>>>1022 has now become HR 2640...PLEASE ACT NOW<<<
Please read the following article and ACT NOW...Contact info follows the article.
www.gunowners.org
Jun 2007
Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post, June 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a "compromise" on gun control legislation.
The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written. The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech.
So what's going on?
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence, this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names, many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.
Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records."
Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system.
After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the NICS system.
Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.
Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.
And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that backwards?
One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the government, rather than vice-versa.
The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000 veterans.
Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law.
GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton administration was considering doing.
GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR 2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this bill.
All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is acceptable... period.
If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then consider this:
"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be permanently removed from that system."
right now, for our Second Amendment Rights! Please take some time to call, email, and snail mail all of your Representatives including the President. Here is a link to find out who your representatives are and their contact info:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Here is the contact for the White House:
comments@whitehouse.gov.
Here is the Vice Presidents contact info:
vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Here are the phone numbers and address for the White House:
Contacting the White House
Mailing Address
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
www.gunowners.org
Jun 2007
Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post, June 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a "compromise" on gun control legislation.
The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written. The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech.
So what's going on?
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence, this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names, many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.
Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records."
Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system.
After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the NICS system.
Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.
Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.
And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that backwards?
One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the government, rather than vice-versa.
The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000 veterans.
Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law.
GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton administration was considering doing.
GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR 2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this bill.
All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is acceptable... period.
If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then consider this:
"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be permanently removed from that system."
right now, for our Second Amendment Rights! Please take some time to call, email, and snail mail all of your Representatives including the President. Here is a link to find out who your representatives are and their contact info:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Here is the contact for the White House:
comments@whitehouse.gov.
Here is the Vice Presidents contact info:
vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Here are the phone numbers and address for the White House:
Contacting the White House
Mailing Address
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
0
-
Done.
My rep is Geoff Davis, I have little reason to worry0 -
Thanks for making it easy ECC. I got em all and forwarded a link to your post to several on my mailing list. 0 -
Done it yesterday. 0 -
Done 0 -
Thanks Eric. Done. 0 -
Did mine last week. 0 -
Contacted mine just now. We need to all get involved in this to make any kind of difference at all. swamp_thing 0 -
ECC
If the number of replies to your post is any indication, this is going a lot slower than Zumbo. Just wonder how many are really responding?0 -
I have written all of my representatives and just finished a note to the President.
Also want to make sure everyone goes to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172842096 and signed this petition. Although some think that these on line petitions won't work look at the FAQ and you'll see that politicians often look at these just to see what the people are saying.0 -
If you boys think that H.R. 1022 is the only threat to your gun rights then you are living in a fantasy world.
If you think you are really pro-gun, try out the Gun Rights forum. You may find that you are really just part of the problem.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=8
-WoundedWolf0 -
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If you boys think that H.R. 1022 is the only threat to your gun rights then you are living in a fantasy world.
If you think you are really pro-gun, try out the Gun Rights forum. You may find that you are really just part of the problem.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=8
-WoundedWolf
[8D]0 -
Done. Called my representatives and senators. Will be writing them a formal letter this week. 0 -
DONE, Thanks ECC. 0 -
wrote my Rep a letter last week. 0 -
I emailed damn near everyone. 0 -
Found this on the net.
http://capwiz.com/nssf/issues/basics/?style=comm
Tips On Writing Congress
The letter is the most popular choice of communication with a congressional office. If you decide to write a letter, this list of helpful suggestions will improve the effectiveness of the letter:
Your purpose for writing should be stated in the first paragraph of the letter. If your letter pertains to a specific piece of legislation, identify it accordingly, e.g., House bill: H. R. ____, Senate bill: S.____.
Be courteous, to the point, and include key information, using examples to support your position.
Address only one issue in each letter; and, if possible, keep the letter to one page.
Addressing Correspondence:
To a Senator:
The Honorable (full name)
__(Rm.#)__(name of)Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator:
To a Representative:
The Honorable (full name)
__(Rm.#)__(name of)House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative:
Note: When writing to the Chair of a Committee or the Speaker of the House, it is proper to address them as:
Dear Mr. Chairman or Madam Chairwoman:
or Dear Mr. Speaker:
Tips On E-mailing Congress
Generally, the same guidelines apply as with writing letters to Congress. You may find and e-mail your senators and representative directly from this Web site.0 -
I am doing my part to carry the torch...
But I have a serious question... Since I am a resident of The People's Republic of Massachusetts, and my Senators are Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, I have always been of the mindset of the idea of writing to these, elitist socialist pigs, does nothing more than tip the enemy off to our intentions. There may be plenty of democrats that aren't rabid extremist elitist socialists that would truly read, and think about the feelings, wishes, and desires of their constituents, but I don't for one moment hold the delusion that these 2 aberrations of humanity would care less about any opinion I might have as their public and treasonous words, actions, and behaviors tell me they cannot be trusted and would just think that I am nothing more than a poor peasant slob that doesn't know any better and that it is their plan to do "what's right" as they "know better" what is good for me... They don't represent me and never have. I nor any of my friends nor the community I am involved with would vote for them and are not represented by anything they say or do.
I always conduct myself by the thought that it is always best to leave these treasonous criminals out of the loop... Is this the right thing to do given my circumstances?0 -
I feel your pain. I too unfortunately live in a state (Illinois) that harbors elected officials like Barak Obama ,Jesse Jackson and many other politicians that have a very anti-gun mentality. I know that people like this could care less about my opinion on the 2nd amendment but I still try to voice my opinion and call, write, and email even though it probably does very little to change their views. 0 -
H.R. 1022 is gaining momentum. It now has cosponsers:
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [Dem-NY-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [Dem-NY-7] - 3/7/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [Dem-PA-2] - 3/7/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [Dem-CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [Dem-MA-4] - 3/7/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [Dem-TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [Dem-NY-14] - 3/7/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [Dem-MA-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [Dem-VA-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [Dem-IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [Dem-CA-29] - 3/7/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [Dem-MD-8] - 3/7/2007
This is not a good sign. It's no longer about a cranky, menopausal, old woman.
Kevin in Pa0 -
Already called several congressmen. Called Obama and Bean too. Since I own several properties, I am "in district" for several of them, of course, I vote only in one district. I do know that if this thing passes, I will be voting in Palatine next time. I do not know whom I will be voting FOR, but I do realize whom I will be voting AGAINST: Jante Schakowski. I am a long time democrat, and agree with them on more issues then I agree with republicans. However, now I am getting frustrated with my party. Not only did they not stop the violation of our rights called "Patriot Act", not only did they failed to get us out of debacle called Vietnam 2 - Iraq, now they want to take away MORE of my rights? Now I see why so many people in USA don't vote and feel betrayed by the damned 2 party system 0 -
It makes me sick that everyone is on board for opposing the national ban. But when a fellow members state is trying to do the same thing the answer is to move away. Plum sad folks. This will follow you where ever you move. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
It makes me sick that everyone is on board for opposing the national ban. But when a fellow members state is trying to do the same thing the answer is to move away. Plum sad folks. This will follow you where ever you move.
you are right...we should be fighting this on all levels...from the local on up.0 -
Is it possible to send that petition website out to organizations to email it on to others. I could put it on another forum but i can not log in at home for some reason. 0 -
Hi
I am new here. What is HR1022?
fm0 -
quote:Originally posted by fm94
Hi
I am new here. What is HR1022?
fm
It's anti-gun legislation that the Democrats are trying to push through Congress right now.0 -
Update from the trenches...
quote:
JIM ZUMBO
PO Box 2390
Cody, WY 82414
March 28, 2007
An Open Letter to the
United States Senate
Dear Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
It recently came to my attention that one of your colleagues, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, has chosen to attack firearms owners using remarks I wrote in mid-February as his launch pad. As you probably know, Sen. Levin has been making anti-gun speeches every week for the past eight years because of a promise he made to the Economic Club of Detroit in May 1999.
Mr. Levin has an agenda, and he should have spoken to me before using my name in one of his speeches, especially since his remarks were entered into the Congressional Record. I would like my remarks here entered into the Congressional Record as well.
Sen. Levin is only one of 16 members of the Senate to vote against the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This amendment prohibits the confiscation of a privately-owned firearm during an emergency or major disaster when possession of that gun is not prohibited under state or federal law.
Eighty-four senators voted for that amendment, inspired by the egregious confiscation of firearms from the citizens of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005. Those seizures, you will recall, led the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association to join in a landmark civil rights lawsuit in federal court that brought the confiscations to an abrupt end.
The taking of private property without warrant or probable cause - even firearms - was considered an outrage by millions of American citizens, and yet Sen. Levin joined 15 of his colleagues in voting against this measure. It is no small wonder that Sen. Levin gets an "F" rating from gun rights organizations. He would have American citizens disarmed and left defenseless at a time when they need their firearms the most, when social order collapses into anarchy and protecting one's self and one's family is not simply a right and responsibility, it becomes a necessity.
That in mind, Sen. Levin must know that almost immediately after I wrote those remarks, I recanted and apologized to the millions of Americans who lawfully and responsibly own, compete with and hunt with semi-automatic rifles. I took a "crash course" on these firearms and visited with my good friend Ted Nugent on his ranch in Texas, where I personally shot an AR-15 and educated myself with these firearms.
Some of us learn from our mistakes, others keep making them. Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. For the Congress of the United States to even consider such legislation is an affront to every law-abiding firearms owner in this country.
This legislation that Sen. Levin appears to endorse is written so broadly as outlaw not only firearms, but accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. As I understand the language of this bill, it could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns - firearms I hope to one day pass on to my grandchildren - as well as millions of identical and similar firearms owned by other American citizens.
It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation don't want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.
In his final paragraph, Senator Levin misrepresents what I said. I never spoke in favor of a general assault weapons ban. Again, I immediately apologized for my blog statement that was exclusively directed toward hunting and not gun ownership.
I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.
A few weeks ago, in a letter to Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I promised to educate my fellow hunters about this insidious legislation "even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done."
I will amend that to add that I will bring my effort to Capitol Hill if necessary, even if I have to knock on every door and camp in every office of the United States Senate. In promoting this ban, the Hon. Carl Levin does not speak for me, or anybody I know.
Sincerely,
James Zumbo
Cody, Wyoming
He is pushing forward w/his mission!!!0 -
Partied with Tim Holdren 
0 -
Time to send another round of letters to your reps. HR1022 now has 33 sponsors!
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-10220 -
I just emailed Deborah Pryce (R-OH)
Here's a c/p of my email.
Dear Mrs. Pryce,
I am writing to you now in regards to House Resolution 2640. I ask that you, and anyone to whom you may speak, to vote against this measure.
I have read the text and that of its precursor HR 1022, and have found that banning anything will not curb those that wish to break our laws. While I personally do not own any of the articles proposed for banishment, I would like to think that as a free citizen of this great country I maintain the right and freedom to purchase any of these article for personal sporting use.
I will not use any faulty or falsified information to sway you. That is beneath me and insulting to you. As one of your consituents, I truly hope that you have my, and others like me, intentions at heart. That is why I urge you to vote against this resolution, and any resolution, that takes away any rights from law abiding Amercian citizens and tramples over the Consitution written to protect us from people who would chip away at the very freedoms of every man, woman and child.
I am but one voice ma'am. There are many like me who see this as an act of a government close to becoming one that the Second Ammendment asks the citizens to guard against. I do not wish that to happen. I love my country, please help me preserve it Mrs. Pryce. Please be the voice loud on the Hill that I can not be.
Vote no to HR2640.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(my name here)0 -
LONG LIVE THE FSA 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
30 comments