New "Assault Weapons" ban!!

I know it does not directly apply here, but most of us own other firearms as well...

Just in case you did not know there is a bill in Congress right now trying to take away our right to bear arms.....

here is a link to it if you would like to take a look for yourself:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:

to find out who your elected officials are and to easily email them click here:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

here are some other related links you may be interested in:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/
http://www.awbansunset.com/
http://www.nraila.org/ThingsUCanDo.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=6
http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/

now more to my point, here is what I will be sending out (feel free to use any of it):

Dear Elected Official,

I am writing this letter to urge you to OPPOSE ANY new legislation that in any way tries to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban. I am referring specifically to H. R. 2038 in this case.

This ban from the start has been useless. All it does is restrict law abiding citizens, such as myself, from legally obtaining certain firearms. Criminals could still easily make these illegal "Assault Weapons" using legal parts and Legal firearms. Any type of "assault weapons" ban would just not work anyway. Guns that are used in crimes simply are not purchased legally. Less than 14% of all firearms possessed by State inmates in 1997 (and less than 21% in 1991) were obtained from a Retail store, Pawn Shop, Flea market, or Gun show. Friends or Family, and Street/illegal Sources account for how the rest of them are obtained. Laws regulating specific features of firearms do not do ANYTHING to stop these. Criminals don't worry about whether the configuration of their weapon is legal, it does not affect them in the least. Law abiding citizens on the other hand do have to think about these things, and are kept from having exactly what they would like.

reference for the percentages of how weapons are obtained:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

The fact that the ban does not affect criminals is beside the point, because less than 2% of all Criminals used any type of military style weapon (including the politically defined "assault weapons"). From 1976 to the year 2000, there have been only 2 years (97 and 99) where the combined total of ALL non hand gun homicides (this would include all "assault weapons") were greater than that of knives. Even in those 2 years it was VERY close. In EVERY one of these years, Hand gun homicides more than doubled non hand gun homicides. ANY ban on ANY rifle, is just not needed, they are just not used in crimes more than even the common knife (I would bet EVERY citizen has access to a knife). Criminals don't use them because they are large and hard to conceal.

references for the 2% claim:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

references for the homicide claims:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Any form of the "assault weapons" ban is also unconstitutional (I am utterly appalled that it passed in 94). Does this sound familiar?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Does it sound like the founding fathers are talking about hunting to you??

this one section of the bill is also terribly vague (as well as unconstitutional):

"A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."

So now the Attorney General can just one day decide any rifle is now an "assault rifle"??

Military style rifles are EXACTLY what the constitution is intending to protect. Do politicians think that the "well regulated militia" that is being referred to in the constitution is concerned with hunting? or sports?

Regarding the Magazine Capacity limit, if yours and the life of your family were in immediate danger and you were forced to defend them, would YOU want to be limited to 10 rounds? I would not. If you have body guard(s) would you want their collective ammunition to be only 10 rounds? Most of us don't have others protecting us, and the police will not be there until it is to late.

ANY support you show for ANY legislature supporting ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLING an "assault weapons" ban, will cost you my vote. Since you are supposed to be MY elected official, I hope you will take the time to read and understand my point. Please do the correct thing and support the constitution as it was written.

I also challenge you to provide ANY data showing criminals use of "assault weapons" and the need to ban them. I have given you my references (which I hope you take time to check), do you have ANY evidence or even a reason to ban these? (other than because of the way they look).

I look forward to your response on this matter, in which I hope you make clear to me your exact position on this bill in particular, so I may keep it in mind during the next election.

Sincerely,