letter in opposition to cleo expansion

[woerm]

How does this look? too short or does it need a boat load of cites on cases thanks.

I am writing in opposition to this proposed regulation. It is constutionally invalid

There is a national instant check system to verify that a person is eligible to purchase a weapon.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

Setting up another hurtle for law abiding citizens to purchase a weapons does not add any value to the republic.

There is no other civil right (see DC v Heller, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) which states that the second amendment protects an individual right) that requires that a citizen first procure the authorization of the local constabulary in order to exercise that right.

The basic idea that some how a civil right has to be vetted by the local sheriff (or chief law enforcement officer) is absurd.

Recommended alternative:

Use the NICS and cease handing law enforcement more tools for oppression.

It may come as a surprise to the people that wrote this regulation but there are CLEOs that flatly refuse to sign off on NFA paperwork. So this has the effect of barring free exercise of a civil right.

The entire CLEO signoff process is a vile civil rights violation on the scale of requiring Bull Conner to sign off on voter registrations in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's

 

[Ryanxia]

Looks good. The ATF as I'm sure you're aware knows all about the refusal of CLEO's to sign off on these, which is why they're pushing it. They are perfectly aware of what they're doing. It should still be stated though, I would think many of these comments/letters will be seen by others in the public and they aren't aware of the impacts.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The line about "handing law enforcement more tools for oppression" is going to get your comment ignored. You have some excellent and valid points throughout your letter but I think it needs to be stated more dispassionately.

 

[Sol]

^ screw getting ignored, it will probably put you on some DHS/ FBI terror watch list.

 

[Mainsail]

I am writing in opposition to this proposed regulation. What proposed regulation? There are dozens- you need to be specific. It is constutionally invalid End your sentence with a period and spell constitutionally correctly.

There is already a national instant check system to verify that a person is eligible to purchase a weapon. Is that statement accurate? I believe it verifies that a person is not ineligible.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

Setting up another hurtle for law abiding citizens to purchase a weapons does not add any value to the republic. I think you mean “hurdle” not hurtle. They sound the same but have very different meanings. It should be either "purchase a weapon" (not weapons) or "purchase weapons". Regardless, you should rephrase it to leave the word weapons out. Firearm would be better. Also, drop the word “republic” and make the statement that the additional hurdles do not enhance public safety. The BATFE has no obligation to add “value to the republic”.

There is no other civil right (see DC v Heller, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) which states that the second amendment protects an individual right) that requires that a citizen first procure the authorization of the local constabulary in order to exercise that right. I would consider deleting the text in parentheses. The point is valid, but your audience will likely stop reading and skip to the next paragraph because it’s too difficult to read. If you really want to mention Heller, just put (Heller), they’ll know what you mean.

The basic idea that some how a civil right has to be vetted by the local sheriff (or chief law enforcement officer) is absurd. Somehow is one word, but it reads better if you delete it altogether.

Recommended alternative:

Use the NICS and cease handing law enforcement more tools for oppression. A phrase like “tools for oppression”, like “republic” will get you branded a right-wing kook. If you want to convince someone of something, you need to show them how it benefits them. Suggest using NICS and mention how that will relieve law enforcement personnel of the obligation, thus allowing them to fight crime. See how that makes it sound like they’re getting something?

It may come as a surprise to the people that wrote this regulation but there are CLEOs that flatly refuse to sign off on NFA paperwork. So this has the effect of barring free exercise of a civil right. It’s a good point, but the surprise stuff is irrelevant. Rephrase it without that.

The entire CLEO signoff process is a vile civil rights violation on the scale of requiring Bull Conner to sign off on voter registrations in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's Delete the word vile; it only adds needless emotion. Put a period at the end of your sentence.

I know it’s anathema in here to point out that people really do judge by writing ability, or lack thereof. Nevertheless, you are writing to college educated men and women who will judge you by how you’ve written your letter to them. If you come across as a right-wing hillbilly revolutionist, they’ll not suffer your letter the time it takes to drop it into the garbage.