ALL WASHINGTONIANS! There is legislation afoot presented as an EMERGENCY MEASURE by the Democrats in revenge for getting shut out by the Republicans the past 2 elections. It is IMPERATIVE that you write your legislator ASAP and here are some talking points for you courtesy of a writer at the FALFILES.COM
Talking points for Washington Gun Law letters
John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
$Id: wa_gun_laws_points.txt,v 1.17 2005-01-30 14:47:10-08 jhardin Exp jhardin $
---
Wholesale confiscation of firearms from the citizens of Washingon is a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that "No State shall ...
deprive any person of ... property without due process of law". Saying I
cannot own, and must forfeit, my rifle because someone else may use a
similar rifle to harm others does not provide due process of law: it is not
fair, it blindly punishes me when I have done nothing wrong and I have
harmed noone. If I must be punished then punish me for what I have done,
not for what someone else might possibly do.
---
The restrictions placed on individual liberty in the name of public safety
must be carefully considered and balanced. It is unreasonable and unfair to
seek to place severe, even draconian, restrictions on any individual
liberty in an attempt to achieve only a small increase in public safety.
Destroying individual liberties to soothe the unrealistic fears of a vocal
minority is not one of the principles upon which the United States is
founded.
The outright ban and confiscation of weapons that are used only in a tiny
fraction (less than one-half of one percent) of violent crimes is a severe
restriction of individual liberty that is far out of proportion to the
miniscule gain in public safety that would be realized. A more fair, more
balanced and more effective method of increasing actual public safety must
be sought.
---
The presumption of guilt in these bills is extremely offensive. I have
never committed any violent crime in my life - in fact, I have never
committed any crime more serious than speeding - and I likely never will,
yet the state seeks to put me on proactive probation. Through forcing me to
annually register and submit to a background check (at an unknown and
likely arbitrarily high price), and to submit to law enforcement agencies
invading my home without a warrant to inspect whether I am meeting a vague
standard for storage, the state is treating me as an untrustworthy person
suspected of being a violent criminal who just hasn't been caught yet.
---
The provision that a law enforcement agency may invade my home to inspect
how I store my arms and judge whether I meet some vague standard is a
blatant violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable
searches without a warrant granted on probable cause. The police are not
welcome in my home without a warrant granted by a judge on probable cause
that I am committing a crime - whether or not I may have anything to hide
has nothing to do with this basic freedom. My privacy in my home does not
exist merely at the whim of the police and the legislature.
---
Completely banning a weapon that has been used in only a small handful of
violent crimes in the past decade and a half in the United States is
pointless hysteria. .50 caliber rifles are tremendously expensive, and
unwieldy, and impossible to conceal. The chance that such a weapon will be
used in violent crimes is extremely small, and the proposal to completely
ban them to prevent this unlikely occurrence has an impact on the liberties
of law-abiding citizens that is far out of proportion to its benefit to
society.
---
I have heard rumor that these bills are an attempt by the Democratic party
to punish the Republican party for being in power the past few years, and
for blocking legislation that the Democratic party wished to enact. If this
is the case then shame on the legislators who proposed these bills and
shame on the legislators who support them. How dare my rights and the
rights of the other citizens of Washington be trampled in an adolescent
attempt at tit-for-tat payback! I would hope that the legislators of our
state take their jobs, the Constitution and the rights of the citizens more
seriously than that.
---
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations
to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
Article 1, Section 24
Constitution of the State of Washington
"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."
Amendment II
Constitution of the United States
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and
that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of
office) to the best of my ability."
Oath of Office, State of Washington
Both the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution
explicitly deny the government the power to ban these weapons outright.
Please remember your oath to support the Constitutions of the State of
Washington and of the United States, and oppose these blatantly
unconstitutional bills.
---
In Washington the legal definition of "militia" is:
RCW 38.04.030
Composition of the militia.
The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied
citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have
declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of
age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard
and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes,
the organized militia and the unorganized militia.
The laws and Constitution of the State of Washington do not clearly define
"unorganized militia", but the United States Code does:
Title 10, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that in the State of Washington the
term "unorganized militia" refers to all citizens (and those seeking
citizenship) older than 18 who are not already members of the National
Guard and State Guard.
That means you, and I, and our neighbors, all make up the militia; we are
all collectively responsible for the defense of ourselves, our state and
our nation, whether we wear a uniform (military or law enforcement) or not.
Prohibiting ownership of these types of weapons (semi-automatic "assault
weapons" and .50-caliber rifles) is a direct attack on the utility and
capability of the unorganized militia, and weakens or destroys the ability
of the unorganized militia to do its job effectively when it would be most
needed - to protect our state and our country against internal disorder or
external aggression.
---
The term "assault weapon" is correctly defined as a light, small rifle that
fires a relatively low-power round and is capable of fully automatic fire.
There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault weapon", and no
possible collection of cosmetic features - bayonet attachment lugs, flash
hiders (whether removable or not), pistol grips, folding or collapsible
stocks, and so forth - can make a semi-automatic rifle into an assault
weapon.
The idea that a semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic features is any
more dangerous or deadly than a semiautomatic rifle that lacks those
features is, quite simply, fearmongering and preying on general ignorance.
True assault weapons, capable of fully automatic fire, are already closely
regulated and difficult and expensive to legally obtain.
If you have to lie about what your law purports to restrict in order to
garner support for it, is it a good law? Should we support and seek to
enact a law if it is based on willful misdirection?
---
This bill claims to be "necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its
existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately". It obviously
is not urgently necessary; we are not now drowning in a wave of semiautomatic
rifle crimes, violence or insurrection against the state - indeed, we never
have been. Such hyperbole shows that the sponsors of these bills hope to
again short-circuit reasoned public debate and ignore the constitutional
limits on legislative powers by exploiting the public's unreasoning fears.
The fact that these bills were presented to the Judiciary Committee with
little or no public notice further indicates that their sponsors hope that
these extreme proposals will be adopted without public scrutiny or debate.
It is extremely fortunate that notice of these bills being presented to the
judicial committee leaked out, and that public debate is occurring. Using
the back door is not the way to enact good, fair laws.
---
"But why do you need such a weapon anyway?" In response I ask, what does
need have to do with it in the first place? Do you really want to live in a
country where you are only permitted to have that which the State decides
you need to have? That is not liberty. That is not freedom. That is
precisely the sort of arbitrary tryanny that our nation rebelled against at
its birth. Our nation is founded upon the principles of liberty and
freedom. The government should not broadly ban these weapons from those who
have not harmed others. And, indeed, the highest laws of our land - the
United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution -
expressely deny the State the power to do so.
---
"Throughout our history millions of British subjects have sacrified their
lives in defense of the nation's liberties, and it would be a sad paradox
if we were to sacrifice the nation's liberty in defense of our own lives
today."
David Davis, Conservative Party spokesman
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4467950at 2:30
This applies to us as well. Since the Revolutionary War, hundreds of
thousands of Americans have died defending the rights, liberties and
freedoms of the American people, both in wars abroad and in asserting and
defending the rights of our citizens against those in our society who would
deny those rights.
Opportunistic legislators with agendas that serve themselves rather than
the public are proposing laws that are supported by emotional, deceptive
and fearmongering arguments rather than rational, fair and balanced
reasoning. They are proposing laws whose burdens far outweigh any possible
benefit. They are proposing laws that purport to protect the public while
in reality weakening and rendering the public helpless. They are proposing
laws that trample the rights and liberties of the American people.
If such laws are accepted and enacted, then the labors and sacrifices of
those patriots throughout our nation's history are being spit upon, and
their memories dishonored.
