HR 1022 Sample letter to your reps with facts

[rbthntr64]

Mr/Mrs. ,
As a dedicated supporter of the XXXXXXXXX party, gun owner and voter, I ask that you vote NO on HR 1022. This is NOT the cosmetic bill from the Clinton era and does NOT include a sunset expiration, this one DOES ban many more guns, not just features, going so far as to ban WWII era rifles such as the M1 Garand
and semi-automatic shotguns, some of which are pieces of history of our Great Nation. It would make many law abiding citizens and supporters of our Constution criminals at the stroke of a pen.
Time has shown that the last assault weapon ban did nothing to curb crime, as the criminal element do not follow laws. The only ones affected by that ban were the law abiding citizens of our country.
The agencies responsible for reporting crime and recordable statistics associated with crime agree. Crime rates have not improved as a result of the 1994 ban, nor could they be expected to, given the infrequency in which these firearms are used in crime. Supporters of the ban present statistics that they claim show the ban "works". From bradycampaign.org:
In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.
It should be noted that, even though the above paragraph stealthily attempts to imply that the ban reduced crime, if you read it carefully, you see that this is not the case (more on this below). Brady Campaign also fails to mention the wealth of other very significant information present in this same report that all but invalidates their assertion. For example, with regards to the accuracy of using BATF, the report states:
These data are limited because police agencies do not submit a trace request on every gun they confiscate. Many agencies submit very few requests to BATF, particularly in States that maintain gun sales databases (such as California). Therefore, tracing data are a biased sample of guns recovered by police. Prior studies suggest that assault weapons are more likely to be submitted for tracing than are other confiscated firearms. [emphasis added]
In other words, law enforcement agencies submit trace requests on only a small percentage of firearms used in crime, and the unique appearance of "assault weapons" makes them much more likely to be submitted for a BATF trace compared to, say, a common revolver. So, according to this report, BATF trace data is not valid for this type of study. But, because it is the only available national statistic on types of guns used in crime, the researchers had little choice but to use it (with the disclaimer quote above, conveniently omitted by gun control advocates).
Furthermore, consider the following:
...it appears that, at least in the short term, the grandfathered assault weapons remained largely in dealers? and collectors? inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets through which criminals tend to obtain guns... offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semiautomatic weapons to commit their crimes.
This is a critical point that completely offsets Brady's assertion that the ban has had any effect on gun-related crime. Grandfathered firearms (known as "pre-bans") cost significantly more than their "post-ban" near-equivalents; in some cases, new-in-box or mint condition pre-ban AR-15 style rifles can sell for more than double the retail price of post-bans (which aren't exactly cheap either). Disregarding the inaccuracy of trace requests as a reliable statistic, common sense says a decrease in the use of these particular firearms in crime is exactly what would be expected. Why would a criminal go through the hassle and expense of trying to obtain a banned "assault weapon" if there were plenty of other guns that would do the job just as well and were freely available? And, of course, on top of all this, "assault weapons" were very rarely used in crime even before the ban.
Here is an analogy to help illustrate this point. Suppose an organization decides it does not like people driving, for example, Honda Civics that have all sorts of radical body modifications and attachments (spoilers, hood scoops, etc.), giving these cars a sporty, racy look. While these features are primarily cosmetic in nature, some people just don't like the way these cars look, convinced that only the most reckless and irresponsible drivers own them, and manage to get the local government to ban the manufacture of any new automobile with a race car-like appearance. For the people who like these cars, the ban has the effect of turning them into collector's items virtually overnight, and prices skyrocket. Because of this, and because no new ones are being produced, there are not nearly as many of them available to the average person... most are securely locked away in collectors' garages.
After a few years, the group that called for the ban gathers statistics on speeding tickets and accidents, which naturally reflect the effects of the ban, showing a reduced number of traffic citations issued to drivers of these cars, though not an overall reduction in citations. The group claims victory, citing the reduction in traffic violations for this particular style of car, but ignores the fact that the small number of bad drivers who previously drove the cosmetically incorrect cars now simply drive other cars (and do so just as recklessly). The overall violation rate remains the same as it would have without the ban. But by selectively taking a very small part of the statistics out of context, the organization attempts to manipulate the masses into believing the legislation had a positive effect on public safety, when it has actually had virtually no detectable effect at all.

The N.I.J. report cited by Brady also makes quite a few other significant points, such as:
"A number of factors?including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country...posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban." [emphasis added]
"...about half the banned makes and models were rifles, which are hard to conceal for criminal use."
"...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 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to trace the sales histories of guns recovered in criminal investigations." [emphasis added]
"...other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds." [emphasis added]
"There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used." [emphasis added]
"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. However, such incidents are sufficiently rare that the available data do not permit a reliable assessment of whether this contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police."
"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..." [emphasis added]
"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."
This report, despite being sponsored by Federal government during the Clinton administration, clearly presents significantly more evidence that proves why the ban should not be renewed than it does supporting the ban.
Summary
It would seem then that the only folks affected by this legislation are the honest, law-abiding citizens who own guns. Please show your support of law abiding citizens rights who support you, by voting NO to any new restrictive gun laws that come up for vote.

Respectfully,

[rbthntr64]

Gentlemen, and Ladies,
Also take the time and print out a copy and mail it. Written letters get better reponse than e-mails. Please make time to do this. The future of our Country depends on it.

[rbthntr64]

Bump. No replies?

[tanvil]

I'm on it. I tend to make them a little shorter though. These people have the attention span of a gnat. Some one posted something about a barrel ban, are you familiar with that? The post was the first I've heard of it.

[medic1]

I'm on it. Going to edit somewhat to shorten it up. Loooks great!! Going to get them out today!!

[GeneC]

I too like to keep it short and sweet, as I agree they have a short attention. I have one thing to say to them and it's that HR1022 is an illegal attack on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and won't be tolerated.

[rbthntr64]

Guys,
Please post you short versions here for others to use.

[GeneC]

Ok, "Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Representative, this bill is an simple, illegal attack on our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and confirmed recently with the United States Court of Appeals in Washington D. C., If you'd like to be re-elected this next term, or ever again, please vote no on HR1022.

Thankyou ,
Joe Citizen
USA

[hcpookie]

rbthntr64 thanks for this - a very good idea! You should post links in the main discussion forums, I'll bet most people don't look in the legal forum section very often.

[jjglith]

I plagiarized rbt's letter (you did good my friend, I hope you don't mind the editing) and added some other facts to include....here's my modified version...it's still on the long side......short cynical responses don't make a impact as much as a long informational response or statement to our elected officials....

RE: HB 1022

Dear Congressman--Congresswoman--Senator,

As a dedicated supporter of the xxxxxxxxxx party, gun owner and voter, I ask that you vote NO. This is NOT the cosmetic bill from the Clinton era and does NOT include a sunset expiration, this one DOES ban many more guns, not just features, going so far as to ban WWII era rifles such as the M1 Garand.
This bill also bans; in addition to modern semi automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols; military weapons such as the M1 Carbine as used by our forces during World War II most notably by paratroopers such as the 101st Airborne ?Screaming Eagles?. It would also ban semi auto look-alikes of fully automatic weapons [new manufacture/importation of fully automatic weapons themselves are already banned by the National Firearms Act 26 U.S.C. ? 5845 and 18 U.S.C. ? 922(o)(1)] such as the semi auto Thompson Submachine gun, the semi auto AR-15 and it?s derivatives, the semi auto AK-47 and it?s derivatives, and it would also ban permanently converted to semi auto 1919A4 U.S. .30 cal. Machine Guns and MG42 German Machine Guns among others because of them having a sleeve or shroud surrounding their barrel and a high capacity feed device. These firearms, of which I personally own a few, are desirable to have, not only for shooting, but also for collecting. These weapons offer a link into the past. Such as a grandson or granddaughter proudly proclaiming that his/her grandfather used one of these M1 Carbines during WWII, and as the ?Greatest Generation? continues to grow older and become fewer in number eventually these weapons, among other things, will be the only tangible items from that war and their family history, just as the M-16/AR-15 will eventually become and already has.
It would make many law abiding citizens and supporters of our Constitution criminals at the stroke of a pen.
Time has shown that the last assault weapon ban did nothing to curb crime, as the criminal element does not follow laws. The only ones affected by that ban were the law abiding citizens of our country.
The agencies responsible for reporting crime and recordable statistics associated with crime agree. Crime rates have not improved as a result of the 1994 ban, nor could they be expected to, given the infrequency in which these firearms are used in crime. Supporters of the ban present statistics that they claim show the ban "works".

From Bradycampaign.org:

?In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.?

It should be noted that, even though the above paragraph stealthily attempts to imply that the ban reduced crime, if you read it carefully, you see that this is not the case (more on this below). The Brady Campaign also fails to mention the wealth of other very significant information present in this same report that all but invalidates their assertion. For example, with regards to the accuracy of using BATF, the report states:

?This data is limited because police agencies do not submit a trace request on every gun they confiscate. Many agencies submit very few requests to BATF, particularly in States that maintain gun sales databases (such as California). Therefore, tracing data are a biased sample of guns recovered by police. Prior studies suggest that assault weapons are more likely to be submitted for tracing than are other confiscated firearms.?

In other words, law enforcement agencies submit trace requests on only a small percentage of firearms used in crime, and the unique appearance of "assault weapons" makes them much more likely to be submitted for a BATF trace compared to, say, a common revolver. So, according to this report, BATF trace data is not valid for this type of study. But, because it is the only available national statistic on types of guns used in crime, the researchers had little choice but to use it (with the disclaimer quote above, conveniently omitted by gun control advocates).

Furthermore, consider the following:

?...it appears that, at least in the short term, the grandfathered assault weapons remained largely in dealers? and collectors? inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets through which criminals tend to obtain guns... offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semiautomatic weapons to commit their crimes.?

This is a critical point that completely offsets Brady's assertion that the ban has had any effect on gun-related crime. Grandfathered firearms (known as "pre-bans") cost significantly more than their "post-ban" near-equivalents; in some cases, new-in-box or mint condition pre-ban AR-15 style rifles can sell for more than double the retail price of post-bans (which aren't exactly cheap either). Disregarding the inaccuracy of trace requests as a reliable statistic, common sense says a decrease in the use of these particular firearms in crime is exactly what would be expected. Why would a criminal go through the hassle and expense of trying to obtain a banned "assault weapon" if there were plenty of other guns that would do the job just as well and were freely available? And, of course, on top of all this, "assault weapons" were very rarely used in crime even before the ban.

The N.I.J. report cited by Brady also makes quite a few other significant points, such as:

"A number of factors?including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country...posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban."

"...about half the banned makes and models were rifles, which are hard to conceal for criminal use."

"...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 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to trace the sales histories of guns recovered in criminal investigations."

"...other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."

?There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used."

"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. However, such incidents are sufficiently rare that the available data do not permit a reliable assessment of whether this contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police."

"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..."

"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."

This report, despite being sponsored by Federal government during the Clinton administration, clearly presents significantly more evidence that proves why the ban should not be renewed than it does supporting the ban.

In closing, please also consider this:

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items noted:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns


Summary:

It would seem then that the only people affected by this legislation are the honest, law-abiding citizens who own guns. Please show your support of law abiding citizens? rights who support you, by voting NO to any new restrictive gun laws that come up for vote.

Respectfully,