Gun Control Ahoy

Now the donks have control of the Congress, which legislative abortion immediately rears up? That’s right! A new, improved, more draconian and restrictive version of the departed and unlamented Assault Weapons Ban. I’m going to assume you all understand why the original AWB in 1994 was stupid, unconstitutional and useless. If not, go here. It’s a bit dated and refers mainly to the original but the underlying logic is still sound. We can also note that the AWB did nothing particularly useful. Of course, my links (strangely) are to gun rights groups and scholars. For a liberal perspective on the stupidity of it all, go here.

Anyhow, in a fit of pique, I fired up ye olde worde processore and cranked out a letter to my current representative in the House. I don’t figure I need to send this letter to my Senators. For your amusement, here it is:

28 Feb 2007

Rep. Nick Lampson
10701 Corporate Dr #118
Stafford TX 77477

Dear Rep. Lampson:

I would like to call your attention to a number of pernicious bills that have been proposed by your colleagues. Specifically, I am referring to the following items:

HR 256 Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007
HR 297 NICS Improvement Act of 2007
HR 1022 Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

All three bills share some strikingly similar themes. Each is a deliberate attempt to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights, each will not result in any appreciable public benefit, and each will penalize responsible law-abiding citizens in a fruitless attempt to deter criminals, who follow none of these burdensome laws anyway.

I find it bizarre that HR 256 would prohibit American service members under the age of 21 from possessing legal civilian versions of weapons they carry on duty. It would seem that Rep. Jackson-Lee does not feel that adults, who may be trusted to vote for her and serve in the military to defend her, are to be trusted with the weapons they carry for our country.

I find equally bizarre the idea that HR 1022 would attempt to expand and broaden an act which, by all unbiased accounts, did absolutely nothing to reduce crime of any type. Since the law as passed in 1994 was completely ineffective, what rational basis exists for presuming it will be effective now? HR 1022 is nothing more than a bold-faced attempt by lobbying groups opposed to certain rights to enshrine their preferences into law in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

I realize none of these bills have yet been released from committee; however I hope you will use your influence to ensure they are not released. If they instead come to a floor vote, I am sure that you will do the right thing and vote against them. I would like to think I have a Congressman who, unlike many today, understands the Constitution and the protections that all of its provisions afford to all Americans.

If, instead, you feel the entire Constitution is not applicable to all Americans, I am sure someone else can be elected to serve our district with a better understanding. Given your tenuous hold on your current seat and the unusual electoral circumstances which led to your victory, I would think taking a position contrary to a significant number of voters in your district would be unwise. However, you may feel otherwise, in which case you will have the unenviable distinction of being replaced as Congressman twice in your career.

Sincerely,
T

We'll see what I hear back, if anything.