[Oleg Volk]

As you know, the assault weapon ban renewal (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12107) starting to come out of the woodwork. The time to help nip it in the bud is now.

1 -- this stuff is starting to come out and make it to committee
2 -- the best place to BURY this tripe is before it leaves committee
3 -- we can start by contacting friendly members of that committee

Here's where you can help:
1. begin by looking up the names and the contact information of the relevant people. Post them in this thread.

2. call, fax or write to those people. When you do, post in this thread and tell us whom you called or faxed, what you told them and what response, if any, you received.

3. others, having the contact info and ideas for phrasing the sentiments right in front of them, might follow your footsteps and do their part. They will post about their accomplishments here as well.

I hope that this will, in the long run, eliminate the infamy known as the "assault gun ban". Short-term, those who get off their behinds long enough to do something useful will get to enjoy the recognition of fellow THR members. Go at it!

[cordex]

Any such bill will be likely referred to the Judiciary Committees

House:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/
Mr. Hyde (Illinois)
Mr. Conyers (Michigan) Ranking
Mr. Coble (North Carolina)
Mr. Berman (California)
Mr. Smith (Texas)
Mr. Boucher (Virginia)
Mr. Gallegly (California)
Mr. Nadler (New York)
Mr. Goodlatte (Virginia)
Mr. Scott (Virginia)
Mr. Chabot (Ohio)
Mr. Watt (North Carolina)
Mr. Jenkins (Tennessee)
Ms. Lofgren (California)
Mr. Cannon (Utah)
Ms. Jackson Lee (Texas)
Mr. Bachus (Alabama)
Ms. Waters (California)
Mr. Hostettler (Indiana)
Mr. Meehan (Massachusetts)
Mr. Green (Wisconsin)
Mr. Delahunt (Massachusetts)
Mr. Keller (Florida)
Mr. Wexler (Florida)
Ms. Hart (Pennsylvania)
Ms. Baldwin (Wisconsin)
Mr. Flake (Arizona)
Mr. Weiner (New York)
Mr. Pence (Indiana)
Mr. Schiff (California)
Mr. Forbes (Virginia)
Ms. Sanchez (California)
Mr. King (Iowa)
Mr. Carter (Texas)
Mr. Feeney (Florida)
Mrs. Blackburn (Tennessee)

Senate:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/
Orrin G. Hatch UTAH
Patrick J. Leahy VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley IOWA
Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Jon Kyl ARIZONA
Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine OHIO
Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA
Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK
Larry Craig IDAHO
Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA
John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS

[Boats]

There is nothing "likely" about it. ALL gun control bills are processed through the respective Justice Committees of the House and Senate, but more specifically, a subcommittee is an even deeper burial ground for any AWB renewal. To focus your pressure, WRITE, via snail mail, a decently written, short and emotionally cool letter, to the following members. Note that CONSTITUENTS have more "pull:"

In the House:

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

REPUBLICANS
Mr. Howard Coble, Chairman (NC-6) (GOA RATING "A")
2468 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3306

Mr. Tom Feeney (FL-24) ("A")
323 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Mr. Bob Goodlatte (VA-6) ("A-")
2240 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Mr. Steve Chabot (OH-1) ("A-")
129 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Ric Keller (FL-8) ("A")
419 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Mark Green (WI-8) ("B-")
1314 Longworth Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Mike Pence (IN-6) ("A")
1605 Longworth Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Mr. J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) ("A-")
2371 Rayburn House Office
Washington DC 20515

DEMOCRATS (GOOD LUCK)
Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) ("F-")
403 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Robert Scott (VA-3) ("F-")
2464 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Ms. Maxine Waters (CA-35) ("F-")
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Martin Meehan (MA-5) ("F-")
2229 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Mr. Adam Schiff (CA-29) ("F-")
326 Cannon Bldg.
Washington D.C. 20515

In the Senate:

Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
(This is the 107th Congress roster)

REPUBLICANS
Charles E. Grassley, IA (Ranking Republican) (GOA "C")
Orrin G. Hatch, UT ("C-")
Mike DeWine, OH ("F")
Jeff Sessions, AL ("C")
Sam Brownback, KS ("B")
Mitch McConnell, KY ("C")

DEMOCRATS
Patrick J. Leahy, VT ("F-")
Dianne Feinstein, CA ("F-")
Herbert Kohl, WI ("F")
Richard J. Durbin, IL ("F")
Maria Cantwell, WA ("F")
John Edwards, NC ("NR," but a presidential candidate)

Well guess what? The Senate subcommittee info for the 108th Congress isn't available yet. When/if it comes up, I will edit this post, but the Senate subcommittee line-up above is not very encouraging. Personally, I will be placing more of my pressure squarely on the House for two reasons. First, it is easier to get the attention of the members. Secondly, being elected every two years from a smaller consituency makes them more responsive to pressure.

Whatever you do, DO something.

[Zander]

The battle will be won in the House. We should concentrate our efforts there and fight in the Senate and in the Oval Office only if absolutely necessary.

[alan]

I've been on my "elected things" on this in particular, for a while, in addition to having opposed it originally.

Generally, except for Arlen Specter, who brags about having voted for it, haven't had anything in the way of a meaningful response to either mail, e-mail or phone calls.

[King]

Anyone have any key points or arguments that might be condisidered the most effective? I don't want to write a novel on the subject. Just to the point with the basic arguments for removing or not extending the ban as I conytact these folks

Any recommendations?

[Jim March]

The Democrats dominated the 107th Senate, while the GOP is definately in control of the 108th. So those committee seats WILL change.

A lot. Thank GOD.

[10-Ring]

I'm glad there are people out there & places like this that are on top of things enough to inform the rest of us so that letters can be written, phone calls & faxes sent off and something can be done early enough to make a difference.

[No4Mk1*]

For the US house:
http://www.house.gov/

Just select your rep or if you don't know his name, enter your zip code and you will be told who your rep is and you will have the link to his web page. You may need to provide your zip + 4 code, but there is an easy to follow link to the post office for this information.


For the Senate:
http://www.senate.gov

Select your state and the contact information appears for your 2 Senators.

May I also suggest contacting the Republican party in general and telling them why you voted Republican and how you will feel about the party which controls the House, Senate, and Presidency if the AWB does not die.

Contact the Democratic party and tell them why you voted an all Republican ticket in the last election.

I also suggest contacting the President and informing him how you will feel if an AWB finds it's way to his desk and is signed.

Be sure to communicate that the Republicans must not pass a new AWB, even if it is "not as bad" as whatever the Democrats will propose. Doing so will result in loss of your vote.

Don't concentrate on just a few politicians, concentrate on ALL of them. Tell the Democrats why you did not vote for them. Maybe we should contact Democrats that have lost elections recently and inform them why they did not get our vote. They might communicate this to their party.

I have contacted Zell Miller and my Representative from 7th GA.
Will be contacting the rest of those on my list above soon.

[alan]

King:

You and any others interested might consider the following points. Some are technical, some aren't.

1. Given that the defining characteristic of "assault weapons" are SELECTIVE FIRE CAPABILITY, and NONE of the rifles effect, as commercially offered in this country had that capability, no assault weapons were banned. What were effected (banned) were so-called assault weapons, this based on non-functional, cosmetic features. In short, the entire basis for/of the banning of assault weapons, so-called, was phoney as a summers day in long.

2. As to "assault weapons" being particularly dangerous, no more so than any other firearm, and semi-automatic rifles, SPORTING RIFLES, have been in common use since PRIOR TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR.

3. The much talked of "high powered assault weapon" is a figment of the speakers imagination, as real assault weapons are chambered for INTERMEDIATE POWER CARTRIDGES. SAee among other sources, www.britannica.com.

4. On the old saw about "assault weapons" being the criminals weapon of choice, available documentary records regarding shootings clearly show that this is not the case. See FBI reports among others.

5. Finally, and this is simply respecting things that sort of pop to mind, remember this. The unchanging and ultimate goals of The Anti-Gun Lobby, from their own mouths are THE TOTAL PROSCRIPTION OF FIREARMS. Respecting the hue and cry raised over Saturdaynight Specials, Cop Killer Bullets, Plastic Pistols, that evade airport metal detectors, they don't, Assault Weapons and whatever the next might be the bete noire, of the anti-gun holy rollers, this must be kept in mind, for it explains any and all questions that might come up.

Hope the foregoing help some.

[gun-fucious]

it is being trial ballooned in Illinois and Maryland right now

if it fails now
it looses its legs nationally

Feinstein is the puppet master behind MDs bill:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2003rs/billfile/hb0844.htm

Sponsored by:
Delegate Neil Quinter, District 13 <Member of House of Delegates since January 8, 2003
Chief Counsel, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, 1995-99
Delegate Curt Anderson, District 43
Delegate Kumar P. Barve, District 17
Delegate Elizabeth Bobo, District 12B
Delegate William A. Bronrott, District 16
Delegate Anthony G. Brown, District 25
Delegate Jon S. Cardin, District 11
Delegate Jill P. Carter, District 41
Delegate Jean B. Cryor, District 15
Delegate Kathleen M. Dumais, District 15
Delegate Brian J. Feldman, District 15
Delegate Peter Franchot, District 20
Delegate Barbara Frush, District 21
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, District 18
Delegate Adrienne A. Jones, District 10
Delegate Darryl A. Kelley, District 26
Delegate Susan C. Lee, District 16
Delegate Richard S. Madaleno, Jr., District 18
Delegate Pauline H. Menes, District 21
Delegate Shane E. Pendergrass, District 13
Delegate Carol S. Petzold, District 19
Delegate Justin D. Ross, District 22
Delegate Luiz Simmons, District 17
Delegate Herman Taylor, District 14
Delegate Frank S. Turner, District 13
Delegate Bobby A. Zirkin, District 11

[Nightfall]

Part of the ‘Crime Control Act' that banned our ‘assault weapons' was that the Attorney General was required to submit a report 30 months after the enactment of the ban on it's effectiveness. This is that 117 page NIJ approved and sponsered report. I found this link courtesy of a fellow THR member. Give it a read, as it details the ineffectiveness in the ban, stating the obvious that the ban could do little against crime since they were hardly ever used in the first place. If you read carefully, it also explains away claims I've seen anti gunners use that it's reduced crime 20%, etc. A good read for those interested in the facts.

http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/aw_final.pdf

[alan]

Re Oleg's question/request for names of people contacted, USS Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum. Specter voted for the ban, and has at various times braged about so doing. My congressional rep. used to be Bill Coyne, a dead loss re firearms. He's gone, and I now have Melissa Hart, who was in the state legislature at the time, as I recall. She is one of the sponsors of the latest federal proposal to block frivilous suits against gun makers. She is also on House Judiciary Committee. Re firearms, she seems one of the good ones. On other things, I have questions. No reply had from Rick Santorum.

Actually, re phone calls and e-mails, no real response from any of the above, to date, on Sun Set..

[faustulus]

The Democrats dominated the 107th Senate, while the GOP is definately in control of the 108th
There has been only one Senate. It has run continously since its inseption, only the house has a number.

From a pratical standpoint maybe we should publish this link on other boards, (Glocktalk, sigforum, pistolsmiths, etc) and link as many people to it as possible so we can slam the offices when we need.

[twoblink]

Hey, can someone give the:

top 5-10 proponents of the renewal;
as well as the top 5-10 proponents for sunset??

I think this way, if we had to "pick a few targets" to send emails etc.. We'll know who to start with first..

[bbrins]

I contacted my senators and congressman; Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes and Steny Hoyer. I know from her past corrospondence with me that talking to Senator Mikulski is like beating a dead horse, she won't give. Hoyer is probably the same way, and I don't know about Sarbanes as he has never responded to my letters or faxes or emails. I asked them all to oppose and/or use their influence against both the AWB and the new Sniper Weapon Reclassification. I also let them know that my future votes will depend on how they act on this issue. I sent emails and faxes today and will mail letters on Monday, March 10.
--------------------------------------
Senator Barbara Mikulski
709 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4654
Fax: 202-224-8858
-------------------------------------
Senator Paul Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4524
--------------------------------------
Steny H. Hoyer
1705 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4131
Fax: 202-225-4300
--------------------------------------

[No4Mk1*]

For US voters it is a simple matter of concentrating on the 5 people in Washington that you will have the opportunity to vote for or against in the coming elections.

For Non-Citizens or Non-voters...
I don' t think it is very productive to lobby politicians that you can't vote for. Without your vote as a bargaining chip, you have to use money by either directly sending them a contribution or through effective groups like the NRA. Of course money works just as well when it comes from registered voters.

I confess to having never spent a single dollar to support any political agenda, including the RKBA. At least not yet.

[Oleg Volk]

Suggestion of the format for posting info:

On date, I contacted name, office or position at postal address, telephone and/or fax (if you used only one but have other info handy, post it). I said to him (brief description) and he responded with .../didn't respond.

That way, everyone who reads your post gets all the info needed to hit the same spot again.

[Steel]

Oleg-

I would add one more:

reference this pressing issue on all the conservative, freedom-loving, hunting, outdoorsmen, patriot, et cetera internet board your can find.

[Sam Adams]

Oleg - thanks for posting this. It IS the time to start working on our employees to do the right thing (i.e. nothing).

I would specifically recommend that you post this article on FreeRepublic, and to immediately "ping" the Bang List (at *bang_list). Repeat the ping to the Bang List at least monthly (though FR members will likely do this for you). You should get a strong response this way.

[Oleg Volk]

Sam Adams -- do what you advised, as I am not on FR right now.

[P12]

www.awbansunset.com (http://www.awbansunset.com/)

[Kaylee]

Now that I think about it, there's one other place we need to lobby this to....

... the NRA.

I don't think I've heard word one* from them on this yet, and they ARE the 800 pound gorilla the scum up in Washington actually listen to.

Now would be a good time for us yearly members to let them know that if they want to KEEP us as yearly members, they need to hold the line a little farther out than Sharps rifles and over-under shotguns.

I don't mean to be devisive here, and I know we have some widely varying opinions in this forum on the NRA. But I think this could be a watershed for us. If we manage to turn the tide here, the inertia will be on our side as all the other stuff comes to the USSC, and even the folks in black robes watch the news.


-K


* could be wrong, as much as I've moved around these last few months I'm lucky to see even the Rifleman more than once every few months.

[TheOtherOne]

I wrote my Senator, Orrin G. Hatch (who happens to be rated a "C-" up there for some reason?), about this last month and I typed up his response below.

I'm sure this was just more of a generic reply, but a reply none the less. My letter to him was short and just said something to the effect of "please support the 2nd Amendment and allow the assault weapon ban to sunset".


Thank you for taking the time to express your support of the Second Amendment. I share your opposition to gun control measures and I believe that the Constitution clearly indicates the right to keep and bear arms.

As you may be aware, I have long opposed any encroachment upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I opposed the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban, and I will oppose any future attempt to erode the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to believe that our freedom depends on the limits to legistlative action that are set out in the Bill of Rights. I will fight those in Congress who try to use the terrorist attacks of September 11 to scare people into accepting more limits on our Second Amendment rights.

Implementing more gun control laws, including laws that would require the registration of firearms, is not the answer to reduicing crime rates. Some argue that more gun control laws will lead to a reduction in crime. This method has, however, simply infringed on Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and not led to the promised decrease in crime. I believe that those who abuse the right of gun ownership should face stiffer penalties and that law enforcement agencies and prosecutors should make prosecution of gun crimes a priority. I support effors to fund fully and staff sufficiently our law enforcement agencies so that they are able to prosecute gun crimes.

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinions with me. I appreciated hearing your views about these crucial issues.

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator


edit: Here's his contact info, I sent a regular letter:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/

[Oleg Volk]

TheOtherOne, could you add a link to his home page or just list contact info you used to get a hold of Hatch? That way others could follow in your footsteps.

[alan]

Via capitol switchborad toll free number (1-800-648-3516), I again contacted the offices of Senators Arlen Specter and Rich Santorum along with Congresswoman Melissa Hart.

Message was as follows: Cannot to strongly urge that you oppose the extention, broadening, making permanent or in any way maintaining the existing Assault Weapons ban, scheduled to "sun set" September 2004. Ditto for the useless limits on capacity of firearm magazines, otherwise known as "ammunition feeding devices".

These restrictions are bad law, they serve no legitimate public purpose, they must die.

[AZTOY]

E-mail sent to

Sen. Jon Kyl

Sen. John McCain:barf:

Rep. Raul Grijalva

The printed letters will be in the mail today!!:D

3-12-03
Dear, Sen. John McCain
As you know, the restrictions on certain types of rifles, what some people call the "Assault Weapons Ban" will sunset in Sept of 2004. This will be a decisive issue for your party, and your attempt to get candidates elected.
In 1994, the bill was passed by a Democrat majority House of Representative and Senate. Two months later, for the first time in nearly 50 years, the Republicans won a majority in the House and also the Senate. These two circumstances are linked. Gun owners took the democrats out of control and put the Republicans in. In every election since, gun owners have made the difference in the majority. We plan to do the same thing in 2004
Millions of gun owners will be watching this issue. We are in every precinct, in every county, in every state of the country. That is a dense saturation of votes.
However your party stands on this issue, will determine how those millions of gun owners will vote.
I, like millions of others, will not vote for a party that stood against my Constitutional rights. Letting the ban sunset is in your best interest.
Sincerely,
Frank Berki Jr

[Giant]

I would like to participate in this, but I have a question regarding proper protocol. Is it ok to contact any member of congress, instead of ones elected representative? I have given up with writing Boxer, Feinstein, Stark, since replaced by another house member, I think Mike Honda is the new one.

Anyway, these California folk have shut the door on communicating with any constituent who is not in complete agreement with their far, far, far to the left socialist ideology.

Also, I'm thinking some mention should be made by those who do write about the hugh amounts of money gun owners put into the national economy each year. I know that all sportsmen and women contribute to the national economy a recently quoted figure of 70 billion per year.

In this age of instant communication, we as a nationwide organized group linked on many online forums and special interest groups (SIGS) stand a good chance of achieving non renewal for this particular piece of poison legislation that was meant to break the back of law abiding gun owners, gun dealers, and gun manufacturers in america.

Many have a tendency to bash antigun people. Don't do it! This time let us show what we are about by writing well thought out polite factual intelligent letters.

Finally, since some may not have really killer ideas on letter content, I urge others here to post a few examples of letter form and content.

Vote! Vote in every election, it is the only way to win...

Giant

[alan]

Giant:

In no particular order, I will make so bold as to try to answer some of your questions.

1. I do not believe that there is any such thing as a "killer letter". I belive that all that is required is a calm, reasoned presentation of whatever is is that you think important or worth while saying. You might, take a quick look at my post, copied below, for your convenience.

Via capitol switchborad toll free number (1-800-648-3516), I again contacted the offices of Senators Arlen Specter and Rich Santorum along with Congresswoman Melissa Hart.

Message was as follows: Cannot to strongly urge that you oppose the extention, broadening, making permanent or in any way maintaining the existing Assault Weapons ban, scheduled to "sun set" September 2004. Ditto for the useless limits on capacity of firearm magazines, otherwise known as "ammunition feeding devices".

These restrictions are bad law, they serve no legitimate public purpose, they must die.

2. If your congresscritters are a "dead loss", as seems to be the case, try others, for you are paying them, and legislation that they vote on could effect you, even though you might not live in "their" district. Always try to be polite, speaking to others, as you would like to be spoken to.

3. I know nothing of Mike Honda. As to Boxer and Feinstein, they ran for office, and obviously they were elected. Gunnies need to do better.

That's about it for now, have to finish packing for a trip tomorrow. Hope the above help, even just a little.

I noticed your mention of engineering. Who is still out there in the Bay Area. Many years ago, when I lived out that way, and was a Piping Designer, I worked at Bechtel, and WKE, a subsidiary of Arthur G. McKee in San Francisco, and Ehrhart and Associates, probably spelled it wrong, in Oakland and the Martinez Shell Oil refinery. Lived about 1/2 mile, maybe less away from Kaiser Engineers in Oakland for a while.

This was late 60's early 70's, yeah, a long time ago. We used to shoot on the range at Fort Barry, across the GG Bridge and through the one way tunnel, and the Marine Corps range at Vallejo. Also there was a small 200 yard range at Chabot Park, in the hills above Oakland as well as some others in odd corners. In those long past days, Spengers under the freeway in Berkley was a good place for fish. Then there were the Basque places in North Beach and of course all the Italian joints same area. Oriental eats were very good too, if you fancied that style. Great food, and believe it or not, you could sit down in a resturant or bar and smoke a pipe, cigaretts or cigars, without so much as a peep from anyone.

As the late P.O. Ackley once observed, "while change indicates movement, it isn't necessarily movement in the direction of improvement". Enough of this foolishness.

[othermarc]

On Feb 18, 2003, I contacted Sen. Chris Dodd (CT) at
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
US Senate
Washington, DC 20515-1103
(202) 224-2823

Also Contacted Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT) at
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman
US Senate
Washington, DC 20515-1103
(202) 224-4041

and finally Rep. Christopher Shays (CT-4th District) at
The Honorable Christopher Shays
1126 Longworth
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5541

I wrote them a 1 page letter about letting the AW ban sunset as it has stopped little, if any crime. I also invited them to contact me or visit me to discuss the matter. No response as of yet.

[Giant]

your comments are right on. Looks like there are enough hints in this thread to guide most who would want to write or call their congress critters, whether they be from their district, or a committee member who might be of help on the issues at hand. I intend to write some letters, a few minutes of letterwriting may pay off big time for all gun owners.

California is starting to look like a ghost town, nearly every company in the Bay Area is laying off workers and not replacing those who retire, etc. Electronic engineers are driving cab, sling hash as short order cooks and such, that is if they can even get a job. Looks like the state is in a meltdown implosion. The only answers those in elected office have is to raise taxes.

Spengers was there a couple of years ago, I think it is gone now, recall reading of it's demise some months back.

Vote! The politicians don't want you to vote, so tic them off by voting!!!!!!

Giant

[Malone LaVeigh]

I just wrote a letter to Feinstein, for what it's worth. I tried to appeal to her political sense, that the issue is a loser for Democrats. I did so in a respectful tone (it wasn't easy) in which I acknowledged what is good and worth preserving of the Democrats' agenda (not as hard.)

I don't know if it will make any difference, but it's worth a try.

[Kaylee]

Gadzooks, finally sat down with a telephone.. halfway there.

I called the offices of four of the supposedly sympathetic reps on the judiciary committee -- Feeney, Keller, Pence, and Goodlatte. In talking with their staffers, Congressman Keller's staff was quite vocal in agreement that it's got to go.. the others didn't really know where their Congressman stood, and promised to get the message to him, and write back.

Four down, four to go. I've not bothered with the Idaho contingent yet 'cause they ain't on the judiciary commitee, so they haven't seen it. But I'll prolly hassle 'em again soon anyhow. :)

ALSO.. I called the NRA, making it clear that my continuing membership was based on their holding the line here. The woman I spoke with assured me that such was their intention, but they're playing their cards close to the chest at this point, and not wanting to "tip their hand" yet.

I also asked if Mr. Heston would mind raising up something made "anytime in the last century" sometime... no response but a giggle on that one. Nice girl. :)


whee...

-K

[DeltaElite]

Since Oleg threw down the gauntlet concerning this thread in another thread, here I am.

I have contacted my congress and house rep. In fact I talked to my congressman in his office while on a courtesy visit concerning the protestors that are expected at his office.
I don't see where it will change a thing, he is going to do what it takes to get him elected for what is his 5th term, which is vote to keep the ban. :(

I am very cynical and I don't think we have much input into our govt anymore. The politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups. So I don't expect to have any impact on them.

[Oleg Volk]

The politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups.

We are a SIG, too! Buy honest politicians who stay bought...that tends to be less exciting but often more efficient than either doing nothing or asking Henry Bowman to ride again.

[DeltaElite]

Well I am a poor SIG, I can't buy off anyone. :(

Hopefully the NRA, GOA, etc can accomplish something.

BTW, when I first read SIG, I wanted to be a P-220 in 45acp. :D

[labgrade]

We are a "special interest group," if you can call those who'd wish our constitution actually meant what it says.

Alas for that.

As it is, I'd suggest doing a bit of research to find the specific zip codes of those in current influence & write as if you lived there/a constituent.

Sauce for the goose.

Lying? Yup. Deceitful? Of course.

[Hard Charger]

I am with a group of people that have a website regarding the sunset; www.awbansunset.com

Any contact info you need will be available there.

Other people to contact:

President Bush probably doesn't read letters, probably doesn't pay much attention to them, and I don't blame him. He is a busy guy.

Chairmen of the National Congressional and National Senatorial Committees are the guys that determine the national platforms they hope will increase their numbers in the House and Senate. They will listen and they will avoid a stance that will cost them seats. They will also influence the President with respect to hot topics that could hurt them in the election.

Politics is all about the numbers. The guy with the most wins. So the individual chairmen will have their ears to the ground, listening for the path of least resistance. We have got to convince them that path is the sunset.

If we put the heat on our 2 Senators, 1 Representative, and the National Level Chairmen, they will feel the heat, and respond accordingly. We want the republican proud to oppose the renewal, and the democrats afraid to support it. Feinstein and Schumer don't have to worry about reelection, (as long as they are democrats, they will win) so they will be free to do what they want, but they will need support. We have to make sure they don't get it.

If we turn the heat up on the democrats, they will be scared of the issue and afraid to oppose the millions of gun owners in every precinct of America.

Even Terry McAuliffe will avoid the issue if he fears it will cause a repeat of the 2002 congressional and senatorial elections.

American gun owners have made the difference in every election since 1994, we know and they know it. We just need to remind them that we are aware of it.

Gun owners need to be the 800 pound gorilla.


Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Committee, George Allen

http://www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/aboutus/

Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Tom Reynolds;

http://nrcc.org/nrcccontents/issuesagenda/contact.shtml


National Republican Committee Chairpeople: (addresses at bottom of pages)

http://www.rnc.org/rncleadership/chair.htm Mark Racicot

http://www.rnc.org/rncleadership/cochair.htm Ann Wagner



The democrats

http://www.dscc.org/information/contact/ John Corzine Chairman

http://www.americashouse.org/index.phtml?here=yes Robert Matsui, Chairman

http://www.democrats.org/ Terry McAuliffe, Chairman



Another tactic we are pursuing is to get a booth at gun shows and have people there to discuss it with people as they walk by. Perhaps even give them contact lists, for those that are not on the net.

We have a commitment from one promoter Claude Hall Gun Shows for free table or booth space. If we can get people to attend and spread the word, it will vastly increase the numbers of gun owners that are involved.

I don't mean to take away any effort here at the High Road. But if you want to help in our effort, please stop by our site. We have a forum specifically for gun show coverage. It is called "awbansunset.com army".

http://www.awbansunset.com/forums/


We are trying to list cities and promoters so we can have a place for organization of our efforts.

As interest grows, we will be getting with more promoters. I am willing to bet that most promoters will be glad to provide free table space for us to use. Especially since we are not selling merchandise.

Please stop by, see what we are trying to do, help if you can. We are open to suggestions.

[Hard Charger]

Send something like this to the Chairmen:


Dear Chairman [Name],

As you know, the restrictions on certain types of rifles, what some people call the "Assault Weapons Ban" will sunset in Sept of 2004. This will be a decisive issue for your party, and your attempt to get candidates elected.

In 1994, the bill was passed by a Democrat majority House of Representative and Senate. Two months later, for the first time in nearly 50 years, the Republicans won a majority in the House and also the Senate. These two circumstances are linked. Gun owners took the democrats out of control and put the Republicans in. In every election since, gun owners have made the difference in the majority. We plan to do the same thing in 2004

Millions of gun owners will be watching this issue. We are in every precinct, in every county, in every state of the country. That is a dense saturation of votes.

However your party stands on this issue, will determine how those millions of gun owners will vote.

I, like millions of others, will not vote for a party that stood against my Constitutional rights. Letting the ban sunset is in your best interest.



Sincerely,







Dear Chairman [Name],

As you know, the Republicans have held the majority in the Congress since 1994. Two months after the passage of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban". It is America's gun owners that have made the difference in every election since 1994. It is America's gun owners that will make a difference in 2004.

Will your party support or oppose a renewal of the "Assault Weapons Ban", knowing it will be political suicide to support it?

Millions of gun owners, including myself, all across the nation will be watching this issue, and this issue will be the determining factor in how those millions of gun owners will vote.



Sincerely,

__________

[labgrade]

"President Bush probably doesn't read letters, probably doesn't pay much attention to them, and I don't blame him. He is a busy guy."

Yes he is.

& so much the better that this renewal never, ever sees the light of day - to preserve our Elected Leader the burden of ever dealing with the renewal - save 'im/he's busy.

& really who cares what The Prez thinks at all?

Call, harrass (that's not a sexual term, for ya'll Southern-folks, BTW ;) ),whatever your House-reps to make sure this sunsets.

If this thing never passes The House, it never gets any air-time in the least for any signing.

Beat it to death in The House.

[general]

I recently received this reply from Rep. Joel Hefley, Colorado Fifth District.....
"As you may know, I have always opposed gun control proposals that would place onerous burdens on law-abiding citizens. Also, I have consistently opposed efforts to give free reign to all individuals interested in owning a gun. I support the instant-check system and believe it is working...."
"My position on gun control has remained the same throughout my time in Congress. I have always been a firm supporter of legislation that perserves the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, and that punishes those who use firearms irresponsibly."
Anyway, I wish we didn't need any "legislation" to preserve our constitutional rights.... but.
To contact him...
Washington Office
Joel Hefley
2230 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4422
or
6059 South Quebec, Suite 103
Englewood, Co. 80111
(303)843-0401

I will continue to keep banging away at these public servants with clear, concise and respectful letters, e.mail and telephone calls urging them to respect the 2nd Amendment as it was intended.
:banghead:

[justice4all]

I recently wrote letters to both my Senators--Allard and Campbell--as well as to my extremely liberal "representative" in the House, Udall.

I received a reply from the Allard camp; I think it's the same letter he sends back everytime someone writes him about gun issues. He tends toward our side.

No word from the other two, yet.

Slightly off-topic, but I also sent several postcards to various state reps and sens in regard to the new CCW and preemption laws passed this term. Some were thanks for representing my views; others were reminders that I'm watching, and won't forget how they opposed my views.

Keep up the pressure guys. It's often whoever is loudest that gets their laws enacted.

[labgrade]

"I received a reply from the Allard camp; I think it's the same letter he sends back everytime someone writes him about gun issues."

Please post - wanna see how it's the same" as what I get.


"Keep up the pressure guys. It's often whoever is loudest that gets their laws enacted."

Indeed. Squeaky wheel 'n all that entails.

They feel that their furture guvmint employment is on the line & they'll see the light.

[justice4all]

labgrade,

I'm not going to type out the whole reply, as it's a page and a half single-spaced, but it starts out as follows:

"Thank you for contacting my office regarding various gun control initiatives prompted by recent tragedies in our state and nation. I appreciate hearing your feedback on bills which have come before the Senate."

Then there are seven more paragraphs, ending with one about the Lautenberg amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act.

Because the letter is so outdated and general, I assume it's a standard form letter. Hope this helps.

[edamon]

So does this sunset affect us in California? Or is our assault weapons ban they passed in 2000 - naming every freakin make and model a seperate issue?

-d

[alan]

edamon:

The "sun set" provision involves FEDERAL LAW. Unfortunately, you poor folks in California have a serious LOCAL problem.

I cannot say what the solution for it is or might be, other than the possibility of action by/in the federal courts, or possibly USSC. Of course, if the people of California quit electing the anti-gun/anti civil rights trash that they send to Sacramento, not to mention local elections too, something might be accomplished there.

30 plus years ago, I lived in Oakland and Berkley for a couple of years. In some ways, nothing much seems to have changed, in other ways, a lot has changed, seemingly for the worse, but since I haven't lived in California for many years, what do I know.

[Rembrandt]

I applaud everyones efforts, just some things to consider....

This issue hinges on a couple of "what ifs"....it's a political football that neither party knows how to play at this time. "IF" the Democrats early polling shows "gun issues" are a winner for their next election run and they decide to base their campaigns on it....you can be sure the media will be running specials showing fanatics with machine guns every night on the news. This would put pressure on the Republicans to bring the bill up. Many in the House and Senate will be looking closely to see how much political damage they will suffer...also depends how strong Bush is at that time.

"IF" the polling shows Democrats will take another big loss by focusing on guns and they steer clear of making this a campaign issue....then the House & Senate will try to avoid the topic and it will slowly die on the shelf.

The future will hinge on how the Democrats approach this....just have to wait and see.

[alan]

Rembrandt:

Re "sun set", an acquaintance of mine is a supervisory agent with the BATFE, as it is now known. Last time I saw him, he did not have horns and or a tail.

I spoke with him a week or so ago, curious as to what he might have heard, either offically or "on the grape vine" regarding this matter.

He said that Officially, he had heard nothing. As to the other aspects, he observed the following. That absent some nut blowing away a bunch of people, something that would really be helpfull to the anti gun side, he thought that the sun would on the assault weapons ban, as well as that business of capacity limits for "ammunition feeding devices", also known as detachable magazines.

Personally, having thought about it some, I'm inclined to agree, which is most definately NOT saying that the pro-gun side can or should "relax". That has been done before, "relaxing" and such ill conceived actions has come back to haunt the pro-gun side. Let's NOT repeat past mistakes.

[Rembrandt]

Alan, my political sources in DC tell me a shooting spree could possibly start a fire under this again, it's all about timing....the Democrats also have to consider if they can afford to loose any more Union Gun owner votes by dredging this back up.....they failed to read the tea leaf's correctly last time and really got stung. Depends who is calling the shots on Democratic strategic side. If they did bring it back into the public spotlight, then it's up to the Republicans to defeat it....if things do not go well for GWB, he may not have the political capital to stop it's return....a lot of uncertainty in the political ranks.

[alan]

Rembrandt:

No doubt, the "politics" of the situation might well be the key, however consider this if you will.

Might the politics be driven by the antics of some possible nut case, or might it be the other way around?

Either way, I believe that the pro gun side must maintain pressure on the political types.

[Justin]

Unfortunately, the link posted to the entire study no longer seems to be active. I popped over to the NIJ's website and found a 12-page .pdf document that condenses a lot of that information down into digestible nuggets.

http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

However, if anyone has a link to the original study that still works, please post it.

[alan]

Justin:

How many people, including yourself, are actually surprised at the "non-operational status" of the original link you mentioned. Perhaps I'm merely suspicious, but I wonder who might of pulled it, possibly even why.

[Nightfall]

I still have the complete, original report in PDF on my hard drive, and I am certainly willing to give it to anybody who either wants it personally or somebody who is looking to set up a new place to download it from.

[Correia]

Contacted my reps. Will contact again, as well as committee members as soon as we know who they are.

[dustind]

I PMed nightfall, i will post the study online (is that legal for me to do??) for anyone to download once i get it.

[Nightcrawler]

One of president Bush's lackeys came out and said he'd support signing a renewal of the AW ban. No suprise there, he said the same thing during his campaign and probably wants to appear consistent.

However, Bush BARELY won this time around, and he dang well knows it. It was so close that had the slightest thing gone the other way, we'd be haivng a President Gore right now.

We have to make it absolutely clear that doing this will alienate the gun owners, just like his father did. Hopefully, though, it'll never get to Bush. The best bet is that it dies in some House subcommittee.

Even if we accomplish that, we can't let our guard down. Remember, they can pass a law anytime they want. However, if their big push fails, it'll really knock the wind out of their sails and it'll give us a little breathing room.

[Justin]

I PMed nightfall, i will post the study online (is that legal for me to do??) for anyone to download once i get it. Since you're not looking to profit from posting the study, it should be kosher with copyright laws. You can copy/distribute a lot of things so long as the documents are to be used for academic or research purposes. If you're really unsure, check the PDF file and see if you can get in touch with someone connected with the publication and ask them if it'd be cool for you to post it on the web.

Do keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and that my understanding of copyright laws is really only in the broad sense.

edited because it was late and I can't spell.

[alan]

Nightfall

Assuming that the "long version", which I would appreciate a copy of by the way, is a "public document, one issued by a government agency", appears that such is the case, I don't believe that copywrite enters consideration at all, particularly since there is no profit motive involved.

I'm not a laywer, nor do I play one on either the radio or television.

[johnr]

Oleg, for whatever it's worth I have started spreading this information across all the boards I belong to... time to do the usual activism thing, letters, phone calls, talk radio... dadgum it, it never seems to end, does it?

[Oleg Volk]

We are at a disadvantage in this business, as most THR folks have jobs, other responsibilities. We can't spend 8 hours every day on the phone or writing letters asking for more government-issued loot.

What we can do is be efficient and help each other to make the best of a few minutes a day each one can spare to make at least one contact to remind the elected and unelected thugs how to behave. I am watching this thread for two reasons:

1. It saves me the research time, provides new ideas.

AND

2. I will take people who do something now more seriously than those who just promise to be in the next foxhole if and when real fighting starts.

[Correia]

Any final word yet who the committee members are going to be? Hatch is sure to be one of them, and he is one of my senators. But he is sick of hearing from me. :)

[Al in Md]

There is one aspect of the AWB that is going to be hard to argue against and that is the NICS check. You know how a (insert your favorite number in the millions here) felons have been prevented from buying guns at gun shops? And after all no honest man needs more than a ten round mag.(thank you Bill Ruger) How can these points be argued in our favor? Al

[Mark Tyson]

I thought NICS was part of the Brady Bill, not the AWB.

[Al in Md]

Mark, I stand corrected on the NICS issue. I got the Brady provisions mixed with the AWB. Al

[Hard Charger]

The NICS is a good tactic to use for the sunset. When we contact our politicians, we need to remind them that the instant check system was not in place in 1994. Since it is now, anyone that wants to by an homeland defense rifle has to pass an instant check. So that keeps them out of the hands of criminals.

We all know the truth, but the left likes to brag about how the instant check system has prevented so many criminals from getting firearms. We may as well take it one step farther.

In our letters, we should point out reasons and justifications for the sunset. That gives them something to use while under fire.

A good example is the magazine restriction. In my area, the probabilities of encountering multiple attackers is above 50%. A citizen that is scared and in a self defense situation will not be 100% accurate with their fire, regardless of what a lot of people want to think. So they will need more than 10 rounds.

Memphis TN has an average of 18 home invasions a day. These are all situations where mulitiple attackers storm into a home. That is the perfect example for justification of large capacity magazines that are currently banned.

If we can use statistics and logic, instead of emotions, it will be hard for them to support a renewal, and then opposition to a renewal is logically justified.

Give them a reason, other than your vote, to sunset the ban. Let them use facts and figures, instead of the threat of losing a vote, to fall back on to justify a vote against the renewal. If they have logical reasons they can state, to oppose accusations of a fear of "the gun lobby", they will be more justified in opposing a renewal.

The NICS will prevent criminals from getting the firearms that are currently banned, so we don't need the ban when we have the NICS. Or so we would have them believe.

[Al in Md]

I have a question. If a replacement AWB makes it through Congress how long can Dubbya just sit on it by not signing it. In this case I could envision a last minute ban attached to other legislation and forwarded to Bush. If he could delay signing or veto until after the election this could defuse some of politics played by the anti's. Al

[Hard Charger]

The President would not sit on it, he would sign it in a big ceremony and give the pens to Feinstein, Schumer etc.

The statement from the White House was one of support for a renewal. What part of that makes you think he would not sign it ASAP?

The reason he is signing it to begin with is to avoid it as a political issue. Letting it sit, or any delay will be viewed as opposing the renewal, and he will get his chops busted on the issue at every press conference and debate.

If he says he supports the renewal to avoid the issue, any delay will just bring the issue up for him to have to explain.

Mr President, in 20 uuhhhmmmm or less, can you explain why you have not signed the renewal? Nope, I don't see him setting himself up to hear that and to have to explain it.

If it gets to his desk, he will sign it. Unless the entire gun owning community rise up and threaten the republican majorities of the Congress. There are not enough gun owners willing to take action for that to happen.

Then there is the fact that the NRA supported the elder Bush after he signed gun control in the form of executive orders.

It is our fault for electing a big, inarticulate, dud to the White House.

[Mark Tyson]

I thought the NRA didn't back th elder Bush in his reelection campaign.

[Hard Charger]

The official line from the NRA with regard to Bush 41 was:

"Even though the 4 years with President Bush were bad, having Bill Clinton as president would be a nightmare"

As close to an identical quote as I can remember. Those were the key terms; bad and nightmare.

That endorsement was nothing more than endorsing the lesser of 2 evils. That hurt us in the long run.

That is where the NRA blew it, and that is how gun owners are about to blow it again. If the NRA had stood firm and not endorsed Bush 41, then that would have sent a signal that we will only vote for a pro gun candidate. The results would have been the same (clinton won) and the message to future candidates would have been strong.

People speak of President Bush not being willing to use his "political capital" for this or for that. We in the gun owning community need to be willing to spend some of ours. Even if it means 4 years with President John Kerry, and a good lesson for the republicans.

The Congress will be there to keep the democrat president in check.

Remember though: sometimes you have to prune a tree to make it bear more fruit.

4 years with a dem president may be uncomfortable, but it will definitely prove to the republicans that we are serious about our gun rights.

The really sucky thing is, the gun issue was scaring democrats. They were running away from it as fast as they could. Even Ed Rendell, Gov of PA, was lying about not being rabid anti gun; he almost pretended to be pro gun. When leftist like him try to be "less anti gun" it means they are afraid of the issue.

To enhance the democrats fear, we have got to withhold votes and support from Bush 43. Support and vote for the other republicans in Congress, but not Bush 43.

If we vote for Bush, that will be sign to others that the gun issue is not the problem they thought.

Fish or cut bait. Time to prune the tree.

[dustind]

I agree Hard Charger, but how does a candidate know who it was that did or didn't vote for him/her? Even if gun owners abandoned Bush, would he know it was us who left him, and not soccar moms? I guess letters and exit polls would help

[Sharpie1]

Thank-you to "Boats" who posted the names and addresses of congressmen who are relevant to this AWB thing getting defeated in committee.

I took the time to type a letter - then I hand addressed each envelope -- hope this sends a clear message to the congress-critters.

I also hope that everyone else does the same. Don't depend on everyone else to do it!!!!

TD

[general]

I've got my 15 letters ready for May 5th - If anyone needs addresses or help in any way - email me or pm me... I'm just wondering what kind of an impact this will have - I won't let up.. guys - This is up to us gun owners and 2nd supporters. Remind everone how important this is.
Time to feed the hogs after this...

[Hard Charger]

Dustind,

When the republicans hear from us, and find out how such a large number of people feel about the president's stance, they will have a good hint as to what will happen. And after the fact, what happened.

The parties have demographic breakdowns of states and groups. I doubt many of the so called "soccer moms" voted for Bush anyway. They like a big spender and in 2000 we didn't know Bush was going to be such a big government, big spender.

I live in Tennessee. Bill Frist is up for reelection just like Bush. When Frist gets (trivial numbers to make a point) 1 million votes in the state, and Bush gets 800,000, it will turn their heads. There is no real reason why a voter would vote for Frist and against Bush: except that TN is a pro gun state, and Bush is an anti gun president.

It is a point we don't have to prove, they will figure it out for themselves. We have been raising cain since the Bush position was revealed. Any shortage of votes or support for Bush will be blamed on him alienating gun owners. The people he is trying to appeal to, won't come over to his side. They will vote against him just like we voted against Gore. It was a pitiful tactic for him to employ. The anti gun stance of Bush may cause him to lose the entire South. In that situation, there will be only one possible reason; Bush is an anti gunner.

In the post election analysis, there will be blame put somewhere. The one group that Bush should be able to count on has repeatedly threatened to withhold their support. When they start connecting the dots, it will be gun owners that will be credited as deserting Bush.

Gun owners are credited for the republican majority in Congress and for getting Bush elected in 2000, among other things. The democrats are running away from gun control as a core issue.

So any shortage of votes for Bush, when he is so popular and has high approval ratings, will have to be blamed on his position for the renewal. It will be the only reason for any dissension within his base.

So, we really don't have to prove it, they will assume it. We just need to see to it that Bush doesn't get our votes.


FWIW: I think our nation is somewhat evenly divided between the "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" are those that look to government to take from the "haves" and give to them. Every year the "have not" group gets bigger. The election in 2000 showed just how evenly divided the nations is. I don't think that those numbers will change much in 2004. The same people that crave big government will vote against Bush, and the same people that despise big government will vote for Bush. I just don't think his war time popularity will hold up (like his father) when he starts getting attacked by the media and several democrats seeking the nomination.

He may pick up a few "have not" votes because he has proven himself to love big spending and big government. But why would a "have not" take a chance on an imitation, when they could have the real thing?

So, the gun vote will be crucial in 2004 because the margin will be just as tight as it was in 2000. The Bush Campaign is too stupid to realize it.

Now is the time for us to flex our muscle, with a minimum risk (we still have Congress) with the greater of the two evils.