Response from congressman about H.R. 1022

imported post

Several months ago I sent a e-mail to Congressman Brad Miller of the 13th district about his co-sponsership of H.R. 1022 the assault weapons ban. As you know the 13th district is a rural, conservative district along the Virginia border with a few constituents in Wake and Guilford Counties and Rep. Miller is a liberal democrat elected by dixiecrats. Anyway here is the response I recieved today:








Dear Mr. ________:



Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.



From 1994 to 2004 federal law prohibited the transfer or sale of certain semi-automatic weapons defined by statute as "assault weapons." On September 24, 2004, as a result of congressional inaction, the statute was allowed to expire and the ban lapse.



As you know, H.R. 1022 would ban on the transfer or sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for a period of 10 years. In addition, the bill would ban the use of so-called "conversion kits," expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include semiautomatic rifles and pistols with the ability to accept detachable magazines, and prohibit the sale of firearms evidencing certain other characteristics such as a telescoping stock.



I understand your concerns about H.R. 1022, but I believe Congress must balance the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms against the need to prevent them from finding their way into the hands of those who would use them for dangerous or illegal purposes.



[align=left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Sincerely,

Brad Miller
Member of Congress[/font][/align]If anybody here is from the 13th district please voice your opinion to Congressman Miller and make it known that if he keeps his current policy he will not be re-elected.

imported post

So to keep dangerous items out of the hands of criminals we should shred the constitution?

imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:

So to keep dangerous items out of the hands of criminals we should shred the constitution?

Click to expand...

Er, ah, well, if it saves just one...:uhoh:

imported post

IIRC Brad Miller was a co-sponsor of HR1022. As such, there's no reason to question his stance on the matter.

I live in his district, and can guarantee he will not receive any votes from this household.

Steve

imported post

Doesn't seem like a good answer to me.

Basically if this man is right....

By banning these guns nobody should be hurt by firearms ever again!

I hope I am understanding the last paragraph wrong, but is he speaking of semi automatic pistols that accept a magazine--such as a glock?

I really hope not because that is way beyond the line.

But on the bright side.... at least you got a response

imported post

[align=left]No, you are right this bill will ban the sale and purchase of any semi-automatic firearm that accepts an external magazine and most semi-automatic shotguns that can be converted to hold over 6 rounds even with a magazine extension.

I was thinking about putting in a letter to the editor in our local paper. So far this is what I have, I know it's not perfect but it's a start. Anyone have any suggestions?

Dear Fellow Citizens,
I recently sent an e-mail to Representative Brad Miller of our district concerning his support and co-sponsorship of the bill H. R. 1022 the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. It is my belief that this bill does not represent the will of this community that elected him which firmly believes in the unabridged right to lawfully bear arms for hunting and self-protection. The bill will ban the purchase and sale of nearly all of the prized semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns, semi-automatic target rifles, and semi-automatic handguns that are owned by the good people in this district. Here is the e-mail response that was sent to me by the Honorable Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. ________:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.
From 1994 to 2004 federal law prohibited the transfer or sale of certain semi-automatic weapons defined by statute as "assault weapons." On September 24, 2004, as a result of congressional inaction, the statute was allowed to expire and the ban lapse.
As you know, H.R. 1022 would ban on the transfer or sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for a period of 10 years. In addition, the bill would ban the use of so-called "conversion kits," expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include semiautomatic rifles and pistols with the ability to accept detachable magazines, and prohibit the sale of firearms evidencing certain other characteristics such as a telescoping stock.
I understand your concerns about H.R. 1022, but I believe Congress must balance the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms against the need to prevent them from finding their way into the hands of those who would use them for dangerous or illegal purposes.
Please contact me about other issues important to you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brad Miller
Member of Congress

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads: “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.” Some people argue that this amendment is in place for the states to arm the National Guard. The only problem with that statement is that the National Guard did not exist until nearly 150 years after our founding fathers drafted the Constitution. The Unorganized Militia was then and still is made up of the normal, everyday citizens of our great nation that are willing to take the responsibility to defend our lives and property. Therefore the Second Amendment is an individual right of the People and Congress has no legal right to enact any laws abridging it. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and everything that America stands for, do not let Mr. Miller and the rest of Congress “balance the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms against the need to prevent them from finding their way in to the hands of those who would use them for dangerous or illegal purposes.” When government starts balancing inalienable rights that are endowed by our creator, it grows power-hungry and creates a slippery slope to deleting more inalienable rights.

Studies on gun control have shown that no matter how many laws are enacted, the crime rate rarely declines and most of the time crime rates increase. Take for example Washington D.C. which had a total ban on handguns in the city in 2005 had 195 murders while Alexandria, Virginia, which is one-third the size but allows permitted concealed carry and unrestricted open carry of handguns, right across the Potomac River had a total of three murders. Even more compelling is Kennesaw, Georgia whose citizens are required by law to have a firearm in their household hasn’t had a murder in 25 years while its population has nearly doubled. The only effective measures that prevent crime and violence in our community are tougher penalties in our courts and honest, law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers that are willing to take on the responsibility to make our community a safer place, not more gun control.

The great Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

You can contact Congressman Miller by writing to:
1722 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
Or:
1300 St. Mary's Street, Suite 504
Raleigh, NC 27605
Or:
125 S. Elm Street, Suite 504
Greensboro, NC 27401
Or call toll free at:
(877) BRAD HELPS

Sincerely,

_________________
[/align]

imported post

Suggestion:
Newspapers tend to print LTE's that are short, sweet, and get directly to the point. A simple short statement telling readers that the bill would ban nearly EVERY firearm in existence today would suffice and have a greater chance of making it to print.

I have never seen a LTE printed that includes lengthy email exchanges.

Local community blogs are where lengthy statements with lots of information like yours are effective.

imported post

Does it help if I know the editor very well?

imported post

Might be worth a try!

imported post

"Rifles and Pistols with the abillity to accept detachable magazines"??? That just about covers all semi-auto pistols out there, doesn't it?

imported post

Yes, that would be correct. Send an e-mail to your congressman and senators.

imported post

What's really scary about that response is that he - pretends? - to believe that the bill would only last ten years if passed.

That's not true - it would bepermanent.

What's even scarier is that any present or future A.G. of the U.S. would be able to add any OTHER weapons to the list of "banned" weapons without discussion - stroke of his/her pen and it's done.

By all means, write a letter to the editor of your local paper about this - your Representatives' ignorance needs to be exposed, if nothing else. Pete

imported post

The Second Amendment to the Constition states: "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."

Strictly speaking Representative Miller has a point. He's got to be faithful to the Constiution, and in this area the Consitution seems to explicitly charge Members of Congress with doing two, seemingly very contradictory things:

(1) Ensuring "the right of the People to keep and bear arms [is] not infringed."

and

(2) Passing "laws necessary and proper" to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is "well-regulated."

The key here may in fact be to find a "balance," as Rep. Miller suggests.

imported post

learnandinform wrote:

The key here may in fact be to find a "balance," as Rep. Miller suggests.

Click to expand...

no.

imported post

learnandinform wrote:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: "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."

Strictly speaking Representative Miller has a point. He's got to be faithful to the Constitution, and in this area the Constitution seems to explicitly charge Members of Congress with doing two, seemingly very contradictory things:

(1) Ensuring "the right of the People to keep and bear arms [is] not infringed."

and

(2) Passing "laws necessary and proper" to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is "well-regulated."

The key here may in fact be to find a "balance," as Rep. Miller suggests.

Click to expand...

Welcome learnandinform. Time to "learn" about "well regulated". The 18th and 19 century use of that term refers to military discipline. Military/Militia Regulations were for the organization and discipline of adefensive force that is neededto protect "the security of a free state". If todays government wants to regulate arms I suggest they start by requiring all members of the US Militia as defined in the US Code (you and me if malebetween 17-45)to purchase an M-4and learn to use it.

From Parker vs DC: http://www.gurapossessky.com/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf

pages 34-35

The Act goes on to require of the states that the militiamen be notified of their enrollment; that within one year, the states pass laws to arrange the militia into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as well as appoint various militia officers; that there be an Adjutant General appointed in each state to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps, and so on. The statute thus makes clear that these requirements were independent of each other, i.e., militiamen were obligated to arm themselves regardless of the organization provided by the states, and the states were obligated to organize the militia, regardless of whether individuals had armed themselves in accordance with the statute. We take these dual requirements—that citizens were properly supplied with arms and subject to organization by the states (as distinct from actually organized)—to be a clear indication of what the authors of the Second Amendment contemplated as a “well regulated Militia.” Another aspect of “well regulated” implicit in the second Militia Act is the exclusion of certain persons from militia service. For instance, the Act exempts from militia duty “the Vice President of the United States, [executive branch officers and judges], Congressmen, custom house officers, . . . post officers, . . . all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road, . . . all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states.” Act of May 8, 1792, ch. XXXIII, 1 Stat. 271.




[align=left]Thus, even after the founding-era militia became “well regulated,” it did not lose its popular character. The militia still included the majority of adult men (albeit, at the time, “free able-bodied white male”), who were to arm themselves, and whom the states were expected to organize into fighting units. Quite unlike today’s National Guard, participation was widespread and mandatory. As the foregoing makes clear, the “well regulated Militia” was not an elite or select body. See Silveira, 328 F.3d at 577-78 (Kleinfeld, J.). While some of the founding fathers, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, favored such organizations over a popular militia, see THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT at xlvii (David E. Young ed., 2d ed. 1995), the Second Congress unambiguously required popular participation. The important point, of course, is that the popular nature of the militia is consistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms: Preserving an individual right was the best wayto ensure that the militia could serve when called.
[/align]


[align=left]In spite of the thousands of laws that prohibit arms related "keep and bear" activities, I'm still waiting to be properly "well regulated".[/align]

imported post

learnandinform wrote:

The Second Amendment to the Constition states: "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."

Strictly speaking Representative Miller has a point. He's got to be faithful to the Constiution, and in this area the Consitution seems to explicitly charge Members of Congress with doing two, seemingly very contradictory things:

(1) Ensuring "the right of the People to keep and bear arms [is] not infringed."

and

(2) Passing "laws necessary and proper" to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is "well-regulated."

The key here may in fact be to find a "balance," as Rep. Miller suggests.

Click to expand...

Hey, I've got another idea. Since you are already trying to "balance" our inalienable right to self-defense, let's go ahead and "balance" our inalienable right to free speech. Remember the Second Amendment does protect the rest of our rights because the government is scared to take them away. Thomas Jefferson, you know, one of the men who wrote the Constitution you are trying to "balance" said, "For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." I believe Mr. Jefferson meant that the militia should be armed and trained on effective arms (the ones they are trying to ban) that were capable of repelling tyranny from at home or abroad. One last thought: Another one of the men that you are trying to "balance" that also helped write the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety will have neither liberty or safety." So learnandinform, if you do not want to keep and bear arms that is your decision but do not try to force the rest ofthe law-abiding citizens in this forum and the nation to submit to your views. Instead, why don't you try to "balance" the people that do bad things with guns and will always have them no matter what gun control laws are passed? The absolute best way to do that is for the law-abiding citizens to be armed and defend themselves from those that would harm them.

imported post

Sorry, my computer got away from me.

imported post

Last I checked, the Constitution said a "well regulated militia", not that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be well regulated. Hell, our rights to keep and bear arms are "well regulated" enough these days. :cuss:

imported post

Lets balance, Mr. Millers time by voting him out of office.