Here is the letter he received from me yesterday.
I would like to give you my opinions on the proposed assault weapons ban that is to be brought before congress in 2013.
Our state has always leaned pro 2nd Amendment. You yourself used your pro 2nd Amendment stance to help get elected. In the aftermath of the horrible tragedy that fell on the victims and their family in Connecticut you made the statement that we need to have a sit down conversation. I agree with you that there needs to be a conversation but the topic of this conversation is where we differ. You commonly use you’re A rating with the NRA as talking point. You also state that you are pro 2nd Amendment. In all of your interviews you talk about the need for weapons in the context of hunting and self-defense. While I agree that these are two important reasons for being a gun owner you fail to touch on the topics of why the 2nd Amendment was written.
After the Revolutionary War, when our government was formed and the Bill of Rights written, our Forefathers saw the need to protect our rights and freedoms. The true meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been clouded by the media and government. Somehow the 2nd Amendment is now construed to be the right of the people to own firearms for hunting and sporting purposes. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it state hunting and sporting purposes. The 2nd Amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. In the aftermath of fighting a war for freedom from an unjust and tyrannical government it is easy to see why our forefathers gave us these rights. Deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, and enabling the people to organize a militia system are all topics that our forefathers had to overcome to gain the freedom of our nation. They then made sure that, we the people, would not have to fight for these rights ever again. Now, with your stance on supporting a proposed assault weapons ban this would infringe on my rights as a law abiding citizen. It is not feasible that this proposed assault weapons ban would be applicable to the military or law enforcement agencies whom are technically government agents. This would then place the power balance between the people and government in an unbalanced manner. The Bill of Rights was written to place limits on power of the federal government and to provide the people with basic inalienable rights.
The 2nd Amendment and the rights of the people have been upheld time and time again. One recent example of this is in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia. In this case the Court held that the people had a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, without the need to be connected to a militia, which is a frequent argument against private citizens from owning fire arms. In the case Heller v. District of Columbia the majority cites the late William Rawle, a prominent lawyer and member of the Pennsylvania Assembly when he stated “No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people”. The Court also cites Chief Justice Parker when he made the statement “The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” These arguments show that private citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Our current gun laws cover a wide spectrum of who is not authorized to own a fire arm. This is where the focus needs to be, the follow through and enforcement of our current gun laws. Not additional restrictions on law abiding citizens.
There are several ways to work on enforcing our current gun laws. Cooperation and sharing of information needs to be streamlined between local, state, and federal agencies. The ability for family’s and mental health professionals to have persons with mental issues, be removed from having access to fire arms, needs to be addressed. Lastly, a person needs to be held accountable for their actions. There is never going to be an answer on how to stop the random act of a disturbed individual. However, placing restraints on law abiding citizens is not the answer. Throughout history these acts of random violence have occurred. Many acts of violence have occurred in our nation’s history that did not involve “assault weapons” to include the assassinations and attempted assassinations of Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Roosevelt, Jackson, and Reagan. All of these incidents were perpetrated with handguns, mostly revolvers, which were not attacked or attempted to have banned in the aftermath. These individuals acted in an unlawful manner and were dealt with accordingly.
The next topic I would like to touch on is the affect that an assault weapons ban would have on the nation’s economy. Currently with just the threat of an AWB rifles, handguns, and ammunition are flying off the shelves in record fashion. It is estimated that there is currently 10’s of millions of “assault rifles” currently in the US. How would an AWB stop the use of “assault rifles” in crimes or mass shootings? In 2011 there were nearly 11 million firearms sold in the US. Let’s say that the average firearm costs $300. That’s 3 billion dollars spent on just firearms not including accessories and ammunition. The media is saying that all "semi-automatic firearms" need to be outlawed. Let’s say that 1/4 of all firearms sold are semi auto's. That’s 750 million dollars cut out of our yearly economy. Small gun shops, Firearm manufacturers, and other related industries would all be affected by these bans. With the state of our economy is this issue really what we need. To cause a financial break down of an entire industry just does not make sense to me at all.
I would like to thank you for time and service to our country and hope that you look closely at the facts and make an unbiased and well educated decision if and when this issue comes up for a vote by congress.
