My response to Feinstein
I am pretty sure my House rep will oppose this legislation, but I am not sure about my Senators -- Cantwell and Murray from Washington, both Democrats. In any case, I think there is plenty of time to nip this in the bud, but if for some reason this does pass and become law -- what will we do? As a couple have already said, will we comply with this legislation? Where will we actually draw a line in the sand - or will we at all? It is easy to make whatever statements we want on the internet, but will anyone saying they will resist actually do so?
Here is a letter I am sending to my state reps - a bit long winded, but I wanted to make every point I could think of.
Representative so and so:
Like all Americans, I was deeply shocked and saddened by the massacre of over 25 people in Newtown, Connecticut earlier this month. Many of those victims were children. I cannot comprehend how any person could conceive of committing such an act. I do believe it is in the interests of American society to try to prevent such incidents from happening again, but it has come to my attention that what Congress and the White House is considering will only hurt law abiding citizens and consequently do nothing to impact the possibility of such massacres from occurring in the future.
Senator Diane Feinstein of California is keeping her word that when Congress convenes early next January, she will immediately put to the floor a ban on the sale, transfer, and manufacturing of many popular rifles in use by American civilians as well as the magazines that accompany them. Her legislation supposedly will also turn those weapons under the ban already in the possession of civilians into NFA Class 3 items, therefore requiring registration, special permissions to use and transport them, and forfeiture to the government upon the death of the owner as well as many other conditions and restrictions. It is easily conceivable that such legislation would enable forfeiture of a person's 4th and 5th Amendment rights under any set of unspecified circumstances, unlawful seizure of lawfully owned property, undignified encroachment of the government into citizen's private affairs, and lay the foundation for eventual forcible seizure of weapons owned by American citizens. When the government says "we will honor your civil rights, trust us," it is very much a cause for concern.
The AR-15 and similar firearms targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal are perhaps the most versatile ones available to citizens. They can be used for just about any purpose: hunting, competition, target shooting, and defense. I would hardly call them impractical for citizens to own. I also find it unconscionable that the US Government sends such arms to criminal organizations in Mexico to "track" them (Fast and Furious) and repeatedly considers arming rebel groups in Arab countries that say they are hostile to the US yet the same government (ours) wants to disarm its own citizens.
I have in the past 3 years have had a couple of incidents where my possession of a firearm rapidly de-escalated potentially dangerous situations. In both cases, my firearm didn't even have to be presented; the belligerents saw I had the capacity to defend myself and reconsidered their actions without any shots fired or blood shed. Senator Feinstein and others would take that ability away from me if they could. This legislation will empower them to do so.
I should also point out that the mere threat of a weapons ban has put more of these firearms and magazines into circulation than any time previously. I am having a great deal of trouble finding magazines and ammunition and when they are in stock, the prices for them are much higher than they were even a month ago. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the ban?
The precedent such legislation would enable is to my eye extremely dangerous to the rights we enjoy as Americans. This "idea" does not even touch the real issue behind why the massacre occurred. A brilliant (book smart) yet disturbed and isolated individual needed serious mental help and he never got it. Why isn't Congress addressing mental health? I would think that re-classifying mental conditions that would prohibit a person from possessing a firearm would be called for, but I see no action on that front.
Congress is also not pushing for keeping the media from putting every available piece of information about a mass shooter to the general public. Such action clearly "idolizes" the individual, gives him the attention he is seeking, and empowers others in a similar state to consider such acts to get attention. Yet addressing such concerns would violate the First Amendment. I therefore conclude that the actions Feinstein is proposing is not only not helpful, but hypocritical.
So called "assault" weapons are used in a very small number of crimes and a ban does nothing but put an incredible burden on law abiding citizens, turning them into criminals and creates additional strains on a government that is fiscally reaching its breaking point.
I understand this email is long winded, but I contend this issue is extremely important to me. I wish I could snap my fingers and make all forms of violence stop, but that is simply not possible. Disarming law abiding citizens or turning them into criminals simply because they own a certain weapon goes against the very tenants of what it means to be American. I implore you to oppose this and any legislation directed at punishing responsible law abiding citizens for the acts of one or two mentally unstable individuals. I will also be sending similar messages to my other representatives in Congress. Thank you for your time and consideration and I would appreciate a response.
Signed, Me