Write to your representatives!! Post your letters here:

My Congressman wrote me a nice reply to my earlier note. This will be my reply to his message:

_____________________________________________________________

Dear Representative Pitts,

Thank you for your reply and I apologize for my very late response. I am glad to read that you will stand by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

I have been reading that President Obama intends to bypass Congress and utilize executive privilege to mandate gun control measures. This concerns me deeply, as the Second Amendment clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. “Infringed” being the operative word here. Any attempts to defeat, limit, or invalidate the Second Amendment should be considered as a violation of the rights of the law-abiding citizenry.

The Second Amendment is the insurance policy of the American people that government corruption and tyranny can be kept in check. It is the most crucial amendment to the Constitution, as all of the other Amendments depend upon our government being held accountable to the will of the people. Without the ability to defend our rights, I am very concerned what President Obama’s subsequent actions will be. Even if President Obama’s next actions are benign, the stage will be set for mandates from future governments. I have two children and I am afraid that they will lose their freedoms someday.

Such an important issue should be put to a vote. I do not believe the Executive branch of our government should be operating in loco parentis on this or any other significant issue. We have three branches of government for a reason. If the executive branch is over-stepping its authority, the other two must provide checks to restore balance to the government.

It is my understanding that when President Obama took his oath of office, he promised to uphold the Constitution. If he bypasses Congress and due process through executive order to infringe upon the Second Amendment, I believe this constitutes a violation of his oath. Should President Obama pursue this course of action, I would like you to initiate the process to impeach President Obama before he can become a dictator.

Please let me know what I can do to help you defend our Second Amendment rights. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this request.


<Signature>
 
A very well written letter! Thank you for sharing it here. I would like to see a letter such as this sent to every elected representative.
 
Thank you, sir! You are very kind.

For anyone who is interested, please feel free to use what I have written (or some permutation thereof).
 
Dear Mr. TStick,



Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding new gun control legislation in the aftermath of the tragic December 2012 mass shooting that took place in Newtown, Connecticut. It is an honor to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.



It is deeply disheartening any time innocent people become targets of senseless violence. I believe strongly that Americans should have a reasonable expectation of safety and security inside their homes and communities, which is why a seemingly random tragedy like the Newtown shooting is especially unnerving. At its core, this, and other related tragedies reflect not an absence of law, but a fundamental lack of respect for human life.



Anti-gun proponents have seized upon this event, contending that enacting new laws to restrict firearm ownership can prevent future tragedies. Such claims are deeply flawed and lack merit, as a comprehensive set of laws and regulations governing firearms in the United States already exists. The reality that many anti-gun zealots refuse to acknowledge is that criminals who perpetrate gun crimes find ways to circumvent all gun laws. For this reason, additional gun control measures would have little impact on criminals, and instead only serve to restrict the Constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights that law-abiding citizens enjoy.



Within the first few days of the 113th Congress, my Democratic colleagues have introduced several anti-Second Amendment measures, including legislation to prohibit the ownership or transfer of magazines containing more than ten rounds, impose federal regulation of gun shows, require all ammunition sales to be conducted face-to-face, and forbid private citizens from transferring their legally-owned firearms without the involvement of a licensed transferee. In addition, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, has announced her own plan to introduce a new assault weapons ban bill to the 113th Congress. The Senator's bill would ban the sale, transfer, importation and possession of assault weapons, as well as the sale of clips of more than ten bullets. Additionally, Vice President Joe Biden is currently leading an effort to form administration policies designed to curb gun-related violence. The White House's emerging gun-control strategy also includes support for an assault weapons ban.



Let me be clear: I will not be supporting Senator Feinstein's bill or any initiatives from the White House that violate our Second Amendment rights. As a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), I will always work to ensure that our Constitutional right to bear arms is safeguarded. Law-abiding American citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. In addition, I believe that Congress should be more focused on examining strategies to ensure that those with mental-health conditions are identified and provided with appropriate care and attention within their communities. The best approach to addressing gun violence is to promote a respect for human dignity and life within our families, schools, and neighborhoods, and to enforce the statutes that we already have on the books.



I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue. As Congress discusses policy reforms related to the current and future role of our federal government in preventing these tragedies, please know that I will continue to support legislation designed curb instances of violent crime while preserving our Second Amendment rights. I look forward to continue serving you in the 113th Congress. If my staff or I can do anything to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can also visit my website at Congressman John Fleming for further information or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/repjohnfleming or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/repfleming.





Sincerely,



JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
U.S. Representative


:handclap emoticon:
 
Here is just one of the many I sent out.

Dear Delegate Ready,

I am writing this in concern with the knee jerk reactions to institute a new "Assault Weapons" ban along with any other restrictions against law abiding citizens like myself.

I do agree with the entire country in saying that these tragedies were absolutely despicable, and have no place in this country. That being said, these tragedies were perpetrated by criminals. Those who don't follow laws to begin with. All that laws and restrictions do is limit the freedoms of law ABIDING citizens. They do nothing to stop a criminal.

What needs to be done is to make sure that our law enforcement agencies are giving the tools to fully enforce current laws that have been passed. Not let off career criminals with a slap on the wrist, and make sure violent offenders are kept behind bars. Also this country needs to look deeper into mental health issues and to make sure that those with mental health problems get the assistance they need so that they can be productive in life, not destructive in life. We must also start making sure that family values and morals are the core of this country.

This is where we need to head, not more gun-control laws that affect lawful firearm owners. The statistics on crimes and murders committed with rifles for the State of Maryland are 2 deaths for 2011. According to FBI statistics, deaths caused by all rifles never were greater than 10 since 2004.

We cannot keep repeating the same mistakes and hope that the outcome changes. We must go in a different direction. We can start right here in Maryland.

We must make sure that we truly model what this state's motto is, THE FREE STATE and not become another "FREEDOM LESS STATE".

Thank you.
 
I filed my concerns with both US Senators for GA and with my GA-9 US Representative, Doug Collins. I have not received anything but an acknowledgement of receipt from the Senators, but did receive a direct-response from our newly elected US Representative for GA-9.

He assured me of his support to maintain the Second Amendment, as written. He also assured my of his opposition to any and all Executive Orders that would circumvent the legislative-process. He fought for our rights in the GA legislature for six years and said he would continue to do so in Washington DC. I believe him.
 
Reply from Congressman James Lankford - Oklahoma 5th District

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about gun rights. While some Americans simply sit by and hope things will change, I appreciate the time you took to engage yourself in this important matter of Constitutional rights.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens. As an outdoorsman and member of the NRA, I am acutely aware of the many conditions and stipulations which gun owners must meet when exercising this basic constitutional right. From the first days of our nation's independence, American families have owned and kept guns in their private residences. Millions of citizens also hunt each year across the United States.

In recent days, horrific crimes have been committed across the country with guns. These crimes have been committed by mentally and emotionally unstable individuals with evil intent. My heart breaks for families in cities across America that are affected by violence of any type. The collapse of the traditional family structure, the intensity of violent video games, unlimited internet access, and societal stress have combined to move anti-social individuals to mass murder. Furthermore, society has glorified violence on television and in the movies.

All too often, responsible gun owners are punished for the wrongdoing of criminals. Law-abiding citizens should not have their rights infringed, but criminals should not be allowed to purchase guns. We must focus on mental health initiatives, law enforcement, and criminals' access to firearms instead of targeting hunters, responsible gun owners, and gun manufacturers.

Some feel that crime would end if guns were restricted. This theory has been demonstrated as false in cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where gun laws are strict, but violent crime is rampant. I have children in school; I understand the anxiety of dropping off your kids after another school shooting. But, I want to help our nation solve the problem, not just "do something." Simple answers will not fix this complex family issue. It is right to have an honest and open conversation about gun violence, but our conclusions must protect our liberty and start our country down the path of healing.

It is important to refer to previously passed Congressional gun control measures to determine why they were enacted, and if these laws resulted in decreased violence. The National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 passed following prohibition to make the chosen weapons of "gangsters," most notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns, more difficult to acquire. The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was passed following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy. The GCA made regulations stricter on convicted felons, illegal immigrants, mentally unstable individuals, and others. The Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a database to prevent firearm sales to prohibited individuals.

As you may know, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has proposed legislation to renew the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004. The original assault weapon ban was part of a broader, significant piece of legislation; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The assault weapon ban was enacted in the wake of a January 17, 1989 school shooting as well as the escalating violence of the 1980's and early 1990's turf and drug wars waged by urban gangs. However, it is important to note that during the life of the assault weapon ban there were at least 30 school shootings, demonstrating that the senseless school shootings and other acts of mass murder cannot continue. Removing one type of weapon will not eliminate school violence.

As the 113th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your suggestions and comments with me. Please, contact me via email for a faster response. To keep up with my work in Congress, please visit my website at Welcome to Congressman James Lankford | Congressman James Lankford and sign up to receive updates at www.lankford.house.gov/enewsletter.


In God We Trust,

James Lankford
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
 
Dear Mr. XXXXXX

Thank you for contacting me regarding various pieces of firearms legislation introduced in Congress as well as the President’s recent proposals to study and curb gun-related violence.

On December 14, 2012, our nation experienced an unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this terrible event, including their families and loved ones. My first reaction to this event was as a father, and I cannot begin to imagine the sorrow this community now bears.

In the wake of this tragedy, several pieces of legislation have already been introduced to the 113th Congress and supported by the White House. While the initial conversation has been about banning certain types of semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, I believe we also should be ensuring a mental health system that is properly diagnosing those who are a danger to themselves and society, allowing us to keep guns out of their hands.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens who are protecting their families and exercising their Second Amendment rights is not a solution to the problems we face. As gun legislation is debated in the Senate and the House, Congress must be vigilant at taking into account the broader societal problems that are leading contributors to these tragic events. Be assured, I value your input and will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress debates these issues.

Thank you again for your feedback and counsel. It is a privilege to serve you and the people of the 14th Congressional District. If you have additional questions, of if I can ever be helpful to you or your family, do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at 202-225-2976 or 630-232-7104.


Sincerely,
Randy Hultgren
Member of Congress

RH/am
 
Canned response which I and many of my fellow constituents received from U.S. Senator Bob Casey, D PA, in response to letters asking him to support our Second Amendment rights-underlining added to the important part:

Dear Mr. and Mrs.*********:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity clips. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again soon.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On December 19, 2012, President Obama announced the formation of an inter-agency task initiative, led by Vice President Biden, to study these issues and recommend possible actions. I look forward to reviewing these proposals, as well to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.


For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
 
Last edited:
Lt. Governor Sheila Simon Illinois

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate your thoughts regarding the Second Amendment rights of all Illinois residents.

Hunting is an important tradition across the state and in my native Southern Illinois, and as a former prosecutor and as Lt. Governor, I am committed to protecting our constitutional rights. But we also need to consider the effects of gun violence. Our efforts should focus on protecting both our constitutional rights and our safety.
My goal is to support measures that both reduce gun violence and protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. As firearms legislation moves through the General Assembly, I expect that there will be a robust debate on these issues. I will continue to be involved in discussions that involve the safety of our citizens.

Thank you once again for your thoughts. It is important for me to maintain an active engagement with the public on all matters that affect our state. Please contact my office again at any time.

Sincerely,

Sheila Simon


SS/dac

This incensed me so bad I had to respond, the double-speak hurt my brain.

"Dear Lt. Governor,

Thank you for your response to my query. Just to be perfectly clear, the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution makes no mention of hunting or sporting purposes when pertaining to firearms. In your response you say that you are "committed to protecting our Constitutional rights", yet there is a "but" or a caveat. I must have missed that part in my copy of the Constitution. It is any wonder that Illinois is the only state with no provisions for concealed carry. Is it any wonder that places like Chicago have the strictest and most unconstitutional gun control laws, and yet have rampant murder and crime rates? If you sincerely want to lower crime, then criminals must be punished. As a voter who puts his 2nd Amendment rights high on the list of priorities come voting time, I will do whatever I must in order to protect MY rights as a taxpaying voter.

Thank you,"
 
Heres mine.


My name is bla bla and live in bla bla CT.  I respectfully oppose additional gun control measures and hope that you will also.  I support freedom and the 2nd amendment as well as the CT constitution as currently written.  I work as part of Public Safety and the State and disagree that additional gun control measures is a solution to a bigger problem of mental illness and medication.   Punishing law abiding citizens by reducing their freedoms is not a logical answer.  Please propose a more commonsense based idea that does not infringe on our given rights.
 
Reply from Senator Bob Casey (Dem PA)

Letter from Senator Casey. I received this reply three times:

Dear Prof. Martin:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity clips. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again soon.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On December 19, 2012, President Obama announced the formation of an inter-agency task initiative, led by Vice President Biden, to study these issues and recommend possible actions. I look forward to reviewing these proposals, as well to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, Robert P. Casey Jr. | United States Senator for Pennsylvania: Home. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
___________________________________________________________
My reply:

Dear Senator Casey,

Thank you for your reply (all three of them). I appreciate you being straightforward regarding your stance to support a ban on semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines.

I think your beliefs are well-intentioned. I have two young children in elementary school and I teach at the university level. I am very concerned about school shootings like the atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary and would like to see something done to prevent future occurrences.

This said, before putting our faith and energies into an intervention, we must consider the potential for unintended adverse consequences.

You stated in your reply that you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. You must know that the Second Amendment was not written with the intent of preserving hunting rights or even self-defense. When our founding fathers wrote “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”, they were cognizant of the fact that individual ownership of firearms represents the last line of defense against governmental tyranny. This is just as valid today as it was in 1775. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but if the voices of the people aren’t heard through their votes, there must be a point at which the people can take back their government. In this sense, firearm ownership is the fourth branch of government: The law-abiding citizenry provide the final check and balance to ensure their democratic government represents them fairly and honestly.

The first step in the subjugation of a people is disarmament, and the first step in disarmament is getting rid of semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines. The uneducated may dismiss this as paranoia, but history is replete with examples of the potential consequences of being disarmed by government mandate, with the resultant mass graves too numerous to count. Once a government disarms its population, the people have nothing left to preserve their freedoms. Votes are not counted by dictators.

It should be noted that if there is a significant disparity between the weapons issued to agents of the government and those of the law-abiding citizenry, the result is a decreased ability of the citizenry to oust a government that has become too corrupt. This is where semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines come into the picture. We citizens are already well behind the technology given to the military. We certainly do not need a greater disparity.

The second potential unintended consequence will be a decreased ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Although I appreciate the President’s sentiment that if such a ban will save even one life that it will be worth it, we should give consideration to how often these same firearms are used to legally protect life and property. We also know that any ban will only impact the law-abiding citizenry: Criminals will not be turning in their weapons. The ban then will put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage relative to criminals, which could be critical during breakdowns in social order (natural disasters, extended power outages, riots, etc.) as well as home invasions. Semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines are crucial when defending oneself, family and property against multiple assailants.

A third potential unintended consequence is a decreased efficiency of our future military. Having familiarity with military-style firearms has made Americans more effective soldiers since the American Revolution. Our history has numerous examples of American marksmanship providing us with a distinct advantage over our enemies whose experience with firearms may be minimal or nonexistent.

The biggest concern I have about this gun ban proposal is that I have yet to see a logical reason why it would work. Preventing law-abiding citizens from owning these firearms is akin to trying to reduce drunk driving accidents by lowering the speed limit. Per the FBI statistics, violent crimes in the US have declined 50% over the past 20 years (Source: FBI — Homepage). We also see the highest violent crime rates in regions with the strictest gun control laws. In both Great Britain and Australia, the enactment of gun control was followed by a significant increase in the violent crime rate of both countries. The violent crime rate of Great Britain is now three and one half times that of the USA (Source: Welcome to the Home Office).

As a Social Psychologist and empirical researcher, I will be the first to assert that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but logic here prevails. Ask yourself this: If you were a criminal with a modicum of self-preservation, who would you rather attempt to rob: Someone who cannot offer any meaningful resistance or someone who can cause you grievous injury or loss of life?

Yet something clearly must be done to stop the recent rash of spree shootings. Gun bans won’t help matters (and may make them much worse), but there are other, more effective ways to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings. Here are a few:

1. Eliminate gun free zones. Placing armed guards, ideally with law-enforcement and/or military backgrounds, in our schools will reduce or at least mitigate these spree shooters. They are choosing defenseless targets for a reason and it is foolish for us to continue to accommodate them.

2. Require all States to submit psychiatric commitment data to the national instant-check database. Background checks are only as effective as the data that is being queried.

3. Impose and enforce severe penalties for crimes committed with firearms:
a. Develop a legal fast-track for these crimes such that due process is carried out quickly and efficiently.
b. Eliminate time off for good behavior and parole for these crimes.
c. Ideally police would regularly check felons and the mentally ill to ensure they do not possess firearms (perhaps using dogs trained to detect gunpowder / gun oil).

4. Change our culture of violence by putting limitations on Hollywood. There is ample Social Psychological research evidence that we learn inappropriate and aggressive behaviors through observation. Firearms do not have a valence: They are neither good nor evil – they are tools. How we learn to use these tools is through observation and modeling the behavior of those we respect and admire, i.e., actors and actresses. The net result is that Hollywood is both desensitizing us to graphic violence and providing extremely inappropriate role models that glorify extreme violence.

5. Change the way the media presents mass shooters to the public. The extensive coverage of the shooter only encourages copycat crimes, as it guarantees the shooter to get far more than their 15 minutes of fame. This is another adverse consequence of observation and modeling that has been well documented in the scientific literature. We have already seen several attempted school shootings in the wake of the Columbine atrocity and I’m afraid Sandy Hook won’t be the last. We need to start holding the media accountable for their role in these copycats. The lives of our children should not be more important than sensationalistic journalism designed to titillate and horrify us – with the goal of gaining viewers in order to sell advertising.

In closing, please consider that the decisions you will be making in the next few months, particularly if you continue to support the proposed gun bans, may have a profound and deleterious effect upon law-abiding citizens. Future generations will be less well-equipped to throw off the yoke of tyranny; less capable of defending themselves against criminals who will not be encumbered by these restrictions; and will be open to further assault on their Second Amendment rights, which will only further these adverse consequences. Other and better options to stop mass killings are available – interventions that are founded in research, not conjecture.

I strongly encourage you to reach out to your constituents to ascertain their views and preferences on the proposed firearm restrictions. I ask that you please disregard proposed legislation based upon emotion and consider instead logic and reason: Look at the lack of efficacy of the 1994 assault weapons ban; consider that countries such as Great Britain and Australia experienced dramatic increases in violent crime subsequent to their gun bans; and please consider that there could be a number of adverse consequences to infringing upon our Second Amendment.

More than anything, I ask that you please be a voice for liberty and do not be fooled by those who, either by design or ignorance, seek to erode the foundations of freedom and democracy.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
 
Last edited:
After watching Senator Feinstein today

I was embarrassed for Senator Feinstein by the spectacle that was displayed in the production of her new "assault" weapons ban, and want to re-affirm my position that bans and limits are not the answer to gun violence.

I was actually shocked by the sheer amount of factually incorrect information presented. This is further proof to me that this is more about personal agendas than solutions. Promoting personal agendas via the use of guilt over the deaths of children is absolutely the most vile thing I can imagine a politician doing. I would be absolutely disgusted to find out that you would support anything that came about from this ridiculous exhibition.

I hope to never hear about another mass shooting in my lifetime, particularly one of children; but nothing I saw proposed will have any effect on mass shootings.

Please reply to me indicating that you also want to stop mass shootings, but will not be supporting Sen. Feinstein's most recent proposal on how to do so.


Sincerely,

TStick
 
From Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.

As a gun owner, I welcomed the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which made clear that every law abiding citizen has an individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We must work to protect this right by enforcing laws that keep guns away from terrorists and criminals. However, the rights of responsible gun owners should not be compromised by individuals who use firearms to commit crimes. Please be assured that I have noted your views regarding this issue, and that I will continue to use my leadership position in the Senate to defend the Second Amendment and to protect the interests of Nevada's gun owners.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at Welcome | Senator Harry Reid. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
HARRY REID
United States Senator
 
Here is a rough draft of the letter I will be sending out to my representatives.

Date
The Honorable (Senator/Congressmans name)
United States Senate
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 3804
Re: Second Amendment, Economic, & Innovation Concerns

Senator/congressman (name):

I am writing today primarily to express my opposition to the Firearms legislation which Senator Feinstein has introduced to the United States Senate. I oppose this legislation on several grounds, above and beyond the infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights. While this alone should be enough to keep the legislature from attempting to usurp rights specifically enumerate to the people, this piece of legislation also has several other problems. Stopping the manufacture of these firearms for civilian use, this bill does irreparable harm to many small businesses across the United States which make a living building defensive rifles for civilians. Due to economies of scale, it is by also selling these rifles to civilians that these companies are able to build defensive rifles and pistols for America's Law Enforcement Officers (many of whom must personally purchase their patrol rifles) as well as America's Armed Services, who have benefited greatly from advancements in firearms manufacturing, fostered by innovation in a robust and vibrant civilian market.

To address my foremost concern over the legislation offered by Senator Feinstein, and indeed any legislation that seeks to limit the lawful purchase, transfer, or manufacture of civilian firearms, we need look no further than the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Even if you do not accept the historical analysis that the Bill of Rights enumerates its rights "To the People," the legislature must respect the individual rights approach taken by the courts in recent years. It is not in the power of the legislature to legislate away fundamental rights specifically enumerated in the constitution. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States declares, "The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self defense." This as stated by the majority opinion is the fundamental problem with Senator Feinstein's legislation. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which conducted a study into why consumers purchase modern sporting rifles, "The top reasons why consumers own a MSR (Modern Sporting Rifle) are; recreational target shooting, home defense, collecting and hunting." Clearly large segments of the market have chosen this firearm as a self defense firearm making Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation unconstitutional on the face.

My other oppositions are the harm this bill would do to hundreds of small businesses across the nation, as well as the harm done to our nation's law enforcement and military by this proposed legislation. In the state of Wisconsin, there is a vibrant firearms business. Bravo Company USA, out of Harland Wisconsin, is a retailer and manufacturer of many modern sporting rifles. Indeed, nationally, the firearms industry is an economic bright spot in a troubled time. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

An Important Part of America's Economy
Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 98,752 people in the country and generate an additional 110,998 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as those that depend on sales to workers in the firearms and ammunition industry.

These are good jobs, paying an average of $46,858 in wages and benefits. In today's economic environment, every job is important. In fact, in the United States the unemployment rate has reached 8.2 percent. This means that there are already 13,430,000 people trying to find jobs in the state and collecting unemployment benefits.

The Economic Benefit of the Industry Spreads Throughout the Country
Not only does the manufacture and sale of firearms and hunting supplies create good jobs in the United States but the industry also contributes to the economy as a whole. In fact, in 2012 the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $31.84 billion in total economic activity in the country. While the bleak jobs picture has marginally improved since this was written, the number of unemployed, underemployed, and those who dropped out of the workforce is still unacceptably high. However, rather than address a true national emergency, Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation would cause irreparable harm to all of those companies and lead to tens of thousands more out of work.

One might ask how this would harm our nation's military and law enforcement. The simple fact is that due to economies of scale, these manufacturers are able to build quality tools used by thousands of police officers, deputies, state and federal law enforcement and military users. Take Magpul industries out of Colorado. What was at one time a small business specializing in a single part, grew to develop, test, and field one of the most effective magazine designs for the modern sporting rifle, the PMAG. This magazine has seen front line duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the front seat of millions of police cars. Were it not due to the vibrant commercial market, there would have been limited economic incentive for Magpul to spend it's time and money researching and developing this part. By all reports the PMAG is vastly superior to the aluminum predecessor, and it continues to serve our nation's soldiers and police faithfully. I cannot predict what the next advancement will be, but I can predict that without a vibrant and healthy civilian market, manufacturers of these parts may stop innovating new designs, as there would be little commercial benefit to them.

I believe that I have thoroughly laid out my oppositions to not only Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, but any new firearms legislation which seeks to limit or stop the lawful purchase of firearms. Please remember that bad cases make for bad law. This holds true with legislation as well. Nothing we do today can bring back those lost at Sandy Hook elementary, but as many academic, peer reviewed studies have shown, nor will firearms legislation limiting lawful purchase, transfer or use prevent another one. What's truly needed is a comprehensive review of mental health policy in this country, as well as a better understanding of how our young people have become so troubled. Furthermore, I support the National Rifle Association's School Shield. This may mean hiring more School Resource Officers to take their place in our nations elementary and middle schools, this would be similar to President Clinton's highly successful initiative to fund and hire more than 100,000 police officers. These are the kinds of steps that need to be taken today to prevent tragedies tomorrow.
Your response, indicating your general stance on gun control legislation and specifically your position on Sen. Feinstein's most recent proposal, would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Your Name
 
This is about the strongest I've sent so far...

But we need to draw the line in the sand clearly for these fools.... I sent this to my reps and the prez via the NRA's "Contact Your Reps" site.

NRA-ILA | Write Your Reps

Credit to "Marko Kloos", TFL, 2000, the original poster of most of this.
=============================================
Senator Merkley
Senator Wyden
Representative Blumenauer
President
Message text follows:

"A Declaration of Civil Disobedience

I will not register my guns. If such a law is ever enacted on the federal,
State or municipal level, I will choose to ignore it. I was required to
leave my personal data with the gun dealer when I purchased each of my
guns legally, and this data is doubtlessly on record already. Let law
enforcement look it up if they choose, but I will not register my guns:
not now, and not in the future. Registration of handguns, or any other
firearm, will not prevent a single crime from happening. It only serves to
harass the law-abiding citizen for the sole offense of owning a
politically incorrect item.

I will not surrender my guns voluntarily, ever. If the possession of
handguns is declared illegal by any legislative body, I will choose to
ignore it. If the owners of newly or soon-to-be illegal weapons are asked
to turn them in for compensation, I will not comply. Let them try to
enforce a law that is not enforceable, and declare a war on guns that will
be no more successful than the war on drugs that has eroded most of our
civil liberties in the last two decades. If they go from door to door to
ask for guns, I will deny ownership; if they break down doors to search
for guns, I will do my best to make their mission difficult. Confiscation
of firearms will do nothing to make society safer. It merely takes away an
essential basic right from the peasantry: the right to self defense.
Without the means to it, the right itself is nonexistent except on paper.

I will never again concern myself with concealed carry laws. I will carry
my sidearm as I see fit, and wherever I choose, whether I am in Wyoming or New York City. I will ignore unjust laws denying me the right to determine my own fate while exempting friends and cronies of the legislature and the executive from the same laws. I will try to comply with the law whenever possible and obtain a permit whenever given the opportunity; I do not wish to be a lawbreaker if I can avoid it. But I will no longer comply with the demands of legislators who want to leave us defenseless against those who will always prey on others with the help of guns no matter what the law says.

I know that I am not alone. I am part of a growing group of citizens that
are fed up with being painted as radical, violent, ignorant and bigoted.
Most of us are not camouflage-wearing conspiracy theorists. We are
doctors, lawyers, soldiers, carpenters, nurses, computer programmers and
convenience store clerks. We are fathers, mothers, grandparents, brothers, sisters and colleagues. We are "the American people" so often quoted and invoked by politicians. We come from all walks of life, all levels of income and education, all faiths and non-faiths. We share a common anger at those who want to take our self-determination away from us, those who blame us for every senseless and over-publicized act of gun violence in this country, those who are more than willing to trade an essential liberty for the illusion of safety. We are tired of politicians who create law after law to fight actions by people who by definition do not obey laws, in order to pacify a vocal and ignorant portion of the population.

We also share the belief that the responsibility for our safety is up to
us, and can never be completely entrusted to an understaffed, underpaid
and overworked police force that is mostly tied up in an unwinnable battle
against drugs.

We do not ask for special rights, we merely ask that our right to
self-defense and self-determination is respected and not undermined. We
wish to be left alone, and we do not want to surrender our integrity and
our means to enforce our right to life and liberty for a social experiment
that has already been a massive failure in those countries who attempted
it. We are citizens, not peons. We are free men and women, not serfs who exist to provide taxes to the ruling caste.

We have tried to play by rules that have turned more pointless and
nonsensical by the year. We have paid the fees, filled out the forms and
subjected ourselves to the background checks. We have been fingerprinted like common criminals. We have tolerated the insults and the scapegoating of some of our fellow citizens, and that of the mass media. We have, where we could, taken all the steps necessary to go armed and obey the laws at the same time. Here we draw a line in the sand. Stop harassing us, for we are not the problem. Taking our rights away from us will not solve your problems, or make us all any safer against crime. We have done what we can to work with you when you came after us year after year. We gave up our military-style sporter rifles, and society did not turn any safer. We were forced to purchase guns with crippled magazines that limited their functionality, and yet society did not turn any safer for it. Yet you come back with sure regularity, asking for more of what is ours, in return for the promise of a safer society. You pass laws because it is the only thing you can do in the face of outraged soccer moms demanding that something be done to "stop the violence'. You cater to ignorance, and you willingly chip away at the rights of a group that is perceived to have little public support--minimizing the risk of election day backlash. Everything you have done has failed to improve society, yet you return and ask for one more restriction, one more "common sense" gun law, arguing that the last round of restrictions was just not severe enough.

We are tired of it. We know that if you made all guns illegal, it would
have no effect on crime and violence, but we also know that you would not turn around and return us our rights and our guns after you are proven
wrong by reality.

As an individual, I will choose to disobey whenever you enact a law
inconsistent with my basic right to self-defense. Try to force us into
registering our guns, or giving them up altogether, just so you can garner
support for your next election, and you face the responsibility for
whatever happens next. Many of us will refuse to obey, and then you will
have a choice between trying to enforce this law or silently ignoring
those who choose to disobey it. A law that is not obeyed, and cannot be
enforced, does more harm to you than it does to those you try to govern.
As Albert Einstein said after the repeal of the Prohibition laws, nothing
will cause more disrespect of government than the enactment of laws that cannot be enforced. And make no mistake, a general gun registration or outright ban can only be enforced by sending the police from door to door, forcefully entering those homes which refuse to cooperate. How many dead citizens are you willing to tolerate before you repent? How many police officers are you willing to sacrifice? More importantly, how much of this is the general population willing to take? The war on drugs has brought about the demise of most civil rights, a war on guns would bring society to its knees. You've declared drugs illegal, yet they are available on most every street corner in this country. What good will a ban on guns do?

Law is law, but a bad law is just that. It was the law in Germany to
refuse Jews access to public air raid shelters during World War Two, and
many people chose to ignore that law. I am glad they did. I value my
conscience and my integrity over your seat in Congress. Therefore I
declare that I will no longer obey laws that are an affront to my
humanity, laws that are nothing but elitist arrogant attempts to keep arms out of the hands of the unwashed masses. Pick another group for your social experiments, like the criminals for example.

We have no intention to commit crimes of violence with our guns, and we
are deeply offended by the notion that you alone can make the decision who can be trusted with a gun, and that we serfs just cannot act in a
responsible fashion when given access to guns.

No registration, no confiscation. Ever. If I should ever break your laws
and get caught, you can arrest me. I'd rather live in jail with the
knowledge that my spirit is free, than on the outside as a tax-paying serf
knowing that I only serve as a worker bee with no rights and little
personal freedom. I know that I am not alone, and let's see just how many jails you can build to accommodate all those who have had enough of your failed and unjust policies."

- Credit to "Marko Kloos", TFL, 2000

This sums up my feelings perfectly. We, the law abiding gun owners of this nation, are not going to be your scapegoats for criminal misuse of firearms, and the failures of the criminal justice system in enforcing the laws that are currently on the books.

New restrictions that will have no effect and will only serve to criminalize legal firearms owners are morally reprehensible, and run counter to the Founders intentions when they wrote the Constitution. You are leading the nation into great peril with your determination that inanimate objects (guns) and the legal ownership of them should be the focus of your response to the terrible tragedies we have seen where mentally unbalanced individuals have taken the lives of innocents.

In closing:
"I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him
is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse
the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality
expressing the very highest respect for law." Martin Luther King, Jr.


Sincerely,

2hawk


ETA, sorry about the formatting, I copied it from the confirmation email I got from the NRA.
 
Last edited:
To Sen. Bob Casey D-Pa

Dear Sir:

I understand that you are a US Senator, however, you are representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Article I, Sec 21, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reads simply:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Which part of "shall not be questioned" don't you understand? How many Constitutions do you plan on ignoring to achieve your personal agenda?
 
To senator Susan Collins of Maine


Hello Susan I have written to you recently regarding the current gun control/ban debate that has now been introduced into congress. I expect a vote on this bill to be done at some point soon and I just wanted to express my feelings on this.

"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"

This is how our second Amendment is written, there is no other interpretation for this, it is not a living document. It was written this way for a very specific reason. Any support of ban of any type of gun, any type of magazine is an infringement on this right. NO COMPROMISE should be made, AT ALL! Any vote from any senator from Maine or Representative from Maine that supports any type of ban on any gun or magazine will result in a loss of a vote by me for the next election. There is no other simple way to put this. I have voted for you MANY times over the years and that will end very very quickly and forever if any vote goes towards the infringement of the second amendment of the United States.

During the 94 weapons ban many seats were lost in congress due to officials supporting such a bill. The results this time will be the same but double/triple. This goes for democrats and republicans and independents. There is mass discontent across pro gun forms online for anyone in congress who votes for an attack on the second amendment.

Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS why do you think bills like this will prevent any crime? It makes absolutely no sense at all. No law is going to prevent any crime, criminals do not care about what is legal or not. The bill that was submitted yesterday is nothing but a power and gun grab. It has nothing to do with saving lives because the ones who will suffer from this bill are the law abiding citizens who do not commit crimes with their guns regardless. Feel free to look it up but the FBI stats show that less then 3% of all gun related crimes are committed with a rifle and less then 1% are from an AR-15 type weapon. So why the big rush to ban them?

The term "assault weapon" is made up by the media and politicians. The correct term for an assault weapon is a weapon that is capable of select fire. Meaning semi auto and full auto fire such as machine guns in the military where you hold the trigger and it will continue to fire and also has the selection for semi auto fire. The AR-15's they want to ban are not assault weapons. They are only capable of semi auto fire. They are taking the term assault weapon and applying it to many more guns then what the definition covers.

I just wanted to make my views very clear and where my vote will go during the next election crystal clear.

Thank You Susan
 
I used both the Ruger and the NRA messaging utilities to express my opinion on gun control to my elected representatives. This is the first response I have received. You'll note that responding directly to her response is obviated by the email medium (see the arrow I added).

Well, since I couldn't respond directly, I thought this might be a way of responding, especially for forum members in New Hampshire. I also posted this response to her website.

CS-PResponse.jpg


My response:

Congresswoman Shea-Porter,

Thank you for your response.

However, if you were really interested in stopping such tragic events as Newtown you would not focus on things repeatedly shown to have no causal relationship whatsoever on such events. Even the CDC studying "gun violence" has been tried before and, admittedly, failed.

Increased background checks would not have prevented Newtown. Magazine capacity and certain weapons were banned for ten years with no detectable result in reducing multiple victim public shootings. Using the same approach again would be a waste of legislative effort, taxpayers money, and lives lost to the predictable consequences of the ineffectiveness of what you seem to be supporting.

I can only conclude that your position is not directed at increasing the safety of anyone. You are, in fact, inviting further disaster. This saddens me.

I am well aware of your voting record.

Sincerely,
 
This incensed me so bad I had to respond, the double-speak hurt my brain.

I have to concur. Just checking which way the wind is blowing, apparently. Pandering to everyone and no-one. :rolleyes:

The typical political response contains so many words, and yet says absolutely nothing of consequence or value. :mad:
 
Back
Top