Contact your representatives

[Adaminak]

Folks,

Now is the time to start flooding the inbox of your elected representatives. As once stated "...in order for evil to prosper, all that is required is but for good men to stand idly by...". With the ease of communication, there is simply no excuse to not write your elected representatives. Remember: Congressmen are there to represent the wishes of the entire district. In the Senate, they are there to represent the entire state. They are SUPPOSED to be speaking the will of the people, not focusing on a personal agenda.

In the next post I've copied a letter I sent to the junior Senator from Alaska, Mr Mark Begich. He's the first democrat to be elected to the Senate in about 40 years, and I believe only the second since Alaska became a state. Much of Begich's success is attributable to the scandalous prosecution and liberal media frenzy surrounding Senator Stevens' trial. I also sent a copy of this letter to my Representative and the other state Senator. Even though they are pro-gun/pro-second amendment, I felt it wise to send them a reminder that we are watching them, and appreciate their efforts to date.

Feel free to copy, paste, edit the names and send to your representatives/senators.

We need to start somewhere, and this might as well be it.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/

[Adaminak]

Senator Begich,

I received your (automated) reply to my concerns about the recently passed stimulus bill. While I feel saddened you voted to pass a bill that will saddle Alaskans with an extra 1.62 billion dollar tax burden when we as a state receive less than 400 million dollars of that very same money, I hope you will listen more closely to the desires and intent of your constituents in regards to the gun-control agenda being pushed by the current Executive staff and office.

The Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder, has recently made public statements stating the desires of the Executive office are to ban “cop-killer” bullets, close the “gun show loop” and make permanent the ban an “assault weapons”. I take great concern, as should you, as these issues directly affect our Alaskan way of life.

A ban against bullets designed to specifically kill our brave and honorable police force sounds like a great idea. In fact, it is such a great idea that it’s ALREADY BEEN DONE! H.R. 3121 (August 1986) bans the sale of any ammunition designed with the intent to penetrate Kevlar body armor to anyone not currently associated with a state or federal law enforcement agency. H.R. 3121 defines offending bullets as a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and constructed entirely (except for trace elements) of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium or a combination of those metals. The law allows a projectile meeting these specifications to be exempted and allowed for sale to civilians should there be discovered a legitimate argument such as the case for the Barnes-X bullet commonly used for big-game hunting by handgunners. Should you do a little research, you will see that no officer has EVER been killed by “cop killer” bullet penetrating their vest. In fact, even before the 1986 law restricting "armor-piercing ammunition," there had never been a case of a police officer killed with such ammunition penetrating a vest. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (under the Clinton administration) studied every police-officer shooting in the years 1985-94 and reported: "No law enforcement officer in the United States has died as a result of a round of armor piercing ammunition, as defined, having been fired from a handgun, subsequently penetrating an officer's protective body armor causing lethal injuries." Indeed, the BATF concluded that in the period studied, there had not been any instances of officers being killed by any type of handgun ammunition penetrating body armor. Furthermore, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) have stated numerous times existing laws are more than adequate to protect officer’s lives, and they oppose any further restrictions.

I ask you Senator: As these bullets are already illegal, the BATF claims new laws are unnecessary and the FOP is opposed to additional legislation on this matter, what is the intent of Mr Holder? What bullet does he want to ban now? Will his law have an effect on criminals who are already prohibited from shooting at police officers, or will it just punish the law-abiding citizens?

There has been much talk, predominantly in the liberal media, about a “gun show loophole” that would allegedly allow violent criminals to purchase weapons they would not otherwise gain access to. The purported background is that terrorists and criminals use gun shows to buy firearms because they don’t receive a background check. These allegations are usually followed by a statement to the effect of “we don’t want to ban gun shows, we just want everyone to have a federal background check”. Firearms dealers are already required to perform a background check for every weapon sold. The vast majority of sellers at a gun show are dealers. This alleged “loophole” is nothing more than an attempt to track and register the "private" sale of firearms, which is somewhat troublesome, as how can anything be private when it’s monitored by the government? Consider for a second that the law passes and all sales at gun shows require a background check. What is the next target? Classified ads in newspapers? Flyers at the gun club? How long until I am no longer allowed to sell a piece of property I legally own to another person without asking the permission of the government? I do believe I’ve seen it written in the Constitution (and I’m sure you have as well), that all powers not specifically prescribed to the federal government are granted to the people or the state. Nowhere in the Constitution is it mentioned that the right of a citizen to sell private property may be regulated by the federal government. Another view-point might be to ask what end result we’ll achieve with this new law. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, and repeat offenders were even less likely than first-time offenders to buy guns from any retail source. There are already laws in place that prohibit criminals from buying firearms. If these laws were properly and adequately enforced, there would not be a need for yet another law that has no affect on the criminal, yet harms the lawful actions of honorable citizens.

I ask you Senator: Is it the intent of Mr Holder and the Obama administration to ban or tax (in the form of a background check fee) the sale of privately owned property?

With a new (liberal) administration comes a new spin on “assault weapons”; those horrible, evil weapons designed for use by our military to kill people by the hundreds. You are aware I’m sure that weapons designed for our military are already regulated under the very restrictive National Firearms Act of 1934, updated in Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act. The weapons Mr Holder, with the support of President Obama, desires to ban are not automatic weapons, nor were they ever designed to kill hundreds of people with ease. They appear similar to military arms, yet do not function the same. Dishonest or uneducated people are latching on to the mere appearance of something, and using it as a rallying point to other uneducated people, often with inaccurate statistics, to justify their personal goals. Are you aware the Remington Model 7400 hunting rifle, which appears very similar to any other traditional hunting rifle, was on the original Assault Weapons list? At one point, any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capable of holding five or more cartridges was listed as an assault weapon. Why must these items be banned? Many gun control advocates argue “sportsman don’t need a 20 round magazine to hunt deer”. This may be true, but what right is it of another to say what I may or may not want to hunt with? I could just as easily say a person who lives in New York City doesn’t need car that goes faster than 45mph, and try to ban the sale of all “sports cars” within the city limits. Of course my definition of “sports car” would be any vehicle capable of going faster than 45mph, or looks similar in appearance to one that does. Once again, the honest citizen is being punished by the actions of a very few criminals who are already breaking at least one law to commit their act of violence. There are literally thousands of gun-control laws already in place. If these laws were adequately, properly, and firmly enforced, there would be no need to enact additional legislation that does nothing to curb crime, but merely chips away at the rights of honest citizens to proceed with their life in a manner they deem fit.

I ask you Senator: How does the appearance of an item impact it’s performance? If something “looks mean” is it therefore more dangerous to the public? What does Mr Holder foresee as the result of his desire to ban firearms he defines as assault weapons?

While we may differ on economic responsibility and our beliefs in a free market, I have hope you will act on behalf of the people you represent. I look forward to your reply, and hope you will at least take the time to read the entire message. A reply with answers to the questions I posed would be very much appreciated.

Respectfully,

Adam xxxxx
Wasilla, AK
(currently Balad, Iraq)

[ofcmarc]

Great Post/ letter Adam!

I wish I were as eloquent as you.

[jrs_dodge_diesel]

I contacted my representative (Arkansas District 1, Marion Berry-D) about both HR-45 and HR-17. Here's the response I recieved (I am very pleased with his response )

Dear Mr. jrs_dodge_diesel (I took out my name),



Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about our Second Amendment right to bear arms. I appreciate you taking time to contact me about this important issue.



As you know, efforts have been made on Capitol Hill to restrict the gun ownership rights of law-abiding citizens. As a gun owner and a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights, I pledge to you that I will oppose any legislation that would restrict the constitutional guarantees of gun owners.



I continue to be a strong supporter of the rights of law‑abiding Americans to own guns for hunting, recreation, and self‑defense. This is why, in the past, I have supported the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearm and ammunition manufacturers from being sued for the misuse of their legal products. I have also supported the Citizens' Self-Defense Act, which affirms the right to own and use a firearm in defense of self, family, and home. Please be assured that I will continue to remain vigilant and defend our rights as Congress considers gun-related legislation.



Again, thank you for contacting me. If I may be of any assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to call upon me or my staff. You may also visit my web site, www.marionberry.com, to learn about other issues I am working on for the First Congressional District of Arkansas.



Sincerely,





MARION BERRY

Member of Congress

[JDMopar]

I called Heath Shulers office to voice my opposition to HR45, and spoke with a lady there. She took all my comments, and said she would get them to Congressman Shuler. She told me he will vehemently oppose any gun ban bills, and will vote to keep 2A from being infringed. He was also one of the few Democrats that voted against the stimulus package. I bet he got by Pelosi....lol.