lbrtyordth
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 10
Dear Senator,
In reading the three bills, S-520, S-675B, and S-895, due to appear before your codes committee I see where the bills provide hindrances to law abiding citizens to exercise their right as provided by the 2nd Amendment/Article 4 our Bill of Rights. . The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America, to which you swore an oath to uphold, states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
I ask that you please give appropriate attention to the word “infringed.” A quick search of the word infringe shows it to mean; to violate gradually, or by pieces.
I believe the framers choice of the word “infringed” for the 2nd Amendment makes clear their intentions that besides wanting to protect the people from a single law causing full revocation of their right they also clearly intended that in no way shall any law be made to hinder, restrict, or in any form, place in the way an obstacle to prevent the people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. They were well aware that cumulative laws which impede the people from enjoying the free exercise of their right would be no less harmful than a single law preventing said exercise.
In fact, if we replace the word infringe with any of its following synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, or overstep, the stated intentions of the 2nd Amendment/Article 4 of the Bill of Rights are affirmed further.
Bill S-520 infringes on the peoples right by placing both financial burdens and via time constraints. It also creates a data base which could be used to give an aggressor or criminal an undue advantage over an unsuspecting law abiding citizen, thereby interfering with the citizens right to protect ones life and property.
Bill S-675B infringes upon the peoples right by increasing the cost of the firearm without any benefit gained from the added cost. Another law that burdens the law abiding citizen while doing nothing to deter the criminal as the stamp can easily be altered by the criminal. Has the potential to cause wrongful blame/conviction placed upon an innocent gun owner should a spent casing be removed from an innocent scene and placed at a crime scene.
The National Academy of Sciences having been hired by The National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice to perform a study1 on microstamping has concluded:
Report Advises Against New National Database of Ballistic Images
National Database Would Be of Limited Usefulness
Claims of Certainty About 'Matches' Without Firm Grounding
Microstamping Should Be Studied
A 2nd and separate study2 on Microstamping performed by the Suffolk County Crime Lab in Hauppauge shows this in its findings.
“The final test involved subjecting the NanoTag™ marking to intentional defacement. The entire process was easily accomplished in approximately one minute’s time with no special equipment or knowledge needed.” Though I only cited one microstamping fault found within the study it is by no means the only. It shows the law will not deter nor help capture the criminal.
A 3rd study commissioned by California state legislators was performed by the University of California at Davis. Their found that “Each individual that analyzes these cartridge cases will potentially obtain different results. This is due to each individual’s interpretation of the “legibility” of the encoding structures and alphanumeric characters.” They also recommend against mandating microstamping firearms. “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made.”
Bill S-895A: Subdivision 27 & 28 read as follows.
9 27. "LOADED RIFLE" MEANS ANY RIFLE LOADED WITH AMMUNITION OR ANY RIFLE
10 WHICH IS POSSESSED BY ONE WHO, AT THE SAME TIME, POSSESSES A QUANTITY OF
11 AMMUNITION WHICH MAY BE USED TO DISCHARGE SUCH RIFLE.
12 28. "LOADED SHOTGUN" MEANS ANY SHOTGUN LOADED WITH AMMUNITION OR ANY
13 SHOTGUN WHICH IS POSSESSED BY ONE WHO, AT THE SAME TIME, POSSESSES A
14 QUANTITY OF AMMUNITION WHICH MAY BE USED TO DISCHARGE SUCH SHOTGUN.
The fact that a law can construe something that “is not” (unloaded rifle) to be something that “is” (loaded rifle) is in and of itself enough reason for said law to be stricken from consideration. The fact that they used the word “or” shows that the author of the law actually knows the factual meanings of loaded and unloaded , but chose to insert non-factual meanings so as to make it legal for the State to prosecute law abiding citizens with falsified and non-factual evidence.
Such false interpretations of fact would allow then for further prosecutorial overreach such as that: a person is driving intoxicated because they possessed the operation of a motor vehicle while at the same time they possessed a quantity of alcohol which may be used to drive a vehicle intoxicated.
Enough said about Bill S-895A. Have those non-factual facts removed and then we can discuss infringements upon the peoples right by mandating additional purchases to keep otherwise legal firearms, and additional costs for printing matter because the people ultimately pay for the postings required by dealers and manufacturers. Then we can also discuss the extra burden that the bill would put on our educational institutions that are, due to ever increasing budgets and class room populations, already struggling to teach our children the basic reading, writing, and arithmetic curriculum.
I understand a person may reasonably, though incorrectly, feel none of these bills alone would put a burden on the people so great as to prevent them from keeping and bearing arms, but that brings us back to the words “infringed upon,” The 2nd Amendment protects the peoples right to keep and bear arms from the cumulative effect of legislation not just any one single act of legislation. Therefore any law being written should not only be considered upon its own merit, but in total with laws already passed and those proposed.
I am asking that you show your support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution by opposing these three bills which infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms and or burden the law abiding citizen while having no affect on the criminal element. You can count on me to stand by you with my opposition as well.
If you wish to protect your constituents from criminals and you need my support on bills that punish the criminals, the law breakers, and which do not “infringe” upon any “right” of the law abiding citizen, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Maerling
Sources:
1- http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/030508-NatlAcadPR.pdf
2- http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/AFTEVol38No1KrivostaNanoTag.pdf
3- http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/0507UCDavisStudy.pdf
In reading the three bills, S-520, S-675B, and S-895, due to appear before your codes committee I see where the bills provide hindrances to law abiding citizens to exercise their right as provided by the 2nd Amendment/Article 4 our Bill of Rights. . The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America, to which you swore an oath to uphold, states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
I ask that you please give appropriate attention to the word “infringed.” A quick search of the word infringe shows it to mean; to violate gradually, or by pieces.
I believe the framers choice of the word “infringed” for the 2nd Amendment makes clear their intentions that besides wanting to protect the people from a single law causing full revocation of their right they also clearly intended that in no way shall any law be made to hinder, restrict, or in any form, place in the way an obstacle to prevent the people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. They were well aware that cumulative laws which impede the people from enjoying the free exercise of their right would be no less harmful than a single law preventing said exercise.
In fact, if we replace the word infringe with any of its following synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, or overstep, the stated intentions of the 2nd Amendment/Article 4 of the Bill of Rights are affirmed further.
Bill S-520 infringes on the peoples right by placing both financial burdens and via time constraints. It also creates a data base which could be used to give an aggressor or criminal an undue advantage over an unsuspecting law abiding citizen, thereby interfering with the citizens right to protect ones life and property.
Bill S-675B infringes upon the peoples right by increasing the cost of the firearm without any benefit gained from the added cost. Another law that burdens the law abiding citizen while doing nothing to deter the criminal as the stamp can easily be altered by the criminal. Has the potential to cause wrongful blame/conviction placed upon an innocent gun owner should a spent casing be removed from an innocent scene and placed at a crime scene.
The National Academy of Sciences having been hired by The National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice to perform a study1 on microstamping has concluded:
Report Advises Against New National Database of Ballistic Images
National Database Would Be of Limited Usefulness
Claims of Certainty About 'Matches' Without Firm Grounding
Microstamping Should Be Studied
A 2nd and separate study2 on Microstamping performed by the Suffolk County Crime Lab in Hauppauge shows this in its findings.
“The final test involved subjecting the NanoTag™ marking to intentional defacement. The entire process was easily accomplished in approximately one minute’s time with no special equipment or knowledge needed.” Though I only cited one microstamping fault found within the study it is by no means the only. It shows the law will not deter nor help capture the criminal.
A 3rd study commissioned by California state legislators was performed by the University of California at Davis. Their found that “Each individual that analyzes these cartridge cases will potentially obtain different results. This is due to each individual’s interpretation of the “legibility” of the encoding structures and alphanumeric characters.” They also recommend against mandating microstamping firearms. “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made.”
Bill S-895A: Subdivision 27 & 28 read as follows.
9 27. "LOADED RIFLE" MEANS ANY RIFLE LOADED WITH AMMUNITION OR ANY RIFLE
10 WHICH IS POSSESSED BY ONE WHO, AT THE SAME TIME, POSSESSES A QUANTITY OF
11 AMMUNITION WHICH MAY BE USED TO DISCHARGE SUCH RIFLE.
12 28. "LOADED SHOTGUN" MEANS ANY SHOTGUN LOADED WITH AMMUNITION OR ANY
13 SHOTGUN WHICH IS POSSESSED BY ONE WHO, AT THE SAME TIME, POSSESSES A
14 QUANTITY OF AMMUNITION WHICH MAY BE USED TO DISCHARGE SUCH SHOTGUN.
The fact that a law can construe something that “is not” (unloaded rifle) to be something that “is” (loaded rifle) is in and of itself enough reason for said law to be stricken from consideration. The fact that they used the word “or” shows that the author of the law actually knows the factual meanings of loaded and unloaded , but chose to insert non-factual meanings so as to make it legal for the State to prosecute law abiding citizens with falsified and non-factual evidence.
Such false interpretations of fact would allow then for further prosecutorial overreach such as that: a person is driving intoxicated because they possessed the operation of a motor vehicle while at the same time they possessed a quantity of alcohol which may be used to drive a vehicle intoxicated.
Enough said about Bill S-895A. Have those non-factual facts removed and then we can discuss infringements upon the peoples right by mandating additional purchases to keep otherwise legal firearms, and additional costs for printing matter because the people ultimately pay for the postings required by dealers and manufacturers. Then we can also discuss the extra burden that the bill would put on our educational institutions that are, due to ever increasing budgets and class room populations, already struggling to teach our children the basic reading, writing, and arithmetic curriculum.
I understand a person may reasonably, though incorrectly, feel none of these bills alone would put a burden on the people so great as to prevent them from keeping and bearing arms, but that brings us back to the words “infringed upon,” The 2nd Amendment protects the peoples right to keep and bear arms from the cumulative effect of legislation not just any one single act of legislation. Therefore any law being written should not only be considered upon its own merit, but in total with laws already passed and those proposed.
I am asking that you show your support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution by opposing these three bills which infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms and or burden the law abiding citizen while having no affect on the criminal element. You can count on me to stand by you with my opposition as well.
If you wish to protect your constituents from criminals and you need my support on bills that punish the criminals, the law breakers, and which do not “infringe” upon any “right” of the law abiding citizen, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Maerling
Sources:
1- http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/030508-NatlAcadPR.pdf
2- http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/AFTEVol38No1KrivostaNanoTag.pdf
3- http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/docs/0507UCDavisStudy.pdf
