Some of us have  a skill at writing. Also certain wording and statistics will be more persuasive than others

So pleasePost your letters/Info/Statistics here to help Everyone write their reps.

Also any other links to "Friends" like the NRA please post as well.

I should have my letter completed by Fri the latest. Please do not post about others letters not being good. Just use them to help write your own!

FIND YOUR REP

www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

Mods feel free to move this as er Arf policy however we all need to work together on this and we need for everyone to see these posts.

double post, sorry.

Do the people that are proposing the new AWB have the facts that crime went down because of the 1st ban? Do we have any factual data to help back up our cause (no new AWB)?

I am ready to do my part.

Article Snip with couple of good links and info on "Crime Rates"


All the strict gun control does nothing to deter crime in these states. In New Jersey the murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 in 1998 was 4.0, 22.5 and 309, respectively. (The Disaster Center, Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports [http://www.disastercenter.com]). In Massachusetts, with its slightly more liberal carry laws shows the murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 was 2.0, 27.4, and 96.6 respectively. (The Disaster Center, 1998 figures) Contrast that to Vermont, which has a murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 of 1.5, 26.5, and 13.4, respectively. (The Disaster Center, 1997 figures) Vermont allows anyone, non resident or resident, to carry concealed or unconcealed without a permit. Pay attention to Vermont’s 13.4 per 100,000 robbery rate and contrast it to New Jersey’s 309 per 100,000 robbery rate. New Jersey’s robbery rate is twenty times higher than Vermont. Washington D.C. has outlawed handgun ownership within the city limits, yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the country.


But Liberals refuse to see the results of their legislation. For instance, “Scott Harshbarger, the former state attorney general [for Massachusetts] who pushed for more stringent state gun-control rules in the late 1990's” readily admits that “‘…even the toughest laws can't prevent every type of tragedy.’” (NYT ibid). But just because the strict laws are not providing the desired results, “It's not an excuse to stop trying,” and the right intent is there. Requiring Federal Firearms Licenses for Dealers doesn’t work? How about restricting “Assault Weapons” and high capacity magazines? Not working? Let’s register handguns too. Still no results? Let’s just ban everything.

Liberals refuse to look at the facts. Instead they believe that if the right intent is present, the results will not matter. Opportunistic politicians vigorously support this position because it transfers more power to them. That’s why it is very important that ordinary people examine the facts. The shining intent of gun control is shown easily on television; scenes of mass murders, blood, and twisted, lifeless children. The failed results of gun control are buried in numbers and statistics. The intent is presented in vibrant images; the results in cold, boring numbers.

Crime is a very complex problem in this country. I’m not trying to suggest that the only reason that Vermont has a lower crime rate than New Jersey is more prevalent gun ownership. However, it is important that the citizens of this country realize the failed results of gun control. The locations with the strictest gun control; New York, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C; have much more crime than places with large amounts of gun ownership. This fact must not be ignored. Ordinary people must not succumb to the failed results of policies and legislation that had the “right intent”. They must not give up their right to defend themselves by supporting freedom-destroying legislation because the “good intent” of saving lives and reducing crime is there. Americans must not be fooled by what the road to Hell is paved with.

New York – John J. Marciano

For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html


In 1982, Kennesaw, GA (pop. 17,000) passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections.

Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Since 1982, only 2 murders have occurred (1984 and 1989), both committed with knives. (4)
Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. The reduction corresponds very closely to the number of concealed-handgun licenses issued. On average, murder rates in states banning concealed-carry are 127% higher than in states having the most liberal carry laws. A 1% increase in firearm ownership reduces violent crime by 4.1%. Large, densely populated urban areas benefit the most from concealed-carry laws. (5)

http://jbs.org/tna/1996/vo12no12.htm
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

Shooting guns is a hobby for me and a lot of other people. Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but so can golf clubs. Are they going to put an AGCB ( All Golf Club Ban) on my set of clubs?

I am writing to you today in concern of America's personal civil liberties and individual rights. Exploiting tragedy for political gain seems to be commonplace in today's society, especially coming from so-called "concerned individuals" who are, in fact, destroying peoples' rights to keep and bear arms. This campaign has been long and brutal as uncaring individuals within our own government, who swore to uphold the Constitution, are doing right the opposite. They are, in fact, destroying it piece by piece by prohibition and legislation.

For too many years, the anti-gun community pushed through both Houses of Congress countless bans and prohibitions using scare tactics, lies and outright deceit. A case in point is the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that prohibited certain classes of firearms according to arbitrary standards coined by those who have little knowledge (but absolute loathing) regarding the right to bear arms. This ill-conceived legislation had no effect on reducing crime, and the people most affected were law-abiding citizens and collectors. It was nothing more than a symbol of ever-increasing government control and near tyranny.

Representative McCarthy has now introduced new legislation that will revive the sunsetted ban and will make it even more restrictive (H.R. 1022).  Countless gun owners rely on the same firearms mentioned in the bill for hunting and target shooting as well as defending their families.  The restrictions and prohibitions in this bill will not only further chip away at Americans' civil liberties, but will also have a devastating impact on the firearms industry, who also supply our armed forces with the firearms they need.

I respectfully ask that you oppose any new enactment of any type of 'assault weapon' ban in recognition and affirmation of our individual liberties as Americans. Defeating this ban and standing together in support of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (which you were sworn to uphold) will take us one step closer to restoring the strength of this Republic by further insuring the security of our homeland and our way of life, as it has been for almost 300 years. Please join millions of voters in the fight to secure our liberties.

Taken from LightFighter.net:

Getting The Facts STRAIGHT About Banning "Assault Weapons" FACT: "Assault Weapons" are RARELY ever used in crimes - Top 10 Most Frequently Traced Guns Used In Crimes In 1994 (BEFORE the '94 Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban): 1) Lorcin P25 (pistol) 2) Davis Ind. P380 (pistol) 3) Raven Arms MP25 (pistol) 4) Lorcin L25 (pistol) 5) Mossberg 500 (shotgun) 6) Phoenix Arms Raven (pistol) 7) Jennings J22 (pistol) 8) Ruger P89 (pistol) 9) Glock 17 (pistol) 10) Bryco 38 (pistol) Source: US Dept. Justice. FACT: "Assault Weapons" are RARELY ever used to kill police officers - Calibers Most Often Used To Kill Police Officers In 1994 (BEFORE the '94 Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban): 1) .38 caliber handgun - 25.2% 2) .357 magnum handgun - 12.1% 3) 9mm handgun - 9.5% 5) 12 gauge shotgun - 7.4% 6) .22 caliber handgun - 5.4% 7) .22 caliber rifle - 4.4% Source: US Dept. Justice. According to the most recent detailed report, Dept. of Justice; Firearm Use by Offender... FACT: "Assault weapons" are RARELY possessed by criminals during commission of a crime - State and Federal prison inmates armed during the crime for which they are being incarcerated: (table 2) * 9.9% of state and 7.3% of federal inmates possessed "single-shot" firearms. * 7.9% of state and 7.7% of federal inmates possessed conventional semiautomatic firearm. * 1.5% of state and 1.7% of federal inmates possessed military-style semi-auto or full-auto firearms. FACT: "Assault weapons" are RARELY involved in ANY crimes - State and Federal prison inmates who have ever possessed firearms during ANY crime: (table 2) * 14.2% of state and 10.6% of federal inmates possessed "single-shot" firearm during ANY crime. * 10.9% of state and 9.8% of federal inmates possessed conventional semiautomatic firearm during ANY crime. * 2.5% of state and 2.3% of federal inmates possessed military-style semi-auto or full-auto firearms during ANY crime. FACT: "Assault weapons" possessed by criminals during crimes are usually obtained ILLEGALLY - Of State prison inmates who possessed military-style semi-auto or full-auto firearms in crimes for which they are incarcerated: (table 10) * 48.5% obtained them through illegal sources (theft, drug dealer, black market, etc.) * 25.2% obtained them from family or friend. * 19.3% obtained them from retail sale. * 1.9% obtained them from gun shows. (so much for that supposed gun-show "loophole" being a major source of "assault weapons" used in crime) FACT: "Assault weapons" that are possessed during a crime are the LEAST LIKELY type of firearm to be actually discharged during the crime. FACT: "Assault weapons" that are possessed during a crime are the LEAST LIKELY type of firearm to be used to injure the victim. FACT:"Assault weapons" that are possessed during a crime are the LEAST LIKELY type of firearm to be used to kill the victim. "ASSAULT WEAPONS" HAVE NEVER BEEN A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN GUN-CRIMES. FACT: The "Assault Weapon" Ban Did NOT Reduce The Number Of Officers Killed In The Line Of Duty - Six years prior to "Assault Weapon" Ban: Year....Total LEOs Killed...By Handguns...By Other Guns...By Other Methods 1988..................78.......................63......................13....................2 1989..................66.......................40......................17....................9 1990..................66.......................48.......................9....................9 1991..................71.......................50......................18....................3 1992..................64.......................44......................11....................9 1993..................70.......................50......................17....................3 TOTALS...........415......................295......................85...................35 Six years after "Assault Weapon" Ban: Year....Total LEOs Killed...By Handguns...By Other Guns...By Other Methods 1995..................74.......................43......................19...................12 1996..................61.......................50.......................7....................4 1997..................70.......................49......................18....................3 1998..................61.......................40......................18....................3 1999..................42.......................25......................16....................1 2000..................51.......................33......................14....................4 TOTALS...........355......................240......................92...................26 CHANGE......(-14%).................(-19%)................(+8%)...........(-26%) Source: US Dept. Justice, Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed * The number of police killed by non-handgun firearms (which includes "assault weapons") has NOT decreased since the passing of the "assault weapon" ban in 1994 but in fact has INCREASED since the passage of the AWB. And this comes despite the decrease in the number of LEOs killed by all other means INCLUDING handguns. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LEOs KILLED. PERIOD. FACT: Studies demonstrated that the "Assault Weapon" ban "FAILED" to reduce gun-murders: From The 1997 "Impact Evaluation" of the "Assault Weapon" Ban - "We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests." 5.2.3. Assault Weapons and Crime - "...assault weapons do not appear to be used disproportionately in violent crime relative to other guns" "Overall, assault weapons accounted for about 1% of guns associated with homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies" and "only 2% of guns associated with drug crimes were assault weapons." 5.2.4. Unbanned Handguns Capable of Accepting Large-capacity Magazines - "The ban on large-capacity magazines does not seem to have discouraged the use of these guns." 6.2.1. Trends in Multiple-Victim Gun Homicides - "[Studies] failed to produce any evidence that the ban reduced the number of victims per gun homicide incident." 6.3.4. Conclusions - "[Studies] failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds." 6.4.2. Assault Weapons and Homicides of Police Officers - "In sum, police officers are rarely murdered with assault weapons." From The 1999 "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" Report To Congress - "the weapons ["assault weapons] banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban" "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims." "...the banned guns are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes; even before the ban, most of them rarely turned up in law enforcement agencies' requests... to trace the sales histories of guns recovered in criminal investigations." "The ban's short-term impact on gun violence has been uncertain" From The FINAL June 2004 "Updated Assessment On The Federal Assault Weapon Ban" Report To Congress - "AWs [Assault weapons] were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban" "...we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." "These analyses revealed no ban effects, thus failing to show confirming evidence of the mechanism through which the ban was hypothesized to affect the gun murder rate" "...there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence... as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes committed with AWs (assault weapons) and LCMs (large-capacity magazines)." "Thus, it is premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun violence." THE DEFINITIVE CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS ON THE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN ALL SHOWED IT "FAILED" TO REDUCE GUN-MURDERS. FACT: "Assault weapons" are NOT "machine guns". They are "semi-automatic" meaning one pull of the trigger=one bullet discharged while the next bullet is then chambered ready for the next trigger pull. "Assault weapons" are not full-auto firearms and they do NOT "spray" bullets with a single pull of the trigger. "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ARE NOT MACHINE-GUNS. FACT: The "Assault weapon" Ban had NOTHING to do with silencers. One of the cosmetic features addressed by the "Assault Weapon" Ban included flash-suppressors which reduce the bright muzzle-glare ONLY in the eyes of the shooter in low-light conditions. Flash-suppressors do NOT "hide" the bright flash from any other observer and do NOT "silence" the very loud report of the gunshot sound. "FLASH-SUPPRESSORS" ARE NOT "SILENCERS" AND DO NOT MAKE THE SHOOTER "INVISIBLE" AT NIGHT. FACT: The Columbine-Killers did not violate any provision of "Assault Weapon" ban. The firearms used in Columbine included two sawed-off shotguns (already illegal), a pistol and a legally-produced TEC-9 "assault weapon". The "assault weapon" ban did not stop those two UNDERAGE killers from illegally acquiring the guns, illegally modifying the shotguns, illegally bringing them to school or illegally murdering 13 people. THE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN DID NOT TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS. FACT: The 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban did NOT actually ban "assault weapons". The ban only prohibited the NEW PRODUCTION of certain firearms based on cosmetic features. There were hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" legally owned, bought and sold BEFORE the ban was implemented and, DESPITE the overall drop in crime rates during the ban, there were STILL hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" being legally, peacefully and safely owned, bought and sold during the 10 years of the ban's existance. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EXISTING "UZIs, AR-15s AND AK-47s" WERE COMPLETELY LEGAL TO OWN, BUY AND SELL FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE FEDERAL "ASSAULT WEAPON BAN" - AND YET CRIME RATES STILL DECREASED. FACT: The 2nd Amendment is NOT about "duck hunting". Military-style firearms (like "assault weapons") are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). * In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". * In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'". SO ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT, MILITARY-STYLE FIREARMS ARE EXACTLY THE TYPE OF FIREARMS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT. FACT: Nobody NEEDS to infringe on the 2nd Amendment in order to reduce crime. Our RIGHTS do not ebb and flow or come and go with the annual crime reports. Our RIGHTS do not depend upon what today's gangbangers or psychopaths decide to do to get their next thrill or rage out. Our RIGHTS are not contingent upon, qualified by nor based on what CRIMINALS use to commit crimes! Our RIGHTS are derived from natural law, specifically protected by the Constitution and are NOT dependant on the findings in any crime studies!!! Banning the possession of "assault weapons" because of some crime statistics is like banning the possession of sports cars because of drunk driving deaths or like banning the possession of the boxcutters because of 9-11. OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT DERIVED FROM NOR DETERMINED BY THE MOST RECENT CRIME STATISTICS!

lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5436084761/m/6181008003

Awesome info above. How would they justify another ban with that in front of their face.


If you can, include a copy of those statistics with the letters to your Congressman.

The Ban does nothing but make a lot of companies go out of business and responsible gun owners pissed off.

here are all of congress'
phone numbers..... the last 4 digits are the number dial 202-225 and the last 4 digits after their name

this did not format as well as i would have liked and I dont want to correct 435 of them


last name + First name + state +district + last 4 digits of phone number

202-225-XXXX (xxxx= last 4 digits)

Young, Don AK, A/L 5765
Bonner, Jo AL, 1 4931
Everett, Terry AL, 2 2901
Rogers, Michael AL, 3 3261
Aderholt, Robert AL, 4 4876
Cramer, Robert AL, 5 4801
Bachus, Spencer AL, 6 4921
Davis, Artur AL, 7 2665
Berry, Marion AR, 1 4076
Snyder, Vic AR, 2 2506
Boozman, John AR, 3 4301
Ross, Mike AR, 4 3772
Faleomavaega, Eni AS, 8577
Renzi, Rick AZ, 1 2315
Franks, Trent AZ, 2 4576
Shadegg, John AZ, 3 3361
Pastor, Ed AZ, 4 4065
Mitchell, Harry AZ, 5 2190
Flake, Jeff AZ, 6 2635
Grijalva, Raul AZ, 7 2435
Giffords, Gabrielle AZ, 8 2542
Thompson, Mike CA, 1 3311
Herger, Wally CA, 2 3076
Lungren, Dan CA, 3 5716
Doolittle, John CA, 4 2511
Matsui, Doris CA, 5 7163
Woolsey, Lynn CA, 6 5161
Miller, George CA, 7 2095
Pelosi, Nancy CA, 8 4965
Lee, Barbara CA, 9 2661
Tauscher, Ellen CA, 10 1880
McNerney, Jerry CA, 11 1947
Lantos, Tom CA, 12 3531
Stark, Fortney CA, 13 5065
Eshoo, Anna CA, 14 8104
Honda, Michael CA, 15 2631
Lofgren, Zoe CA, 16 3072
Farr, Sam CA, 17 2861
Cardoza, Dennis CA, 18 6131
Radanovich,George CA, 19 4540
Costa, Jim CA, 20 3341
Nunes, Devin CA, 21 2523
McCarthy, Kevin CA, 22 2915
Capps, Lois CA, 23 3601
Gallegly, Elton CA, 24 5811
McKeon, Howard CA, 25 1956
Dreier, Davis CA, 26 2305
Sherman, Brad CA, 27 5911
Berman, Howard CA, 28 4695
Schiff, Adam CA, 29 4176
Waxman, Henry CA, 30 3976
Becerra, Xavier CA, 31 6235
Solis,Hilda CA, 32 5464
Watson, Diane CA, 33 7084
Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA, 34 1766
Waters, Maxine CA, 35 2201
Harman, Jane CA, 36 8220
Millender-Mcdonald Juanita CA, 37 7924
Napolitano, Grace CA, 38 5256
Sanchez, Linda CA, 39 6676
Royce, Ed CA, 40 4111
Lewis, Jerry CA, 41 5861
Miller, Gary CA, 42 3201
Baca, Joe CA, 43 6161
Calvert, Ken CA, 44 1986
Bono, Mary CA, 45 5330
Rohrabacher, Dana CA, 46 2415
Sanchez, Loretta CA, 47 2965
Campbell, John CA, 48 5611
Issa, Darrell CA, 49 3906
Bilbray, Brian CA, 50 5452
Filner, Bob CA, 51 8045
Hunter, Duncan CA, 52 5672
Davis, Susan CA, 53 2040
DeGette, Diana CO, 1 4431
Udall, Mark CO, 2 2161
Salazar, John CO, 3 4761
Musgrave, Marilyn CO, 4 4676
Lamborn, Doug CO, 5 4422
Tancredo, Thomas CO, 6 7882
Perlmutter, Edward CO, 7 2645
Larson, John CT, 1 2265
Courtney, Joseph CT, 2 2076
DeLauro, Rosa CT, 3 3661
Shays, Christopher CT, 4 5541
Murphy, Christopher CT, 5 4476
Norton, Eleanor Holmes DC, 8050
Castle, Michael DE, A/L 4165
Miller, Jeff FL, 1 4136
Boyd, F. Allen FL, 2 5235
Brown, Corrine FL, 3 0123
Crenshaw, Ander FL, 4 2501
Brown-Waite, Ginny FL, 5 1002
Stearns, Cliff FL, 6 5744
Mica, John FL, 7 4035
Keller, Ric FL, 8 2176
Bilirakis, Michael FL, 9 5755
Young, C.W. Bill, FL, 10 5961
Castor, Kathy FL, 11 3376
Putnam, Adam FL, 12 1252
Buchanan, Vernon FL, 13 5015
Mack, Connie Fl, 14 2536
Weldon, Dave FL, 15 3671
Mahoney, Tim FL, 16 5792
Meek, Kendrick FL, 17 4506
Ros-lehtinen, Ileana FL, 18 3931
Wexler, Robert FL, 19 3001
Wasserman Shultz, Debbie FL, 20 7931
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln FL, 21 4211
Klein, Ron FL, 22 3026
Hastings, Alcee FL, 23 1313
Feeny, Tom FL, 24 2706
Diaz-Balart, Mario FL, 25 2778
Kingston, Jack GA, 1 5831
Bishop, Sanford GA, 2 3631
Westmorland, Lynn GA, 3 5901
McKinney, Cynthia GA, 4 1605
Lewis, John GA, 5 3801
Price, Tom GA, 6 4501
Linder, John GA, 7 4272
Marshall, Jim GA, 8 6531
Norwood, Charles GA, 9 4101
Deal, Nathan GA, 10 5211
Gingrey, Phil GA, 11 2931
Barrow, John GA, 12 2823
Scott, David GA, 13 2939
Bordallo, Madeline GU, 1188
Abercrombie, Neil HI, 1 2726
Hirono, Mazie HI, 2 4906
Braley, Bruce IA, 1 2911
Loebsack, David IA, 2 6576
Boswell, Leonard IA, 3 3806
Latham, Tom IA, 4 5476
King, Steve IA, 5 4426
Sail, William ID, 1 6611
Simpson, Mike ID, 2 5531
Rush, Bobby IL, 1 4372
Jackson, Jesse IL, 2 0773
Lipinski, Dan IL, 3 5701
Gutierrez, Luis IL, 4 8203
Emanual, Rahm IL, 5 4061
Roskam, Peter IL, 6 4561
Davis, Danny IL, 7 5006
Bean, Melissa IL, 8 3711
Schakowsky, Janice IL, 9 2111
Kirk, Mark IL, 10 4835
Weller, Jerry IL, 11 3635
Costello, Jerry IL, 12 5661
Biggert, Judy IL, 13 3515
Hastert, Dennis IL, 14 2976
Johnson, Timothy IL, 15 2371
Manzullo, Donald IL, 16 5676
Hare, Philip IL, 17 5905
Lahood, Ray IL, 18 6201
Shimkus, John IL, 19 5271
Visclosky, Peter IN, 1 2461
Donnelly, Joe IN, 2 3915
Souder, Mark IN, 3 4436
Buyer, Steve IN, 4 5037
Burton, Dan IN, 5 2276
Pence, Mike IN, 6 3021
Carson, Julia IN, 7 4011
Ellsworth, Brad IN, 8 4636
Hill, Baron IN, 9 5315
Moran, Jerry KS, 1 2715
Boyda, Nancy KS, 2 6601
Moore, Dennis KS, 3 2865
Tiahrt, Todd KS, 4 6216
Whitfield, Edward KY, 1 3115
Lewis, Ron KY, 2 3501
Yarmuth, John KY, 3 5401
Davis, Geoff KY, 4 3465
Rogers, Harold KY, 5 4601
Chandler, Ben KY, 6 4706
Jindal, Bobby LA, 1 3015
TBD LA, 2 6636
Melancon, Charlie LA, 3 4031
McCrery, Jim LA, 4 2777
Alexander, Rodney LA, 5 8490
Baker, Richard LA, 6 3901
Boustany, Charles LA, 7 2031
Olver, John MA, 1 5335
Neal, Richard MA, 2 5601
McGoveren, Jim MA, 3 6101
Frank, Barney MA, 4 5931
Meehan, Marty MA, 5 3411
Tierney, John MA, 6 8020
Markey, Edward MA, 7 2836
Capuano, Michael MA, 8 5111
Lynch, Stephen MA, 9 8273
DeLahunt, William MA, 10 3111
Gilchrest, Wayne MD, 1 5311
Ruppersberger, C.A. MD, 2 3061
Sarbanes, John MD, 3 4016
Wynn, Albert MD, 4 8699
Hoyer, Steny MD, 5 4131
Bartlett, Roscoe MD, 6 2721
Cummings, Elijah MD, 7 4741
Van Hollen, Chris MD, 8 5341
Allen, Thomas ME, 1 6116
Michaud, Michael ME, 2 6306
Stupak, Bart MI, 1 4735
Rogers, Michael MI, 8 4872
Knollenberg, Joseph MI, 9 5802
Hoekstra, Peter MI, 2 4401
Ehlers, Vernon MI, 3 3831
Camp, Dave MI, 4 3561
Kildee, Dale MI, 5 3611
Upton, Fred MI, 6 3761
Walberg, Tim MI, 7 6276
Miller, Candice MI, 10 2106
McCotter, Thaddeus MI, 11 8171
Levin, Sander MI, 12 4961
Kilpatric, Carolyn MI, 13 2261
Conyers, John MI, 14 5126
Dingell, John MI, 15 4071
Walz, Tim MN, 1 2472
Kline, John MN, 2 2271
Ramstad, Jim MN, 3 2871
McCollum, Betty MN, 4 6631
Ellison, Keith MN, 5 4755
Bachman, Michele MN, 6 2331
Peterson, Collin MN, 7 2165
Oberstar, James MN, 8 6211
Clay Wm. Lacy MO, 1 2406
Akin, Todd MO, 2 2561
Carnahan, Russ MO, 3 2671
Skelton, Ike MO, 4 2876
Cleaver, Emanual MO, 5 4535
Graves, Sam MO, 6 7041
Blunt, Roy MO, 7 6536
Emerson, Jo Ann MO, 8 4404
Hulshof, Kenny MO, 9 2956
Wicker, Roger MS, 1 4306
Thompson, Bennie MS, 2 5876
Pickering, Charles MS, 3 5031
Taylor, Gene MS, 4 5772
Rehberg, Dennis MT, A/L 3211
Butterfield, G.K. NC, 1 3101
Etherridge, Bob NC, 2 4531
Jones, Walter NC, 3 3415
Price, David NC, 4 1784
Foxx, Virginia NC, 5 2071
Coble, Howard NC, 6 3065
McIntyre, Mike NC, 7 2731
TBD NC, 8 3715
Myrick, Sue NC, 9 1976
McHenry, Patrick NC, 10th 2576
Shuler, Heath NC, 11 6401
Watt, Melvin NC, 12 1510
Miller, Brad NC, 13 3032
Pomerroy, Earl ND, A/L 2611
Fortenberry, Jeff NE, 1 4806
Terry, Lee NE, 2 4155
Smith, Adrian NE, 3 6435
Shea-Porter, Carol NH, 1 5456
Hodes, Paul NH, 2 5206
Andrews, Robert NJ, 1 6501
LoBiondo, Frank NJ, 2 6572
Saxton, Jim NJ, 3 4765
Smith, Christopher NJ, 4 3765
Garrett, Scott NJ, 5 4465
Pallone, Frank NJ, 6 4671
Ferguson, Michal NJ, 7 5361
Pascrell, Bill NJ, 8 5751
Rothman, Streven NJ, 9 5061
Payne, Donald NJ, 10 3436
Frelinghuysen, Rodney NJ, 11 5034
Holt, Rush NJ, 12 5801
Sires, Albio NJ, 13 7919
Wilson, Heather NM, 1 6316
Pearce, Steve NM, 2 2365
Udall, Tom NM, 3 6190
Berkley, Shelly NV, 1 5965
Heller, Dean NV, 2 6155
Porter, Jon NV, 3 3252
Bishop, Tim NY, 1 3826
Israel, Steve NY, 2 3335
King, Peter NY, 3 7896
McCarthy, Carolyn NY, 4 5516
Ackerman, Gary NY, 5 2601
Meeks, Gregory NY, 6 3461
Crowley, Joseph NY, 7 3965
Nadler, Jerrold NY, 8 5635
Weiner, Anthony NY, 9 6616
Towns, Edolphus NY, 10 5936
Clark, Yvette NY, 11 6231
Valazquez, Nydia NY, 12 2361
Fossella, Vito NY, 13 3371
Maloney, Carolyn NY, 14 7944
Rangel, Charles NY, 15 4365
Serrano, Jose NY, 16 4361
Engel, Eliot NY, 17 2464
Lowey, Nita NY, 18 6506
Hall, John NY, 19 5441
Gillibrand, Kirsten NY, 20 5614
McNulty, Michael NY, 21 5076
Hinchey, Maurice NY, 22 6335
McHugh, John NY, 23 4611
Arcuri, Michael NY, 24 3665
Walsh, James NY, 25 3701
Reynolds, Thomas NY, 26 5265
Higgins, Brian NY, 27 3306
Slaughter,Louise-McIntosh NY, 28 3615
Kuhl, Randy NY, 29 3161
Chabot, Steve OH, 1 2216
Schmidt, Jean OH, 2 3164
Turner, Michael OH, 3 6465
Jordan, Jim OH, 4 2676
Gilmor, Paul OH, 5 6405
Wilson, Charlie OH, 6 5705
Hobson, Davis OH, 7 4324
Boehner, John OH, 8 6205
Kaptur, Marcy OH, 9 4146
Kucinich, Dennis OH, 10 5871
Tubbs Jones, Stephanie OH, 11 7032
Tiberi, Patrick Oh, 12 5355
Sutton, Betty OH, 13 3401
LaTourette, Steven OH, 14 5731
TBD OH, 15 2015
Regula, Ralph OH, 16 3876
Ryan, Tim OH, 17 5261
Space, Zack OH, 18 6265
Sullivan, John OK, 1 2211
Boren, Dan OK, 2 2701
lucas, Frank OK, 3 5565
Cole, Tom OK, 4 6165
Fallin, Mary OK, 5 2132
Wu, David OR, 1 O855
Walden, Greg OR, 2 6730
Blumenauer, Earl OR, 3 4811
DeFazio, Peter OR, 4 6416
Hooley, Darlene OR, 5 5711
Brady, Robert PA, 1 4731
Fattah, Chaka PA, 2 4001
English, Philip PA, 3 5406
Atmire, Jason PA, 4 2565
Peterson, John PA, 5 5121
Gerlach, Jim PA, 6 4315
Sestak, Joe PA, 7 2011
Murphy, Patrick PA, 8 4276
Shuster, Bill PA, 9 2431
Carney, Chris PA, 10 3731
Kanjorski, Paul PA, 11 6511
Murtha, John PA, 12 2065
Schwartz, Allyson PA, 13 6111
Doyle, Mike PA, 14 2135
Dent, Charles PA, 15 6411
Pitts, Joseph PA, 16 2411
Holden,Tim PA, 17 5546
Murphy, Timothy PA, 18 2301
Platts, Todd PA, 19 5836
Fortuno, Luis PR, 2615
Kennedy, Patrick RI, 1 4911
Langevin, James RI, 2 2735
Brown, Henry SC, 1 3176
Wilson, Joe SC, 2 2452
Barrett, Gresham SC, 3 5301
Inglis, Bob SC, 4 6030
Spratt, John SC, 5 5501
Clyburn, James SC, 6 3315
Herseth, Stephanie SD, A/L 2801
Davis, David TN, 1 6356
Duncan, John TN, 2 5435
Wamp, Zach TN, 3 3271
Davis, Lincoln TN, 4 6831
Cooper, Jim TN, 5 4311
Gordon, Bart TN, 6 4231
Blackburn, Marsha TN, 7 2811
Tanner, John TN, 8 4714
Cohen, Steve TN, 9 3265
Gohmert, Louie TX, 1 3035
Poe, Ted TX, 2 6565
Johnson, Sam TX, 3 4201
Hall, Ralph TX, 4 6673
Hensarling, Jeb TX, 5 3484
Barton, Joe TX, 6 2002
Culberson, John TX, 7 2571
Brady, Kevin TX, 8 4901
Green, Al TX, 9 7508
McCaul, Michael TX, 10 2401
Conaway, Mike TX, 11 3605
Granger, Kay TX, 12 5071
Thornberry, William TX, 13 3706
Paul, Ron TX, 14 2831
Hinojosa, Ruben TX, 15 2531
Reyes, Silvestre TX, 16 4831
Edwards, Chet TX, 17 6105
Jackson Lee, Shelia TX, 18 3816
Neugebauer, Randy TX, 19 4005
Gonzalez, Charles TX, 20 3236
Smith, lamar TX, 21 4236
Lampson, Nick TX, 22 5951
TBD TX, 23 4511
Marchant, Kenny TX, 24 6605
Doggett, Lloyd TX, 25 4865
Ortiz, Solomon TX, 27 7742
Cueller, Henry TX, 28 1640
Green, Gene TX, 29 1688
Johnson, Eddie TX, 30 8885
Carter, John TX, 31 3864
Sessions, Pete TX, 32 2231
Burgess, Michael TX,26 7772
Bishop, Rob UT, 1 0453
Matheson, Jim UT, 2 3011
Cannon, Chris UT, 3 7751
Davis, Jo Ann VA, 1 4261
Drake, Thelma VA, 2 4215
Scott, Bobby VA, 3 8351
Forbes, Randy VA, 4 6365
Goode, Virgil VA, 5 4711
Goodlatte, Bob VA, 6 5431
Cantor, Eric VA, 7 2815
Moran, James VA, 8 4376
Boucher, Rick VA, 9 3861
Wolf, Frank VA, 10 5136
Davis, Thomas VA, 11 1492
Christinsen, Donna VI, 1790
Welch, Peter VT, A/L 4115
Inslee, Jay WA, 1 6311
Larsen, Rick WA, 2 2605
Baird, Brian WA, 3 3536
Hastings, Doc WA, 4 5816
McMorris, Cathy WA, 5 2006
Dicks, Norman WA, 6 5916
McDermott, Jim WA, 7 3106
Reichert, Dave WA, 8 7761
Smith, Adam WA, 9 8901
Ryan, Paul WI, 1 3031
Baldwin, Tammy WI, 2 2906
Kind, Ron WI, 3 5506
Moore, Gwen WI, 4 4572
Sensenbrenner, F. James WI, 5 5101
Petri, Thomas WI, 6 2476
Obey, David WI, 7 3365
Kagen, Steve WI, 8 5665
Mollohan, Allan WV, 1 4172
Capito, Shelly WV, 2 2711
Rahal, Nick WV, 3 3452
Cubin, Barbara WY, A/L 2311

My letters are sent, we can beat this BS AWB if we get every one we know to write their congressman.

I might use this as part of my letter

From the Brady Campaigns own website:


 
 
The Second Amendment In The Twentieth Century:
Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?

by Keith A. Ehrman* & Dennis A. Henigan**
Reprinted from University of Dayton Law Review
Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 1989

I. INTRODUCTION

A well regulated Militia, being necesary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.1

In September of 1989, William Bennett, the Bush Adminis-tration's Drug Czar who earlier had single-handedly brought about a ban on the importation of semi-automatic assault rifles, was asked during a Congressional hearing whether he would recommend a ban on the domestic manufacture and distribution of assault weapons.2 He responded in the negative, stating that such action would create "serious constitutional problems."3

The specter of the second amendment was thereby raised yet again as an impediment to stronger gun laws. The argument is not that Congress should not, as a matter of policy, enact such laws; rather, it is that Congress cannot do so because the hands of our elected representatives are tied to the Bill of Rights. Thus, the National Rifle Association has testified against a national seven day waiting period for handgun sales because it would require citizens "to ask police for permission to exercise a constitutional right."4

The argument that the constitution is a barrier to stronger gun laws has received support in recent years from articles appearing in various legal publications which conclude that the second amendment guarantees a broad, individual right to own firearms for lawful private purposes in the same way that the first amendment guarantees individual rights of free speech, religion, and assembly.5 These articles, relying primarily on historical analyses of the origins of the second amendment, generally have asserted either that the "militia" clause of the amendment does not function to limit the "right to keep and bear arms," or that the "militia" concept itself expresses the right of the citizenry at large to be armed.6 One recent writer has suggested that the second amendment may be "profoundly embarrassing" to persons who support the regulation of private ownership of firearms. while maintaining their allegiance to the Bill of Rights generally.7


In spite of this ....They then go on to say that it is their Opinion that "There is no evidence that the Framers discussed, much less intended, that the amendment provide a guarantee to individuals of a right to be armed for purposes unrelated to militia service."  

If this is true then there is certainly NO Evidence that they did not intend the amendment provide a guarantee to individuals of a right to be armed for purposes unrelated to militia service!

Infact, if we consider Thomas Jefferson himself stated: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"   We can easily surmize that it is much more plasusible that they DID in fact  intend the amendment provide a guarantee to individuals of a right to be armed for purposes unrelated to militia service!

This is the letter I sent to my Rep. Feel free to use any part of it.

Dear Congressman Tanner,
as one of your constituents, I am writing to you
to express my disgust in a proposed House Bill by Mrs.
McCarthy of New York.

The Bill I am referring to is HR 1022. This is a new bill
that would re-authorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that sunset
on September 13, 2004.

This ban prohibited many semi-automatic firearms by name or by certain features, because they looked similar to military firearms. These weapons were labeled as "non-sporting", and were said to be no good for hunting.
The fact that the 2nd Amendment has absolutley nothing to do with hunting
and is solely about preserving liberty and freedom continues to confuse many of your colleagues in the House and Senate.

When this piece of "feel good" legislation was scheduled to sunset
in 2004, many elected officials in Washington made outrageous predictions
about the dire consequences of the ban's expiration. We were told that violent gun crimes would skyrocket. They were wrong.

Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis." Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed. She was also wrong.

This is nothing new. In fact, before the now expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban was made into law, less that 2% of all crimes were committed with what the anti gun advocates define as “assault weapons”. Hands and feet were used more often as weapons by a wide margin! In the 29 months since the ban expired, violent crimes with firearms have actually decreased in many areas.

As a law abiding gun owner, shooter, and firearms collector, I am so tired of having to write to my representatives, and remind them to fight for my Constitutional rights. The same rights that they have taken an oath to protect and defend.

It has been proven that violent criminals will never care about what laws are written, and that restricting the rights of good citizens has no effect on violent crime. Washington DC is a perfect example, with some of the highest crime, and most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

Please continue to support law abiding citizens, and our Constitution by
letting Mrs. McCarthy and any potential co-sponsors know that the American people want crime control and not more restrictive gun control.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this letter, and thank you for your service to our country and the State of Tennessee. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Herman Snerd

C'mon folks... let's ZUMBO the new AW ban!!!

We just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have great strength in numbers... LET'S USE IT!

Sent my letters yesterday.  Wife did the same

Letters Sent!

SM

I recently read a response by an individual here who said that there is no real reason to get worked up about any of this as "they try it every year etc etc." This IMO is exactly why we should be very worked up about this.

The anti gun community does not sit back and say well the Gun Owners try ever year. They are on top of it Day in Day out writting Bills, Protesting no matter what we do.

It is not wise to wait for something to gain traction and then start fighting. We must be more dilligent then they are. It's the only way. Seems pretty apparent to me.



Simple letter until I fine tune a better one.  
February 22, 2007

[recipient address was inserted here]


[recipient name was inserted here],

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is
trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297.  

While I am a "Gun Owner" that strongly opposes this bill, I want you to
know that I speak for many of my friends and relatives when I say that I
am not against keeping firearms out of the hands of Criminals.

The approach that is taken by these bills is where the flaws lie.  A simple
quote from Thomas Jefferson written many years ago explains this point
well.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man"


When I enjoy my hobby at the local club, many of the members are former or
active Military,or Police Officers. The remainder are some of the most
patriotic people I know.


It simply makes no sense to take or restrict these people in their
ownership of firearms. If anything it would serve to disarm many of those
who fight against crime.

Criminals of all types have the one thing in common.  They do not follow
the law! It should be painfully apparent then, that creating more
restrictive gun laws are only going to affect the law abiding citizen.

I will reitterate, Noone I know wants guns in the hands of criminals. The
best way to keep them from getting them is to suuport the law abiding
Citizen, Police and Military with all of our resources, Not bind their hands

There are many programs and agencies that have a positive affect on crime.
Why do the one thing that is focused on the Law Abiding when it is the
criminal we are trying to affect?


I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun legislation sponsored by
liberal Carolyn McCarthy.  Because it takes the so transparently wrong
approach. Thank you.

Sincerely,

FYI you can see if the "right to bear arms" is noted in your states constitution by going to www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

Your representatives are supposed to be representing your state, so let them know exactly how your states constitution reads. Many states use more specific language in regards to citizens "right to bear arms" than the 2nd amendment of the federal government.

That is a fantastic Site!!! Thank You!


Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Gun Owners Site

Lot's of letters.  Definitely need to rewrite most of them, But they are constantly on top of new issues. They will send you an e-mail if Sen McCarthy goes to the bathroom. lol

I'm asking anyone with experience in Law to come forward and help with particular wording that could really tie up the Bill.

I don't know if convincing the law makers to "feel" like we do will ever work but Statistics help and I think if we get down to the nitty of the law itself we could somehow prove that the Bill is waay too Broad and does not in fact do anything to fight crime we could win a lot easier.

Please keep mailing your letters and phoning in the mean time.  I spoke with a girl I know who used to wwork for our former State Rep. She said that it works if enough people call and write. They don't want to be against their whole town or state. She also said that she (the Rep)  had been persuaded many times to change her mind on bills etc. based on info someone had brought to her attention.

tagging for later. I too want to write a letter, but needed some opening lines to start adding my own thoughts to. I'll be checking back in here.

I got an E-mail response back from my congressman today:

Dear Mr. Snerd:

Thank you for contacting our office to share your comments on the reauthorization of the ban on assault weapons particularly your opposition to HR 1022.

Section 110101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 banned the manufacture, transfer or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons not designated as "lawfully possessed" under Federal law. According to the law, this ban expired September 4, 2004, ten years from the date of enactment. I voted against the original bill because I felt some of the provisions were a bit over-reaching and lacked solid proof as to their effectiveness in preventing crime. HR 1022 would reauthorize the assault weapons ban, but the legislation remains under review in the House Committee on the Judiciary and no legislative consideration has been scheduled in the House. You may be sure that I will keep your views in mind should the House begin consideration of legislation addressing the reauthorization of the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.

As you may know, I believe that the Constitutional right to bear arms should be protected and that law-abiding citizens should have the right to purchase and own firearms. I have been a strong supporter of all of our Constitutionally protected liberties, including our right to bear arms, and will certainly continue to carefully review all proposals that stand to restrict our American freedoms, particularly our Second Amendment rights.

Please continue to provide me with the benefit of your advice and counsel on issues of concern to you in the future.

Sincerely,


John Tanner, M. C.

why

I think that was a pretty good reply.

Best letter so far.


I fixed the contradictory part about D.C. Hope thats OK

Dear ______________,
as one of your constituents, I am writing to you
to express my disgust in a proposed House Bill by Mrs.
McCarthy of New York.

The Bill I am referring to is HR 1022. This is a new bill
that would re-authorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that sunset
on September 13, 2004.

This ban prohibited many semi-automatic firearms by name or by certain features, because they looked similar to military firearms. These weapons were labeled as "non-sporting", and were said to be no good for hunting.

The fact that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting
and is solely about preserving liberty and freedom continues to confuse many of your colleagues in the House and Senate.

When this piece of "feel good" legislation was scheduled to sunset
in 2004, many elected officials in Washington made outrageous predictions
about the dire consequences of the ban's expiration. We were told that violent gun crimes would skyrocket. They were wrong.

Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis." Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed. She was also wrong.

This is nothing new. In fact, before the now expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban was made into law, less that 2% of all crimes were committed with what the anti gun advocates define as “Assault Weapons”. In fact Hands and Feet were used more often as weapons by a wide margin! In the 29 months since the ban expired, violent crimes with firearms have actually decreased in many areas.

As a law abiding gun owner, shooter, and firearms collector, I am so tired of having to write to my representatives, and remind them to fight for my Constitutional rights. The same rights that they have taken an oath to protect and defend.

It is fact that violent criminals will never care about what laws are written, and that restricting the rights of good citizens will have no affect on the criminal who desires to obtain a weapon. Washington DC is a perfect example, with some of the highest crime, and most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

The proposed legislation, like the last is over-reaching and lacking in proof as to it's effectiveness in preventing crime. In fact, we now have the benefit of looking back to 1994 and we can clearly see that the ban did nothing but infringe on the rights of american people.

Unlike the last, this bill is many times more vague, has no stated purpose, other than reinstating previously failed legislation, and it rests on the idea that a firearms purpose is only for "Sporting"; when the constitution clearly allows for their use for personal defense.

Please continue to support law abiding citizens, and our Constitution by
letting Mrs. McCarthy and any potential co-sponsors know that the American people want crime control and not more restrictive gun control.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this letter, and thank you for your service to our country and the State of Tennessee. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Herman Snerd

tag

My goal: A pinted and mailed version of the above letter to everyone on the list of Reps with a copy of the fact sheet.

Then a call to reinforce the same points. This is important as all letters are not read right away.

I will repeat this process monthly as I long as I can afford the postage. My long distance is free so I will call every month.

bump for those of you who haven't completed your letters yet.

This is what I wrote to my congresscritter:

H.R. 1022 appears to be, at first, a resurrection of the "Clinton Gun Ban." But a closer examination reveals that it gets far more specific and has the same attributes as all other restrictive gun laws: 1. It tells law abiding Americans to accept further infringements upon their Constitutionally affirmed rights when they're not the cause of society's problems. 2. It is being sold as something that will prevent criminals from getting guns despite common sense and historically established proof that says criminals simply ignore the law as a way of life. 3. It irrationally focuses on inanimate objects and their ownership instead of bringing criminals to justice. With so many other far more important issues that need to be resolved, I'm aghast that anyone believes yet another restrictive gun law is somehow worthy. I urge complete opposition of H.R. 1022 and preventing it from becoming law.

keep going guys we have a long way to go

www.congress.org

Thanks.

Finally got out another four letters,and three more emails. One being to Ron Paul to encourage him to follow through with his new proposal.

Thanks for the letters guys.  I modified them slightly and emailed them.  Tomorrow I will snail mail another copy.

Here is a letter that was posted on this site a few years back.  Sub out the bill for the current one, change state to federal, etc, etc.  There are some good points and arguments made-- a good starting point or template for your own letter(s)



    I am writing to you regarding HB 2414, which seeks to ban semiautomatic "assault" weapons throughout the state. I find this bill to be based on fallacious reasoning, and I also believe that it runs contrary to constitutionally protected rights. Before you write me off as another "gun nut", hear me out.

    The term "assault weapon" is not a technical firearms term, but rather one that was created in the legalese of the national 1994 Crime Bill (the "assault weapons" part of which expired near the end of 2004) and the similar legislation enacted in California. The term "assault weapon" is applied to an otherwise ordinary group of weapons in order to evoke an emotional response. "Assault Weapon" sounds scary, until you realize that these sorts of weapons are commonly used for target and sport shooting, varmint hunting, and other recreational activities. In addition, many of the physical features that are singled out in the definition of "assault weapon" are cosmetic or comfort-enhancing in nature, and have nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon. A perfect example of this is in line 3, page 8, "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon". What this is, basically, is a handle to hold on to that makes holding the weapon for a long time (such as in target shooting) more comfortable. It in no way increases the inherent lethality of the weapon.

    Furthermore, the bill suggests that these weapons "pose a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this State, that the use of these weapons and attachments for sport or recreation is substantially outweighed bye the danger these weapons and attachments present to human life...". Notice that no justification is given for this statement. If you do the research, you will find that the number of crimes committed with legally possessed weapons of this type is minuscule compared to the number of crimes committed with illegally obtained weapons of these and other types. The idea that these weapons are being used by "bad guys" everywhere is simply often-repeated convention wisdom, proposed frequently enough that it is taken on face as fact, when in truth it is totally false. It is also important to realize that convicted felons, those subject to restraining orders, those under the age of eighteen, and those considered mentally ill are already barred from purchasing or possessing these weapons. This bill seeks to make criminals of sport shooters, recreational hunters, and collectors. These people are students, firemen, lawyers, police officers, National Guardsmen, teachers, doctors...pillars of the community who enjoy recreational shooting and collecting of firearms. As you can see, the supposed significant threat posed by these weapons is not that significant at all, and is outweighed by the vast number of legal uses for and possessors of these weapons.

    Another illogical portion of the bill bans "high-capacity magazines" (actually, these magazines are standard capacity, but the term "high-capacity" is used much like "assault weapon" to provoke an emotional response). These magazines are used to good effect on shooting ranges, reducing the amount of loading and reloading a shooter has to do. I challenge the authors of this bill to find any significant number of incidents where a criminal has used standard capacity magazines to inflict high damage on property or persons (it would be especially difficult to enumerate enough negative incidents to justify taking away the rights of the general populace). A normal magazine capacity does not make a weapon any more inherently deadly, especially when that weapon is semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull), and an experienced shooter can switch magazines almost as fast as he can shoot, negating any benefit of a magazine capacity restriction.

    All of the crimes that can be committed with weapons are already illegal. Murder, robbery, reckless discharge of a firearm, brandishing a firearm, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime: these are all serious crimes. All this new legislation does is make criminals of common sport shooters. Any true criminal that wants to use a weapon in a crime is not deterred by additional legislation; he has already crossed the legal and moral line. People are criminal, not objects. A rifle in the hands of a common citizen is a recreational and self-defense tool. A rifle in the hands of a criminal is already illegal.

    I also find it abhorrent that I as a United States soldier, and member of the Illinois National Guard, I am trusted to use a rifle to defend my state and my country and to keep the peace, yet I would not be allowed to shoot a similar type of rifle for practice in my spare time. This paternalistic attitude is insulting to me as a citizen and as a soldier.

    I ask you to vote against HB 2414 to protect the rights of the citizens of your district to protect themselves and their families and to participate in the pastime of recreational shooting. Rifles have been in the hands of the citizenry since the Minutemen ancestors of the National Guard first took up arms to liberate our nation. Eroding the rights of the people, especially when there is no positive benefit to be gained, must not be allowed. Please consider these points when determining your stance on HB2414.

Thank you for your time. Please feel free to send me any comments or questions you may have. I think that an open dialog is essential to understanding an issue this important.

great letter

These are the folks that have the Bill right now as far as I can tell. If you think differently please let me know. It's not easy finding the info.

So it would be prudent IMO to write and call these folks. As this would effectively nip it in the bud, which would save a much bigger fight once the MEDIA get a hold of anti 2A legislatiion thats gaining steam.

This is the Constitution?Rights Sub Committee of the House committee on Juduciary
Like I said I think that they have the bill based on the definition of their responsibilities. Either way we know it is in the House Committee on Judiciary.


The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight





Honorable Jerrold Nadler
2334 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-5635

Honorable Artur Davis
208 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2665


Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz
118 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-7931

Honorable Keith Ellison
2100 Plymouth Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55411
(612) 522-1212


Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126


Honorable Robert C. Scott
1201 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-8351


Honorable Melvin L. Watt
2236 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-1510


Honorable Steve Cohen
1004 Longworth Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-3265



Honorable Trent Franks
1237 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Honorable Mike Pence
426 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3021

Hon. Darrell Issa
211 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515


Honorable Steve King
1432 Longworth Office Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-4426

Honorable Jim Jordan
515 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2676


Over half of these folks are Dems  So if you dont think they will pass it through committee without cosponsors, think again

However, Being Im pretty sure they are ACLU types. They should listen to factual data though. and more importantly They aren't  for infringing on peoples inherent rights.

Lets Get to it! Nip it Now!

Thanks for the samples.

Sending via email is good, and certainly should not be discouraged. However, using these samples either as a guide or to replicate, on paper, is the better option, especially if handwritten.

Picking up the phone is also a fast and simple way of being heard. (Quite literally.)

Quoted: These are the folks that have the Bill right now as far as I can tell. If you think differently please let me know. It's not easy finding the info. So it would be prudent IMO to write and call these folks. As this would effectively nip it in the bud, which would save a much bigger fight once the MEDIA get a hold of anti 2A legislatiion thats gaining steam. This is the Constitution?Rights Sub Committee of the House committee on Juduciary Like I said I think that they have the bill based on the definition of their responsibilities. Either way we know it is in the House Committee on Judiciary.

The bill hasn't been assigned to a subcommittee as yet. Based on past introductions of this bill it will be assigned to the  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Just keep in mind that almost all the Democratic member's of the full committee were cosponsors of the last AWB that never made it out of the Republican controlled committee - McCarthy H.R.1312 - Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005

Thanks for the info. I noticed how many Dems are listed on there. I think this is where the efforts should be concentrated in the short term.  I mean if the commitee gets some odd thousand letters it might persuade them not to pass it out.

Just got done writing my letter to my Representative. Sending a copy by e-mail and also by USPS.

He's a Dem, but he is also a former LEO with good marks from the NRA. I made sure to include references to Indiana's Consitutional right to bear arms for self defense and defense of State.

height=8

Quoted: Do the people that are proposing the new AWB have the facts that crime went down because of the 1st ban? Do we have any factual data to help back up our cause (no new AWB)? I am ready to do my part.hey If the Democrats cared what the citizens wanted would they have proposed any AWB in the first place? These are very intelligent people that only care where their next "contribution" comes from. There are a million legitimate sources that have provided evidence of the ineffectiveness of the first AWB. The Dems do not care.....they only care that they seem to be doing something for the betterment of you. The Dems always know better than you, what's good for you.

I've been writing letters and emails to my reps.  I guess it's time to start using up some of those cell minutes...

I just received my latest letter from the GOA. They are urging everyone to KEEP writing. There has been a lull in the last week or so.

We've had a few wins and we need to keep the momentum moving. Please don't get complacent guys.

Heres a link to the GOA FORM LETTER I encourage you to email and send a printed copy. Read it first, many of you might like to modify the wording slightly to suit the facts and keep it respectful (the GOA likes to bang the desk if you know what I mean)

LINK to all 33 Cosponsors

it doesn't link you directly to their sites unfortunately but it has all their names. Simply take the name and plug it into your search for their site.

If you choose to write them an e-mail instead of calling or writing a letter you may have to use an address from the Reps district to have the fom on their site work.

I have done that for at least half. The rest have gotten calls.