continue inundating the White House in opposition to this ban, and that we do everything we can to repeal it. The pre-written letter from last week's alert has been included below for your convenience.

------ Pre-written message ------

Dear President Bush:


I oppose the Clinton-Feinstein ban on common household firearms.


And that is why I was surprised to hear White House spokesman Scott McClellan say that you support the current ban, along with its reauthorization (The Washington Post, April 12, 2003).


I am taken aback for a few reasons. First, you clearly ran on a pro-gun platform in your race for the White House in 2000. As a result, you were elected President because gun owners all over the country went to the polls and voted for you. Most notably, pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states into your column -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas. Without these three states, Florida would never have been an issue.


Second, former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that passage of the 1994 semi-auto ban cost him control of the Congress. In other words, many Democrats lost their jobs because they voted for this ban. Gun control is a losing issue politically.


Third, the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and outlaws the very guns and magazines that millions of people have relied upon to defend their homes and families. The website of Gun Owners of America gives the statistics showing that these banned firearms are rarely used to commit crimes or murders -- in fact, more Americans are killed by knives.


I hope that Scott McClellan was in error and that his statement does not represent your views. And so I trust you will be open and honest with me. Will you OPPOSE the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban and OPPOSE its reauthorization?


Please let me know.


Sincerely,

Don't bother to write a long letter; they get tons of such letters each day, they won't read it.  A simple postcard with "Vote No on the Assault Weapons Ban!" is much more effective.
remember- KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

dont bother to send email either.  the gov't just announmced that they would be ignoring most of it that comes through because there is just to damned much to read thru.

You know... there are a lot of things deemed un-Constitutional... the Pledge being the most recent, and law-suits get filed... where is the money we're all sending the NRA going?  The Supreme court has ruled twice that a ban on Military Style weapons is un-Constitutional, why hasn't the NRA or someone filed a lawsuit about this?

Never-the-less, I write (I still want to know why the lack of lawsuits, I think they could do some good...)

-----------------------------------------
5555 My Street, Drive
Somewhere, MI 55555
05 May, 2003


Governor Jennifer Granholm
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909




Dear Governor Granholm,

Subject: I would appreciate your support.


I will cut straight to the purpose of my letter.  In 1994 the Clinton Administration passed a bill banning the production of what was deemed by them to be “assault weapons”.  They stated these weapons’ only purpose was to kill, yet only 1.5% of state and 1.7% of federal inmates even possessed these types of weapons.  That’s quite a marginal number.  Knives are used more than any firearm banned in the U.S.  For those that are used in the commission of crimes, 48.5% of them are obtained illegally through theft and black market purchases, and 25.2% are obtained through family and friends, which proves that any ban is preposterous as nearly half of the crimes committed were done so with already illegal weapons, thus perpetuating common sense that criminals don’t obey the law, only we, the law abiding, do so.  An example is the Beltway Assassin. (I refuse to refer to him/them as a ‘sniper’)  The dealer from which the rifle used was “purchased” has no record of this, or several hundred other weapons over the course of an entire year.  I am sure this example will be used to perpetuate why we need to re-instate the ban, yet it proves several things.  

1.) The ban doesn’t work.  
2.) The ATF isn’t doing it’s job as is, why are we to expect them to start enforcing a new ban?
3.) Criminals don’t adhere to the stipulations of laws, which is what makes them criminal, therefore any assumption that they will begin to obey the law simply because a new one is passed is completely inane.

The only firearms I own are “assault weapons”, yet I haven’t killed anyone, nor would I ever.  I don’t hunt, so hunting rifles are obsolete for me.  What I do enjoy doing is target shooting, and an AR-15 is perfect for that role, as several hundred thousand, possibly millions, of Americans already know.  The ammunition is extremely weak and inexpensive, so I can enjoy shooting all day without putting a huge dent in my funds.  

I feel that the current “Assault Weapons” Ban is completely un-Constitutional, as would be any further ban.  The Supreme Court has ruled as follows on this subject:

In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".

In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'".

So being that both decisions state that the Second Amendment protects military style weapons (those having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia) which includes ‘Assault Weapons’, any ban on such weapons is un-Constitutional, not to mention ignorant as they are the least commonly used weapon in the commission of a crime.

Freedom of Speech is vehemently protected and that is unquestionable.  Everyone utilizes this guaranteed and inalienable right, and I would wager nearly every American would defend it, so what is the difference between the First Amendment and the Second Amendment?  They are both guaranteed freedoms, and are supposed to be inalienable rights, so why should I even need to write this letter?  

Former President Bill Clinton has stated time and again that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban cost him control of congress, many people lost their jobs because they voted in support of this ban, which shows that gun control is a losing issue politically.

This bill has the chance of sun-setting in September of 2004, and I strongly urge you to help it do so.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is just as important as Freedom of Speech, so please help put it at the same level politically.  We must always remember the firearms used in crimes are no more responsible than cars used in car accidents.  It is always the human component that is at fault, and that is who should be punished, not those of us who have not committed any crimes.

I have never shot anyone.  I am not religious, I believe in God but no particular religion.  I am maintaining a 4.00 GPA in college with aspirations of serving with the U.S. Air Force.  Narcotics have never entered my body, nor will they ever, the same with alcohol or cigarettes.  Unfortunately these are not things you will see on the news or read in a newspaper.  They simply would not make for a good story, nor would the story of the other several million American gun owners who own and utilize their firearms legally, sometimes on a daily basis.  Doctors and lawyers, musicians and accountants, politicians and fast-food employees, all across the country there are law abiding citizens owning firearms that you may never hear of or from, they are the ones who are harmed by gun control.

I will continue to support the ENTIRE Constitution and not just parts of it, and I hope you will do the same.



Thank you.

Sincerely,





__________________________
Dave Foster
(555)-555-5555

Can you give a link to more info on the SCOTUS declaring this unconstitutional two separatetimes???  

How did I miss this one?

Posted earlier in this thread:

Lastly, "military-style" firearms are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980).

* In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".

* In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'".

* Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "military-style" firearms are EXACTLY the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

As for what is the NRA doing with your money?

I have been questioning that myself,
ever since they endorsed Tom Ridge for Gov. of Pa.
AFTER, he voted FOR every gun control measure that came through the congress when he was there.

I think GUN OWNERS of AMERICA, are much more constuctive to our cause.

I will be writing to my rep and my Senator and [i]snail-mailing[/i] them.

My letters are printed, signed, addressed, and stamped. Just waiting for the day.

Here is the letter I am thinking of sending to my representative.  It is a little different from the others I have seen.  What do you think?

I have personalized, specific letters written to each of my Representatives and Senators and I will be writing a more general letter for the President and the head of the RNC.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is we win this one because this is about a lot more than the assault weapons ban.

Look at the lineup we have in the House - that is about as solid a pro-gun lineup as we have had since they started advocating federal gun control. If we can't win with that line up, it will be because those politicians didn't hear a peep out of us and got cold feet.

If we can't win with THAT lineup, then we are going to be in real trouble with regards to future legislation.

The good news is that this is 100% our fight to lose. All we have to do to win is show up. The bad news is that if we lose this fight, it means that even our staunchest and most loyal allies in the legislature no longer see any benefit in supporting us.

[b][size=3]TING!!![/size=3][/b] [i]{sound of nail being hit squarely on head}[/i]



[b][size=3]YOU ARE DEAD-CENTER, 100%, EXACTLY, ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!![/size=3][/b]


[^]

Macallan, you been on vacation or something?  [:)]

--Mike

I wish!

Been swamped all week at work. Busy time of year.

Things should lighten up in a week or so.

Have I missed much?

Letters processed and ready to go tomorrow.
Thanks to mcaswell, magic, and The_Macallan.

Going out to the mailbox right now to drop my stack of letters in.

Going out today...

Naw, I was just wondering when you were going to pop up with your excellent "I hope you guys don't mind me posting this every time..." post!  [:)]

--Mike

I dropped a baker's dozen letters in the mailbox today.  Many thanks to Doublefeed for tacking this... let's hope our message gets through loud and clear!

--Mike

I call sometimes, I e-mail sometimes, I snail mail sometimes, I sign petitions, maybe some of it will get through. I firmaly believe we are still a gov of the people but when the people are silent so it goes. The thought that my voice or my vote don't count comes straight out of the pit of hell. When the majority thinks this you will have a nation, union, local church, gun rights group or any thing else that is powerless. Just my .02 this morn, have a great day.
[usa]

Sent to both of my liberal democrat congesswomen.