Letter to local reps about firearms law

Anything and everything related to the great equalizer.
Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:43 pm
Chapter:: National President
Chapter 1, Past President
Location: Pacific NW

Letter to local reps about firearms law

Post by LT »

And here's the one I am sending to Susan DelBene, our Congress rep. I don't have much hope, but all we can do is try.

Representative Susan DelBene
2442 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-4701

October 29, 2017
Dear Representative DelBene,

I am writing in opposition to any further restrictions on law abiding firearms owners and in support of relaxation of some of the out of date restrictions that have been opposed in the past. I know that you are generally opposed to firearms ownership but given the current political reality that it is a Constitutionally protected individual right, please allow me to make the case for my views.

The current push to ban "bump stocks" is a good example of legislation that advances an agenda without accomplishing its stated purpose. For the record, bump stocks are not a serious firearm accessory. They reduce accuracy to the point that the firearm becomes almost worthless for law abiding use. I have never owned one and I do not know anyone who has ever owned one. I can see the attraction of a ban because it would seem to be a politically safe move. However, the problem arises when you start to define a bump stock. It appears to be defined, at least in the proposed bills, as "a device that increases the rate of fire without converting the firearm to a machine gun". Unfortunately a stronger return spring on any semi-automatic firearm will do the same thing, as will a lighter trigger, two modifications that are often made to make firearms more accurate for competition, hunting, or sport shooting. This legislation accomplishes one thing only and that is to make it easier for an anti-gun Administration or BATFE director to start prosecuting law abiding gun owners without having to pass additional laws or make a Constitutional amendment.
This ban would also be easily circumvented by anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge and intelligence. These stocks are very simple and, to reference the one and only case of a criminal using them, the Las Vegas shooter could probably have made his own given his high level of intelligence and general motivation.

Meanwhile other legislation that would be beneficial to either the general public, the firearms community, or both without fear of increased criminality has generally languished in Congress.

1) The National Instant Check System (NICS) has made it very difficult for prohibited persons to purchase guns, making the cross state border prohibitions nothing but an inconvenience for a law abiding citizen.

2) Many European countries either mandate or encourage the use of sound suppressors for hunting and shooting, because they reduce hearing damage and incidental noise pollution. Suppressors (mistakenly or maliciously called silencers) are easy to make using hardware store items so the ban does not stop criminals, only the law abiding.

3) Concealed carry reciprocity would allow law abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights anywhere in the country. Contrary to the mis-representations of opponents, the proposed legislation would require that all persons comply with the laws of the state they were in regarding restricted areas and carry regulations. Again, criminals do not obtain concealed carry permits and permit holders have repeatedly been shown to be more law abiding than the average citizen when it comes to firearms.

4) Elimination of the "sporting purposes" test from the 1968 Gun Control Act. This vague wording has allowed the BATFE to ban multiple firearms from importation including M-1 Garand rifles that were made in the United States and sent to our allies, as well as copies of the same rifles made overseas; shotguns that are the best weapon for home self defense; and many other well made copies of firearms that the BATFE defines as "unsuitable for sporting purposes" in spite of the fact that the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right of Americans to own guns for sport. Elimination of this wording would allow law abiding Americans to collect and own high quality firearms that happen to be made overseas. Again, not many criminals collecting eighty year old M-1 Garand rifles.

I don't know your background in firearms but I hope this letter will help you to understand that there are many of us who believe that the protections guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to self defense, are serious protections. We understand that crazy people do crazy things and that the public perception of these actions often revolves around the tool used, but given the mass murders in other countries using knives, vehicles, and explosives, the reality is that bad things happen and that gun owners have frequently been in a position to stop those criminal actions, a fact that is rarely publicized by the media.

If you are ever interested in going to the range I would be happy to take you to Custer Gun Club to do some shooting. It is a safe and fun activity and perhaps, if you haven't shot before, you will gain some understanding of why we enjoy it. Thanks for taking the time to listen.


Calvin Armerding
610 G Street
Blaine, WA 98230
National President

"Bother" said Pooh, as he connected at 14,400 bps.

"Be polite, be respectful, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." General James Mattis
Post Reply