- Messages
- 10
- Reactions
- 7
NOW THAT I HAVE YOUR ATTN:
The following letter has been e-mailed to various legislators. We all have a dog in this fight, I welcome your thoughts!
To [email protected]
REP. Mike Hope
February 24, 2013
Please add this citizen to your list of those who vehemently oppose this bill and any others that would in any manner affect the liberties we enjoy in this Nation, as prescribed in both the United States' and the State of Washington Constitutions. UNDERSTAND THIS, those documents do not "grant" 2nd Amendment Rights, ordained by a significantly higher authority than legislators of any level, they simply bear testament to and confirm those Rights, in no uncertain terms. They are not privileges, favors or benefits bestowed by any man or government and are not subject to approval or permission to exercise. Their meaning is not "open to interpretation" as volumes of additional text by their authors clearly define the intent behind the words. Nor are they subject to revision revision by insultingly skewed "public opinion polls", political or social agendas or personal/professional advancement opportunities.
After reading the original and amended versions, reviewing your press statements and viewing your You Tube video regarding HB1588 I feel compelled to address yet another attempt at incremental amputation of our individual freedoms under the guise of "public safety". This piece of STEALTH legislation, targeting the larger goal of eventual 2A elimination, is ill conceived, bereft in addressing both immediate and long term negative repercussions, reprehensible in its audacity and arrogant in its "advertised" benefits to our free society.
I have 3 questions for you Mr. Hope, here's the first. What part of your Bill will prevent or deter in the slightest, a person who legally acquires a firearm under this Bills' mandates and later goes schizoid? (Chris Dorner comes to mind). In fact, a review of more than a dozen liberally propagandized rampages since Columbine reveal that none of the perpetrators were known felons, diagnosed as mentally incompetent or of illegal age in their state of residency. They could all have legally purchased their weapon of choice under this legislation prior to their acts.
Here are some other concerns:
1.You use the term "handgun" repeatedly in your video leading one to presume this bill covers only those purchases, the actual verbage seems to require checks on ALL FIREARMS. Are we to presume rifle and shotgun purchases from FFL dealers as well as private party transactions will now be subject to background checks? Please provide a concise definition of the firearms subject to this proposal. BB guns, pellet guns, blowguns, muzzleloaders, antique collectables etc. Please explain how this does not "IMPEDE or RESTRICT" our right to posses firearms as professed in your video.
2.How will this prevent or reduce "Straw Purchases"? Will future legislation be required to keep track of the quantity of firearms a person purchases? Will a limit be set? How will you insure people still posses their legally purchased firearms at any given time?
3.Is it your conviction that this bill will some how affect in the slightest, the lawless from accessing a firearm through illegal means? Theft, black market etc. I'm sorry, I forgot, anti drug laws have halted illegal drug trafficking, D.U.I. laws have eradicated drunk driving, gang violence laws, domestic violence laws, rape laws, assault laws and the list goes on.
4.With todays' computer and photo technology, false identity is simple to create, easily sourced and rampant in all areas of crime. What prevents this use in the background check process?
5.This bill would allow the personal info required on an N.I.C.S. application to be possessed by another private party, "seller retains a copy" and could be shared, sold or used in any manner. In your wildest dreams could this info be used for nefarious deeds? Targeted theft of known legal firearm owners ala New York's infamous Journal News burglaries? Could this info be used for Identity theft? In other ways?
6.Once enacted, could this enable L.E.O.'s to stop, search or otherwise detain law abiding citizens observed with a firearm, anytime, anywhere under "plausible cause" allowances to "just run a check"? But wait, I forgot! You promised categorically that a registry would not be created, who could they possibly check with?
7.Will the local authorities charged with processing these applications be accessible 24/7 or will we be bound at their discretion to certain hours of operation, days of the week or subject to appointment only rules and long delays? As it exists currently, can the N.I.C.S., F.B.I. and other data base systems efficiently handle the massively increased volume this bill would create? Please explain again how this does not "IMPEDE or RESTRICT" our rights.
8.If any of the above might apply other than 24/7, would this bill not effectively put an end to most publically presented gun shows held primarily on weekends. Would this not create a negative economic impact on those families sourcing income from those events? Promoters, facility owners, vendors, concessionaires, ancillary personnel and service providers. Would this not in turn reduce the highly valued tax revenue stream needed by our elected representatives to create and fund more legislation "in the public interest"? Would this not preclude the recreational aspects of folks attending these functions, further reducing our RIGHT to "pursue happiness"?
9.By the way, as of 2/24 there is still a provision for a $20.00 "fee", (not a "tax" as you profess to oppose, just a "fee") for application processing.
10.Does this bill apply to trades, barter or the loan of firearms. Please provide this bills' definition of the terms "sale" and "transfer".
Question 2: Can you look your family, friends and constituents in the eye and state again with honesty and integrity, that this bill will not, in anyway, result in any of the above repercussions (or a host of others any rational person can provide).That it will undeniably result in a significant decline in the acquisition and use of firearms by those individuals accounting for more than 98% of violent crime i.e.; street thugs, gang members or career criminals. Can you look me in the eye and provide your personal guarantee that my family and I will be safer?
Final question: You have had the opportunity to take an oath to "Preserve, Protect and Defend" the Constitution of the United States three times and the State of Washington twice. Do you intend to honor those oaths?
I fervently urge you to reconsider your position on this Bill!
I await your reply Mr. Hope
cc: Rep Liz Pike, Rep Brandon Vick, Sen. Anne Rivers,
The following letter has been e-mailed to various legislators. We all have a dog in this fight, I welcome your thoughts!
To [email protected]
REP. Mike Hope
February 24, 2013
Please add this citizen to your list of those who vehemently oppose this bill and any others that would in any manner affect the liberties we enjoy in this Nation, as prescribed in both the United States' and the State of Washington Constitutions. UNDERSTAND THIS, those documents do not "grant" 2nd Amendment Rights, ordained by a significantly higher authority than legislators of any level, they simply bear testament to and confirm those Rights, in no uncertain terms. They are not privileges, favors or benefits bestowed by any man or government and are not subject to approval or permission to exercise. Their meaning is not "open to interpretation" as volumes of additional text by their authors clearly define the intent behind the words. Nor are they subject to revision revision by insultingly skewed "public opinion polls", political or social agendas or personal/professional advancement opportunities.
After reading the original and amended versions, reviewing your press statements and viewing your You Tube video regarding HB1588 I feel compelled to address yet another attempt at incremental amputation of our individual freedoms under the guise of "public safety". This piece of STEALTH legislation, targeting the larger goal of eventual 2A elimination, is ill conceived, bereft in addressing both immediate and long term negative repercussions, reprehensible in its audacity and arrogant in its "advertised" benefits to our free society.
I have 3 questions for you Mr. Hope, here's the first. What part of your Bill will prevent or deter in the slightest, a person who legally acquires a firearm under this Bills' mandates and later goes schizoid? (Chris Dorner comes to mind). In fact, a review of more than a dozen liberally propagandized rampages since Columbine reveal that none of the perpetrators were known felons, diagnosed as mentally incompetent or of illegal age in their state of residency. They could all have legally purchased their weapon of choice under this legislation prior to their acts.
Here are some other concerns:
1.You use the term "handgun" repeatedly in your video leading one to presume this bill covers only those purchases, the actual verbage seems to require checks on ALL FIREARMS. Are we to presume rifle and shotgun purchases from FFL dealers as well as private party transactions will now be subject to background checks? Please provide a concise definition of the firearms subject to this proposal. BB guns, pellet guns, blowguns, muzzleloaders, antique collectables etc. Please explain how this does not "IMPEDE or RESTRICT" our right to posses firearms as professed in your video.
2.How will this prevent or reduce "Straw Purchases"? Will future legislation be required to keep track of the quantity of firearms a person purchases? Will a limit be set? How will you insure people still posses their legally purchased firearms at any given time?
3.Is it your conviction that this bill will some how affect in the slightest, the lawless from accessing a firearm through illegal means? Theft, black market etc. I'm sorry, I forgot, anti drug laws have halted illegal drug trafficking, D.U.I. laws have eradicated drunk driving, gang violence laws, domestic violence laws, rape laws, assault laws and the list goes on.
4.With todays' computer and photo technology, false identity is simple to create, easily sourced and rampant in all areas of crime. What prevents this use in the background check process?
5.This bill would allow the personal info required on an N.I.C.S. application to be possessed by another private party, "seller retains a copy" and could be shared, sold or used in any manner. In your wildest dreams could this info be used for nefarious deeds? Targeted theft of known legal firearm owners ala New York's infamous Journal News burglaries? Could this info be used for Identity theft? In other ways?
6.Once enacted, could this enable L.E.O.'s to stop, search or otherwise detain law abiding citizens observed with a firearm, anytime, anywhere under "plausible cause" allowances to "just run a check"? But wait, I forgot! You promised categorically that a registry would not be created, who could they possibly check with?
7.Will the local authorities charged with processing these applications be accessible 24/7 or will we be bound at their discretion to certain hours of operation, days of the week or subject to appointment only rules and long delays? As it exists currently, can the N.I.C.S., F.B.I. and other data base systems efficiently handle the massively increased volume this bill would create? Please explain again how this does not "IMPEDE or RESTRICT" our rights.
8.If any of the above might apply other than 24/7, would this bill not effectively put an end to most publically presented gun shows held primarily on weekends. Would this not create a negative economic impact on those families sourcing income from those events? Promoters, facility owners, vendors, concessionaires, ancillary personnel and service providers. Would this not in turn reduce the highly valued tax revenue stream needed by our elected representatives to create and fund more legislation "in the public interest"? Would this not preclude the recreational aspects of folks attending these functions, further reducing our RIGHT to "pursue happiness"?
9.By the way, as of 2/24 there is still a provision for a $20.00 "fee", (not a "tax" as you profess to oppose, just a "fee") for application processing.
10.Does this bill apply to trades, barter or the loan of firearms. Please provide this bills' definition of the terms "sale" and "transfer".
Question 2: Can you look your family, friends and constituents in the eye and state again with honesty and integrity, that this bill will not, in anyway, result in any of the above repercussions (or a host of others any rational person can provide).That it will undeniably result in a significant decline in the acquisition and use of firearms by those individuals accounting for more than 98% of violent crime i.e.; street thugs, gang members or career criminals. Can you look me in the eye and provide your personal guarantee that my family and I will be safer?
Final question: You have had the opportunity to take an oath to "Preserve, Protect and Defend" the Constitution of the United States three times and the State of Washington twice. Do you intend to honor those oaths?
I fervently urge you to reconsider your position on this Bill!
I await your reply Mr. Hope
cc: Rep Liz Pike, Rep Brandon Vick, Sen. Anne Rivers,
