Justin
May 7, 2003, 03:18 AM
Hey all, I've written a letter that is meant to be consumed by legiscreatures. But before I go and stuff envelopes all willy-nilly, I'd appreciate a quick proofreading from some of you.
__________________________
Dear Congressperson so-and-so,
As you may or may not be aware, Title XI of the Federal Crime Control Act of 1994
bans so-called high-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after Sept 13, 1994 is set to sunset in Sept of 2004, two months before the next congressional election.
I submit that this ban on these items has had no effect on the rates or methods used in the commission of violent crime. In fact, a study by the Clinton justice dept. found no reduction in crime as a result of the magazine ban and concluded that:
The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.
This law is arbitrary and irrational because it states that a magazine made before Sept 13, 1994 is legal to own yet the same piece of stamped metal made 24 hours later is a felony to possess unless one is affiliated with law enforcement.
http://www.justinotis.com/JustinOtis/goof/mags.jpg
(Magazine A was made before 1994, and therefore legal to own for all civilians. Magazine B is for the same make and model of gun, but was made after 1994, and is therefore illegal for civilians not affiliated with law enforcement to possess.*)
How is it rational to justify locking someone up for possession of a piece of stamped metal made after a certain date? How is that fair, or just, or for the pragmatist, enforceable? Why is it alright for a police officer to carry a gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but upon retirement he is not considered trustworthy enough to be allowed to use those same magazines to defend his family? Why, for that matter, is the rest of the population considered so untrustworthy?
This law has had no impact on crime, is completely irrational, and has done nothing but contribute to the animosity between the law enforcement community and the rest of the civilian population. On top of that, this onerous bit of legislative ignorance has done much to breed contempt for the lawmakers that passed it- at least the ones that survived the subsequent election cycle. This law is neither effective nor sensible nor rational. If you vote to renew this law, don’t expect me to vote for you, nor any of my friends, nor my family.
Cordially,
Name
*Please not that the image of the Law Enforcement Only magazine pictured was in fact created through the use of digital photo-editing software. I wasn’t about to go out and commit a felony just to get a photograph. (Original photo credit: Oleg Volk)
_____________________________________
Ok, photo credit goes to Oleg Volk, though I did some fairly heavy modification from the original image. (I hope he doesn't mind.)
The biggest part that I think might have some problems is the bit with the explanation of the post-ban magazine. I know it's overly dramatic but that was my point- to get the reader to think 'wow, just by having one of those, he could be thrown in jail?' Hopefully something like that would get the ol' gears turning in their head. But is that an idea from too far out in left-field?
:confused:
__________________________
Dear Congressperson so-and-so,
As you may or may not be aware, Title XI of the Federal Crime Control Act of 1994
bans so-called high-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after Sept 13, 1994 is set to sunset in Sept of 2004, two months before the next congressional election.
I submit that this ban on these items has had no effect on the rates or methods used in the commission of violent crime. In fact, a study by the Clinton justice dept. found no reduction in crime as a result of the magazine ban and concluded that:
The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.
This law is arbitrary and irrational because it states that a magazine made before Sept 13, 1994 is legal to own yet the same piece of stamped metal made 24 hours later is a felony to possess unless one is affiliated with law enforcement.
http://www.justinotis.com/JustinOtis/goof/mags.jpg
(Magazine A was made before 1994, and therefore legal to own for all civilians. Magazine B is for the same make and model of gun, but was made after 1994, and is therefore illegal for civilians not affiliated with law enforcement to possess.*)
How is it rational to justify locking someone up for possession of a piece of stamped metal made after a certain date? How is that fair, or just, or for the pragmatist, enforceable? Why is it alright for a police officer to carry a gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but upon retirement he is not considered trustworthy enough to be allowed to use those same magazines to defend his family? Why, for that matter, is the rest of the population considered so untrustworthy?
This law has had no impact on crime, is completely irrational, and has done nothing but contribute to the animosity between the law enforcement community and the rest of the civilian population. On top of that, this onerous bit of legislative ignorance has done much to breed contempt for the lawmakers that passed it- at least the ones that survived the subsequent election cycle. This law is neither effective nor sensible nor rational. If you vote to renew this law, don’t expect me to vote for you, nor any of my friends, nor my family.
Cordially,
Name
*Please not that the image of the Law Enforcement Only magazine pictured was in fact created through the use of digital photo-editing software. I wasn’t about to go out and commit a felony just to get a photograph. (Original photo credit: Oleg Volk)
_____________________________________
Ok, photo credit goes to Oleg Volk, though I did some fairly heavy modification from the original image. (I hope he doesn't mind.)
The biggest part that I think might have some problems is the bit with the explanation of the post-ban magazine. I know it's overly dramatic but that was my point- to get the reader to think 'wow, just by having one of those, he could be thrown in jail?' Hopefully something like that would get the ol' gears turning in their head. But is that an idea from too far out in left-field?
:confused: