Resources

[TarDevil]

With his permission, I'm posting a letter my CCW instructor wrote to all his students and friends. Most has been said, but always good to see it in different perspectives (some North Carolina specific info included):

Compromise is not an Option

The published components of the bill proposed to be introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein appear to be similar to the ploy insurance companies always use to get a raise in rates. Ask for the sun and stars and we will get the moon. Then politicians tell us how much money they they have saved us.

I really do not think the proposed Feinstein bill would pass, as introduced, at this time in history. Make no mistake, there is no doubt she would love to have it passed as introduced, and it will be pushed ardently by all gun grabbing groups and politicians with tremendous support of the compliant media. Even with the hysteria of a recent mass shooting and former second amendment supporters defecting in Congress, I think it is just too much camel to be allowed under the tent at one time.

Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country".

At no time in my life have those words, written in December of 1776, been more prophetic than they are today.

My fear is that Second Amendment supporters and even the NRA will accept some compromise in that bill that would allow former second amendment supporter politicians to become “sunshine patriots”. Compromise is not acceptable! Compromise is just another camel hoof under the tent.

You may say, ”That last assault weapons ban wasn’t so bad. I still went hunting with my buddies on Thanksgiving”. Please understand, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the security of a free state.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

You may not remember that in 1994, the relatively “benign” Brady Act for background checks was followed by the seemingly necessary “assault weapon” ban which was then followed by Brady II, which would have:

* Banned any handgun capable of accepting more than 6 rounds;
* Banned all concealable handguns;
* Slapped a 50% tax on ammunition;
* Required you to get an “arsenal license” even if you had only two “bricks” of common
.22 ammunition;
* Legalized warrantless searches of the homes of anyone brash enough to own 20 guns.

Please contact your Congressmen and Senators. Remind them that they have that seat of power because of the supporters of second amendment rights, and they can be removed from that seat the same way. We must not have “summer soldiers” and “sunshine patriots” representing us.

COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION !

Grass Roots North Carolina, ( http://grnc.org/ ), is the most up to date and responsive organization I have found regarding information on Second Amendment issues. Some of the information in this essay was gleaned from their communications This includes both North Carolina issues as well as National issues. They, (I should say “we” because I am a member), are already meeting with members of Congress to give them a “spine injection” and get them to oppose the Feinstein-Obama gun ban when it is introduced. That means going to Washington, and that requires money. If you haven’t yet joined or contributed, please go to:

http://grnc.org/index.php/join-grnc/contribute

Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

 

[miamivicedade]

My Letter to my Congressman and Speaker Boehner

Mr. Speaker,

Being a Republican has been difficult lately. It seems that every time I turn on the news, Democrats are declaring victory, either by passing some legislation, winning elections, or celebrating Supreme Court victories. More than any other reason, I am a Republican simply because I believe the Republicans are better guardians of our Constitution. By nature, I am a textualist, who believes that logically, there is no other position to take. I have studied the Constitution for many years, and I love it.

You see, it seems to me, and maybe I’m wrong, that the Democrats are always busy trying to recreate a Constitution that fits them, rather than stay within the boundaries of the one we currently have. I hate how they make everything a national issue, and only defer to the states when their national vision doesn’t pan out. Every time they succeed in pushing something through, or having the Court decide something it shouldn’t, the people have less democratic choice. That is certainly not the vision of America anyone had or has in mind.

Currently, I can’t help but notice this push for more restrictions on guns. Although this was a quite predictable follow-up to the terrible events in Connecticut, it still surprises me no less that a major political party of the United States of America is laden with members who try to make a serious argument against the Second Amendment and its original meaning. To me, just a guy who works in IT for a living, by the way, the Second Amendment is so clear that I often find it hard to believe there is a debate about it. Further, I find it hard to believe that the discussions around these so called “assault weapons” are based on known mistruths. As an American, I have the right to defend myself, I have a right to protect my family, I have a right to protect my property, and I have the right to expect an honest, fact filled discussion about issues that arise and threaten to take away the liberties of all American citizens. For all those reasons, I am adamantly opposed to any restrictions on firearm sales and magazine size limits. I am also opposed to any registration requirements.

November’s election had a mandate. That mandate, evident by the House holding firm, was one that demanded both sides come together to solve our nation’s problems. Lately, all I have seen is Democratic victories, Republican caving, and Obama acting like a king by refusing to negotiate and claiming his vision as one we all want.

I respectfully request, that when the issue of gun control comes before the House, the Republicans deliver a victory for America by putting an end to these nonstop assaults on our Constitution. If the Republicans fail, again, and allow another setback of rights, I will have to resign myself from their company, and will not vote for them anymore. I will exercise my right to remain silent, by sitting at home on election day, until there is a party out there that represents me and the rest of America.

Thank you,

 

[messerist]

Well put.

 

[PCCUSNRET]

My feelings exactly! I have voted republican since I was old enough to vote (over 40 years) and if they let us down this time it will be the last time I vote.

 

[the iron horse]

You said that well.

I have voted Libertarian since the eary 1990s, but I have also voted for
my local Republican congress and senate representatives.

It's time we all let them know that they should stand by the U.S. Constitution
and the Bill of Rights.
Now!

 

[vito]

What I just wrote to my U.S. legislators

I am a political independent, who supports candidates, not political parties. There are many issues that I am concerned with, but none more than the preservation of American liberty.

Despite the tragedy of what happened in Newtown, CN recently, we do not need new gun control laws. The types of laws being discussed would do nothing to stop madmen from committing mayhem, and as a voter I will never support any legislator who seeks to restrict or take away my 2nd Amendment rights.

Should the Biden commission propose, and the Congress seek to pass laws that would stop me from owning the guns of my choice, or would establish a national registry of guns or gun owners, or which uselessly would try to dictate things like the capacity of magazines for semi automatic guns, I will support with my vote and money whoever opposes such laws. Sadly what the NRA Executive Director said is true, it takes a good man with a gun to stop a bad man with a gun. I will not ever support, and will vigorously oppose, any legislator or politician who seeks to make it harder or impossible for me to be ready as that good man with a gun should I ever need to be.

Protect freedom. Enforce current federal firearms laws. We do not need nor will we accept new restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[gearchecker]

Sorry,

We do not need nor will we accept new restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

You will have no choice, it will be the law. Anything you do in rebuttal to it will make you a criminal.
If you don't believe me, just ask. There seems to be members here to have the answers about what will be constitutional and what will be considered anarchy or rebelious.
You certainly don't want to be inciting rebellion with your statement.

 

[bubbameat]

I took "not accept new restrictions" as we will vote any MF'er out who approves new legislation. Not necessarily disobey law. For example, if any new restrictions pass, I will vote based on 2nd amendment alone for MANY future elections. It's good for them to hear that from votes that they may court.

 

[Ryanxia]

An excellent original post. You are not alone, many of us have written similar letters to our Congress critters. Your letter was well articulated and should be a template for those seeking the right words.

NO MORE COMPROMISE.

 

[gearchecker]

The ultimate argument is this.
Once it's passed as "Law" it'll take a 2/3 Majority to repeal it. That's nearly impossible in this political climate. I agree that we must stand within the limits of the law, but what are we to do during the time of appeal? If we don't agree to register the guns under the new law we're criminals. If we agree to register our guns they have the information to confiscate them in the future, simply by passing another law allowing them to do just that. And, if given even the slightest opportunity, they will pass laws to confiscate all of our guns.

This is no catch 22. This is real, and our current constitutional rights are being threatened to the very core of the Constitution. Those currently in power believe that the constitution is a "Living Document" that can be changed by current social will.
How do you think they can be stopped? We couldn't even get enough people gathered in November to change the current presidential administration. They believe they are imposing the will of the people, simply because the citizens in this country re-elected them again.
They believe they are the voice of the people.

Without getting aggressive about our position we have no chance of being heard.
Conservatives lose because we don't speak up. And if we do speak up, we can't even put forth a long term winning argument.
The Liberals win because they're loud from the beginning, and get louder and louder as they move along with their agenda.
Even when they lie continually, they're allowed to tell it long enough, and loud enough that people start to believe it as the truth.

We all talk a good game, and we're great arm chair quarterbacks, but how many have actiually tried to do something about this problem?

This forum at this moment has 174,339 members. There is a poll currently asking if we have contacted any of our political leaders.
To date, 60 people said YES, 6 said NO, and another 9 said No, but they will later.
Let's do some simple math. 60 /174339 = .00034 - That is .03% of the members in this forum have not said yes.
Let's consider the importance of this issue.
Wouldn't you think that a few more than 60 members would have done something positive to support our position? I'll guarantee that a whole lot more than 60 anti-gun activists have sent in their letters, making their voices heard.
The loudest crying baby gets cared for first.
Because we don't want the others getting upset because of the one making all the noise.

The anti-gunners are screaming, kicking and crying the loudest, and they're not going to settle for anything less than all they're demanding right now.

We need to be loud and be heard on this issue. We can't expect that Ted Nugent or Jesse Ventura will be our only voices. We are "The People"

Regards,
Gearchecker

 

[Tycer]

A couple of local letters

In addition to parroting the Grass Roots North Carolina letters to my national representatives I have a couple of local issues.

I believe hitting them in the wallet is a different angle.

Comissioner want's to ban gunshows. My letter:


Good morning all,

I received the email below from a friend. If this is correct, and my research shows it is, this could cost the city huge amounts of money. Since the gun rights groups sue under Civil Rights laws, Asheville will be required to pay the plaintiff's legal fees. I believe they have very deep pockets and will spare no expense in hiring the best attorneys and legal aides. Furthermore, Asheville does not need the bad National publicity. If half the families in the US have firearms and Asheville is seen as Anti-Gun, we just lost Half of our tourism base.

Asheville cannot afford this. Stop now.

Kind regards from the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains,



Our county has a ban on firearms during a state of emergency. My letter:


Hi,

Since you are in classes these next two days to discuss such topics, please ask about this topic.

Buncombe County has a clause in the Emergency Powers Law that mirrored North Carolina law until last year. North Carolina was successfully sued under a Civil Rights Violation regarding the banning of the possession or sale of weapons outside the home during an emergency. State law has been changed to remove that restriction and North Carolina will be required to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs.

I believe Buncombe County is open to a similar Civil Rights suit now that the former NC Statute has been declared an unconstitutional violation of civil rights. I do not think Buncombe County can afford to waste money on this type of lawsuit if a simple law change to again match NC law could prevent it.

Kind regards from the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains,

 

[hso]

For New York organizations calling for an AWB -

While NYC may be the center of the universe it is not the entirety of it and making policy for the rest of the country based on that assumption is not reasonable. Your particular needs in a city of over eight million (the most populous in the U.S. by a large margin) are not the same as a nation of 314 million. When President Obama's FBI reports that violent crime has fallen 15% over the past five years alone and is now half of the high in the past 40 years it seem incongruous that people would be demanding national policy to remove things instead of dealing with the root cause behind the miserable souls that capture the headlines with heinous acts. Perhaps NY should rather look to spreading cause of the city's success in driving the violent crime rate to one of the lowest in the nation and well below Chicago's, one of the highest? It is ironic that the city the President considers home is also one of the most conservative in banning firearms yet is one of the most deadly in the country, but then he acknowledged in the debates that so-called assault weapons aren't the cause of the bloodshed in Chicago. Why ignore the facts and impose the wrong solution on the nation?

 

[hso]

I've started pulling from the letters back from pro 2A members of Congress to make letter to send to local, state and other Congressional members.

Words are not enough to describe the grief I felt when I heard about the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school. The lives of twenty beautiful children and six brave adults were taken by a madman. A parent should never have to bury their child. I share the sadness of every American at this tragedy.


As a constituent I expect you to preserve the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The shootings at Sandy Hook should not be used to promote an infringement on that right. In a free society like ours, it is an unfortunate reality that the government cannot prevent every evil and tragic event from occurring nor should it try to.

Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. They account for over 15 percent of the more than 250 million privately-owned firearms in the United States and constitute the majority of firearms bought each year for more than a decade. They are used for the same purposes that all firearms are, including self-defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive target shooting. The term "assault weapons" is a general one used by the media and anti-gunners to intentionally blur the line between fully automatic firearms, which have been banned for easy purchase since the 1930's and semi-automatics, which are common and popular firearms.

My position is that we do not need to enact another assault weapons ban. Evidence and FBI crime statistics have shown that the first attempt at a ban in 1994 did not produce any noticeable reductions in crime rates nor is there any correlation with firearms ownership and violent crime. Violent crime and firearms crime rates were already trending downward before the ban was enacted and have continued to drop as the rate of semiautomatic firearms purchases have gone up, the rate of carry permit issuance has gone up and more states become "shall issue" leaving fewer "may issue" permit states. The increasing rate of firearms ownership may not result in less violent crime, but the data shows that it does not cause a higher rate. Comparisons between states with conservative firearms ownership laws that restrict ownership and those with liberal firearms laws that only require a background check for the full range of semiautomatic firearms shows no correlation between violent crime rates and firearms ownership, types of firearms or magazine capacity. When asking what effect firearms have on violent crime rates the data shows that there is no pattern and therefore no correlation between violent crime rates and firearms. More focus should be placed on the laws currently in place and on our nation's mental health system to prevent those violent criminals that are the cause of these heinous acts.

The founding fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution in order to ensure citizens could defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we must never forget or compromise this right for based on lies and deceit and panic.

 

[wow6599]

Senator Blunt (MO)

Here is the response I received from Senator Blunt. Yeah, probably a staffer or automated response, but it's the best answer I've gotten so far.


Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the rights of gun owners.

As you may know, I am a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights. The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Founders clearly understood that one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families.

In light of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been calls for immediate action to address gun control. I do believe it is important that we have a serious national discussion about preventing these senseless acts of violence and protecting our children in their schools. Equally important, however, is an effort that more broadly addresses ways to spend federal dollars more wisely when it comes to treating and identifying those who are mentally ill as well as intervening before they tragically impact their own lives and the lives of others.

There are no easy answers here. I continue to believe that a weapons ban does not fix the issue. Whatever we do, it must be consistent with the Constitution.

I appreciate your thoughts and will continue to support legislation that safeguards our Second Amendment rights, encourages safe and responsible gun ownership, and keeps our homes and families safe.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

 

[GWARGHOUL]

Weird, I never got a response from him or Claire.

But, this sounds ok so far.

 

[Axel Larson]

One of My Senators response

Dear Mr. Engstrom:



Thank you for contacting me about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and gun control in the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this very important issue.



The tragedy in Newtown left me shocked and horrified. As a father and grandfather, I cannot begin to imagine the pain and grief that the families of the victims are experiencing. Many constituents, like you, have written in to me in the past few weeks to express their support for meaningful changes to federal firearms policy. I have heard from parents, grandparents, veterans, teachers, hunters, and children, all expressing their belief that our laws need to be improved, and urging Congress to act. I have also heard from Vermonters, like you, who are concerned that new legislation could interfere with our Second Amendment rights.



I grew up hunting in Vermont and am still an avid target shooter. I value our Second Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court has said definitively that Americans are guaranteed its protections. But like all of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, it is not absolute. I agreed with Justice Scalia when he wrote in the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision that the Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable regulations. The factors underlying the terrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, are complex, and involve a host of issues relating to mental health treatment, firearms policy, and school safety. It is my hope that as this conversation continues, the Senate will hear from many Americans, including experts from law enforcement, from the mental health community, and from leaders in our educational system.



One thing that I am especially concerned about is the role that mental health records play in the purchasing of firearms. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is an FBI database that is intended to provide licensed sellers with a quick and easy way to determine if, among other things, a buyer has a history of mental illness. Unfortunately, the majority—some estimates say as many as 91 percent—of mental health records are not in NICS, due to a lack of reporting and legitimate competing values involving privacy. But in order to be effective, the records that make up our background check system must be as complete as possible, and I support efforts to improve the inclusion of these records. In 2007, I worked with a bipartisan group of senators and representatives to pass the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. This bill, which was unanimously passed by both the House and Senate, helped to improve the collection of records for inclusion in the federal background check system. The bill, which was unfortunately prompted by the tragic events at Virginia Tech in April of 2007, helped to improve the information sharing of criminal and mental health records between state and federal law enforcement agencies. I have supported strong funding for this law and will continue to do so and encourage state and local officials to play their important role in making the NICS database as complete as possible.



In the past weeks, many, including the President, have called for sensible changes to our federal gun laws. While this has traditionally been a difficult topic to broach in Congress. I am very hopeful that we will be able to work together and make meaningful changes to our national firearms policy, while still preserving the Second Amendment rights that Vermonters cherish. I look forward to starting this conversation early this Congress, and I plan to hold a Judiciary Committee hearing on our national gun control policies. If there are practical, sensible, workable answers to prevent such unspeakable tragedy, we should make the effort to move them forward.



Thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch.



Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator

 

[MOHunter]

Same response for me too, nothing from McCaskill.

 

[Axel Larson]

Had to have some bbq ribs and a nice bath after hearing this. sounds like he might throw us under the bus.

 

[ATBackPackin]

The one thing that irritates me more than anything else about letters like this one is the blatant dishonesty. I wouldn't like it, but I would at least respect them a little if they would simply admit that they are going to back anything and everything the President puts forth.

 

[vamo]

Got it too, still waiting on claire. She was so fast to respond when I wrote her about SOPA, I guess its easy to respond to something that's so universally opposed by the public.

 

[Yuck Mouth]

One common theme I've noticed on THR lately is a lot of comments along the lines of "Well, I know my reps are anti-gun, so I'm not going to bother writing them".
Maybe if your rep is Feinstein, that's one thing...
But I can't help but think that this is the wrong attitude. No matter how anti-gun they are they should get flooded with letters, emails, emails, and calls. It may not make any difference in the end, but then again it may. And in any case they should get a feel for how many of their constituents disagree with them and how strongly. If everyone did this it might just be an eye-opening experience for them.

I agree!

I remember when the AWB was about to expire how so many people on some of the gun forums I visit said it would never happen an its a waste to try writing your reps about it.

I say write them regardless. It's better than sitting around doing nothing! You've got to at least try!

 

[HDCamel]

I actually got two responses from the same senator (Mark Warner).

One was a generic response that basically thanked me for writing, the second was an actual response to the gun control subject.

No mention of actual restrictions on firearms or magazines, only reminding me that he holds an "A" rank with the NRA and a bit on strengthening/stricter enforcing NICS and mental health checks.
In fact, I don't think he's mentioned anything but those things since the shooting.

 

[mgmorden]

Based on the latest NRA interview that I've seen, it sounds like he's promoting their position. The only changes to the firearms purchase process that they sound like they're supporting are better integration of mental health data into the existing NICS system. It sounds a LOT like the reponse you just got:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2088158329001/

Truthfully, that's a concession that I can live with. It doesn't create any NICS checks where none currently exist, and it doesn't outlaw or restrict any product currently available. In the places where we already have background checks we might as well try to make them work as well as possible.

 

[Axel Larson]

My worry is he will just go ahead and back anything as long as it includes what he wants. If it was just keeping better mental health records I would not be worried.

 

[alsaqr]

sounds like he might throw us under the bus.

Patrick Leahy is a long time gun hater. He will throw us under the bus.