Reply to Sam Harris regarding CCW in public

It can be said that Sam Harris is being lambasted for being an atheist that supports gun rights. Atheism is typically the domain of the “left”, and in some cases the hardcore “left”, but he is certainly not alone among atheists. Several other prominent atheists also support gun rights, including Seth Andrews (“The Thinking Atheist“) and Stefan Molyneux.

Harris has been doing his best to address his critics with a “FAQ on Violence“. He’s doing a great job with it too, but his response to one particular point is rather incomplete. The question to which he’s responding has to do with his apparent contradiction of supporting having guns around the house for personal protection, but not supporting carrying them out in public.

His first paragraph in response is spot on:

Where self-defense is concerned, there are important differences between being in your home (or, perhaps, your place of business) and being out in public. It takes very little to establish that you acted in self-defense inside your own home. Domestic disputes aside, we are probably talking about a situation in which a person, who very likely has a criminal history, has broken into your house. In public, however, the question of which party was the aggressor is often open to interpretation. Indeed, you might even be confused about the situation yourself and wind up using lethal force inappropriately.

This is one thing approached very carefully in a concealed carry course and in discussions regarding concealed carry. Caution is always going to be your friend. And when carrying a firearm, your motives and actions require extra scrutiny, because if you don’t give them extra scrutiny, a Court of Law most certainly will.

This becomes especially true when we’re talking about a situation where you were not involved from the outset, as Harris describes in his next paragraph:

Imagine that you are carrying a gun for your own protection. You are trained to use it, and you have resolved to draw it only in a true emergency. While out one night, you see two men kicking a downed man on the sidewalk. Hoping to save a life, you draw your weapon and order the attackers to stop (generally speaking, you are allowed to defend another person whose life appears to be in danger in the same way that you would defend yourself). These hoodlums ignore you—do they even hear you?—and they have now succeeded in kicking their victim unconscious. You worry that the next blow could prove fatal. Having no other obvious recourse, and believing that you have a duty to act in defense of innocent life, you shoot one of the men in the chest.

If you are someone walking upon this situation, your first move must be to catch the perpetrator’s attention. If words aren’t doing the job, you need to use something else, such as a flashlight. Warning shots are not an option here.

Because you’re witnessing an altercation, you can have your firearm ready to draw, but I wouldn’t walk into it with my gun out. My cell phone would certainly be out, or my flashlight, but not my gun. If you walk into this situation with your gun out, you might scare off a person who might actually have been the good guy who managed to somehow get the upper hand and subdue his attacker. Having your flashlight on him, especially at night, gives you a chance to see more clearly what is going on.

Or the suspected perpetrator could flee upon seeing you. In that situation, you handle what you’ve come upon as best as possible, starting with a 911 call to relay your location and what you have seen and know.

But it is one thing that was at least stressed in my concealed carry class: information is always going to be key. Without information you could make the kind of hasty decision that Harris portrays, and end up shooting someone who was actually the intended victim.

But the fact that you were carrying a gun in gave you the ability—and, it seemed, the duty—to intervene immediately and at a safe distance.

And this is a feeling, sense, or what have you that a CCW must fight. If you happen upon a situation like what Harris described, you have to fight the urge to use your firearm. You might feel you have a moral duty to act, but you don’t have a legal obligation to do so, and as Harris points out, sometimes exercising your moral duty can lead you to make decisions that can cost you much more:

Ordinary civilians who blunder into situations in which they use lethal force inappropriately can wind up going to prison for a long time. The much-invoked notion “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it” (or, worse, “It’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”) does not cover all the eventualities here. Carrying a weapon in public can lead even smart and well-intentioned people to behave in stupid and unethical ways.

So for the most part, Harris is relatively spot on. But where is he incomplete? He completely blows by the idea of using your firearm for self defense out in public.

As such, when it comes to self-defense, much of what Harris has said in his FAQ and in a previous article on guns (here) and another on self defense (here) applies just as well as it does to home defense. Even when you are outside and accosted by another individual, the kind that you see and just instantly know something’s not going right, escape must be your goal, and the use of your firearm a last resort. Your firearm can aid in that escape, but escape must be your goal — escape so you can summon the police.

There’s numerous discussions all over the place online about what to do in situations where you are the potential victim and you are armed, along with what to do if you discharged your firearm in self defense. But I think it was a little short-sighted of him to not even touch on self defense when out in public in his FAQ on violence. So Sam, if you happen across my article, I ask that you address the deficiency.

You might want to check the numbering of your items, as well.

Congressional Democrat seeks universal "may issue" for CCW

Currently there is no Federal standard regarding concealed carry in the United States. Each State sets their own standard, and most States are “shall issue”, meaning that there is no discretion given to the issuing agency as to whether a person should receive a permit. If they meet the legal qualifications, the issuing agency must issue the permit.

However James Moran seeks to change that.

James Moran (picture at right), Democrat for Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, has introduced a bill into the House of Representatives: the “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013“. Talk about a misleading name, but the naming of the bill is part of a political game. Basically by naming the bill in this fashion, Moran has given himself and other Democrats the ability to say that anyone who doesn’t favor his bill isn’t in favor of better gun safety.

Well I guess I’m one of those people, because one provision of the bill caught my attention, and it should yours if you have a concealed carry permit issued by your State. The bill, if passed and signed into law, would add a new section to Title 18 of the United States code to set the national standard as “may issue”:

  1. In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall–
    1. establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; and
    2. require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).
  2. Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall–
    1. ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and
    2. at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce–
      1. be a legal resident of the United States;
      2. be not less than 21 years of age;
      3. demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;
      4. demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public;
      5. complete a firearm safety training course certified by the State; and
      6. not have been convicted of a crime of violence.

The part that would set the national standard at “may issue” is (b)(2)(C): “demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit”. Many anti-gun people have sought to restrict concealed carry for numerous reasons, despite the fact that concealed carry has caused an overall decrease in crime, and crime is significantly higher in States without right-to-carry laws.

For those wondering, the phrase “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” refers to carrying your weapon in a concealed manner across State lines.

Now I’m all in favor of a national minimum standard on concealed carry permits, but that national standard should not be “may issue”. This bill has the potential to override the concealed carry laws of 37 States in the US if passed into law. That’s almost enough muster to force an amendment to the Constitution to counter this, something Moran should take into consideration. Add into this the 4 States that have no-permit concealed carry, and that’s enough muster to amend the Constitution.

In short, concealed carry works to reduce crime by making the criminals a little more wary of who they’re targeting. This proposed bill by James Moran seeks to neuter concealed carry across the country by making it universally “may issue”.

Now in a Republican-controlled House, I expect this bill won’t see any light beyond committee, but keep an eye on it just in case it does.

"Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers" – Replying to Senator McCaskill

I first contacted Senator Claire McCaskill on January 4 (here), and she responded on January 13 (here). In response to her latest message, I sent a reply, reproduced below.

My concern with her reply to me is one that I’ve seen mentioned a lot with gun control advocates, and that is the idea that “weapons of war” don’t belong in civilian hands. One thing they either don’t realize, or they do and it’s the predicate to an all-out civilian ban on firearms, is that all pistols and rifles that exist are the result of innovations needed for war. I wanted to point that out and focus on that, because from there one can easily make the case that civilian ownership of firearms should be banned because they all started as weapons for a soldier.

Anyway, without further adieu…

* * * * *

Madam Senator,

Thank you for your reply and your time and consideration of my previous message.

You said in your previous e-mail, “Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment.”

Madam Senator, are you familiar with the 1911 handgun? The first 1911 handguns were designed for the military, presumably to be used “to kill people in war”, and they were first used in combat in the First World War. Today the 1911 is one of the most popular pistols and they exist in several variations. A weapon initially designed for soldiers is in law-abiding civilian hands. It is also still used in our military as well.

Then there is the Beretta M9, one of the current standard issue pistols of our military. The civilian variant on the M9 is the Beretta 92, which is also a service pistol in many law enforcement agencies. The Beretta 92 and M9 are almost identical, and numerous civilians own either. Again, weapons designed for the military in law-abiding civilian hands.

And other weapons originally designed for war are also currently held in law-abiding civilian hands. Pistols originally made for foreign militaries are owned by civilians both in the US and abroad. The same with numerous rifle classifications. Most pistol and rifle technology that exists today is due to a need on the battlefield, but a pistol developed for war to defend interests or advance liberty is equally capable of defending life against another civilian threat.

The point I’m trying to make is this: the original purpose of a firearm is immaterial. Civilians can and do own weapons originally made for war without those weapons posing any harm to anyone else. The weapon is not the issue, the firearm is not the issue, and never was. The firearm is only an issue to those with an agenda of wanting to see all Americans disarmed, whatever their reasons or motivations. The focus on firearms is a ruse that will not improve things in this country, because Americans are not inherently violent, and gun owners are not inherently evil.

A firearm in the hands and homes of arguably most people does not compromise anyone’s safety with exception to those who would seek to cause harm to those individuals or their families.

Today several hundred million firearms exist in civilian hands and homes, including high-powered rifles that many seek to classify as “assault weapons”. They will not be taking the lives of anyone else because their owners are law-abiding civilians who would never dream of taking another life, unless necessary to save someone else from harm or defend their home against invasion.

You may not feel that enacting laws regarding “weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people” is an infringement on a person’s rights. To that I must disagree. Most firearms are derived from technologies and innovations to firearms carried by military personnel. Further, it is a law that declares illegal what another person enjoys peacefully.

The vast majority of gun owners are not out to kill people, yet gun control laws seem to start with that premise and the premise that firearms are inherently evil.

Please bear in mind that if you vote in favor of more gun control, regardless of how reasonable you feel it may be, you will be punishing your innocent, law-abiding gun-owning constituents. If you truly support the Second Amendment, as you said in your reply to me, I hope you will not want to be doing that.

Again, thank you for your time.

Kenneth Ballard
Kansas City, Missouri

Response from Senator McCaskill (D-MO)

My thanks to Senator Claire McCaskill for her time and consideration of the message I sent to her a little over a week ago. Her response is reproduced below. I am considering a response to be sent to her office as I feel again that additional laws targeting guns and their availability or the availability of certain accessories is a waste of time and effort. A recent source I found through GunFacts.info will likely be a source of whatever I send in response to her.

Update: Read my response to this message (here).

* * * * *

January 13, 2013

Dear Mr Ballard,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as gun control policy and gun safety.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

On Friday, December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and began shooting teachers and students before taking his own life.  This horrific tragedy took the lives of 27 people, including 20 children seven years of age and younger.  As a mother, I’m horrified and stunned by the senseless violence against innocent children and teachers.

This tragedy has led to renewed and important discussions about gun control, which is often a divisive topic in our nation.  The loss of so many beautiful children in a mass shooting that involved an assault rifle with ammunition clips that held large numbers of bullets makes clear that we need to revisit the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and review permissible magazine ammunition sizes.  I am also supportive of closing the gun show loophole and making sure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns.  Finally, it is equally clear that we must reconsider the mental health services available to our citizens, knowing that each mass shooting our nation has experienced involved individuals with substantial mental health problems.  “Obamacare” will expand important mental health coverage when it is implemented in 2014.  Protecting our children and our citizens will require us to come together to find real solutions that cover a broad range of factors that have contributed to these horrific incidents.

I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri.  Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment.  I believe the horror of the Newtown shootings makes clear that we must get to work protecting our communities and our children from mass slaughter, while also protecting our Second Amendment rights.  I am hopeful that the National Rifle Association, a significant voice in this discussion, will be a constructive part of this dialogue.

Even as I welcome this renewed debate, please know that I will continue to protect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to safely own and use appropriate firearms.  In the past, I have voted to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms.  I also supported an amendment to a spending bill that would prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen.  I have opposed other inappropriate measures, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states’ firearms laws.

As your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind anytime Congress considers gun-related legislation.  In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, my prayers are with the students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary, and with their families.  All Americans are outraged at senseless and criminal gun violence no matter where they may fall in the debate on guns in American society.  A renewed national conversation has begun and we must all be a constructive and open-minded part of it.  There is middle ground here, where this nation can come together with sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens, while we continue to respect our Constitution and its Second Amendment rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

Senator Blunt responds

My thanks to Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) for his time and consideration of the message I sent him last weekend. I received a response from him today. The reply I received seems a little like a form response. But I can’t really blame him for this as his office is probably getting buried under e-mails and letters from all over Missouri, if not the entire country. I’ve reproduced the reply below.

If you have not contacted your Senators and Representatives regarding this issue, I encourage you to do so. The only way Congress will understand that we will not allow them to punish the innocent millions of gun owners is if we actually tell them that. They need to hear from you, especially as the Obama administration is mobilizing and evaluating all of their options.

* * * * *

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the rights of gun owners.

As you may know, I am a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights. The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Founders clearly understood that one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families.

In light of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been calls for immediate action to address gun control. I do believe it is important that we have a serious national discussion about preventing these senseless acts of violence and protecting our children in their schools. Equally important, however, is an effort that more broadly addresses ways to spend federal dollars more wisely when it comes to treating and identifying those who are mentally ill as well as intervening before they tragically impact their own lives and the lives of others.

There are no easy answers here. I continue to believe that a weapons ban does not fix the issue. Whatever we do, it must be consistent with the Constitution.

I appreciate your thoughts and will continue to support legislation that safeguards our Second Amendment rights, encourages safe and responsible gun ownership, and keeps our homes and families safe.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

Playing the marriage name game

My wife and I got officially married a little over a year ago, taking the courthouse route to the official status. In that time, because we got married at the end of the year, at my suggestion my wife put off legally changing her name. This was in part due to the fact that tax season was coming up and I didn’t want the additional hassle of trying to finagle all of the various accounts to have her name updated.

In the mean time, it was entirely her choice as to what her legal name will be. She would receive no pressure or persuasion from me because, frankly, I didn’t care what she decided to do. All I needed to know was the end result so I could make sure everything was properly updated – our bank account, her insurance policy, and so on.

So did she take mine, keep her maiden name, hyphenate? How about… none of the above. Okay not exactly “none of the above”, but a combination of the first and second.

A little known thing about the Social Security Administration is that, when you file an updated SS-5 after getting married, you can have whatever middle name you want. And that little loophole is what allowed my wife to take my surname as her legal surname but keep her maiden name at the same time, all without hyphenating.

To demonstrate this, I’ll say my wife’s full maiden name was Brianna Marie Dean (obviously it’s not). My surname is Ballard. My wife’s new legal name, borrowing on the example, is Brianna Marie Dean Ballard, with the full middle name on the SS-5 form being Marie Dean – two middle names, in other words.

So brides to be, consider this a viable alternative if you really want to keep your maiden name as part of your name. Now bear in mind that your various government offices might give you a little runaround because this isn’t common practice. And if your husband to be objects to you doing this, then assert that since it’s going to be your name, it is ultimately your decision in the matter. And I say to do that because it is your decision.

But I’m sure some of you are wondering why she did this. My wife is the youngest of three daughters and has no brothers. So under traditional practice, if all three were to get married, none would be keeping their maiden names. With my wife’s decision, she at least gets to hang on to that part of her identity, meaning this is actually a good idea for women who are an only child and, like my wife, women without any brothers.

Obama ‘limited’ on executive order power for gun control?

Recently news hit the airwaves from Vice President Biden that the President was considering executive orders for gun control. In reply to this Examiner.com said:

Still, there are limits on executive orders that would keep President Obama from taking many steps on gun control, and these limits would certainly prevent the kind of dictatorship the Drudge Report implicitly warns about on their website.

While true that the President is still quite limited on what he can do, in that the implied executive order power is not a legislative or lawmaking power, he can still do quite a bit of damage and create a lot of setbacks with regard to gun rights. The President is the presiding officer of the Executive Branch, and one key department with two key bureaus falls under the purview of the Executive Branch: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, both under the Department of Justice. As such the President can issue executive orders with regard to these two agencies.

What kind of executive orders?

How about an executive order that interrupts the 4473 process? I’m referring, of course, to ATF form 4473, which is the form that is filled out whenever there is a transfer (sale) of a firearm by an FFL-licensed firearms dealer to a customer. This would, in a heartbeat, halt most sales of firearms in the United States. It would, also, instantly create a giant black market supporting what would be a booming illegal firearms trade.

He could also issue an executive order directing the BATFE to not issue any new or renew any existing Federal firearms licenses, which are necessary to operate a gun shop. He could also direct the BATFE to not process any NFA applications. NFA refers to the National Firearms Act, and NFA applications are processed when we’re talking about the higher-end stuff such as suppressors and full-auto firearms (i.e. machine guns). By the way, it would be under the NFA authority that Dianne Feinstein would like all existing firearms owners to register under her proposed bill.

These three executive directives would halt legal firearms sales in the United States overnight. But with all of the firearms still sitting on store shelves, it would create one hell of a black market overnight as well. Crime in the US would surge, reversing all of the crime reduction trends this country has been seeing for the last two decades.

And all of this without outright banning firearms or calling for the seizure of firearms already in the hands of private individuals. But again the ramifications of such a move are likely enough to keep the President from seriously considering such an idea, or so I hope.

So the President still has a lot of authority and capability to do a lot of damage to Second Amendment rights in this country. Now as the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" necessarily requires the ability to acquire those arms, such an executive order would find itself challenged in Court on emergency filings in Court moves that would make Bush v. Gore look like it took a decade to adjudicate.

Message to Representative Serrano [D-NY(15)]

In my previous article I said that I might contact Representative Serrano regarding his recent resolution calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. I decided to actually contact him. And in keeping with my practice of publicly posting messages I send to members of the House and Senate, I will reproduce my message here.

If I receive a response, I will also reproduce it publicly on my blog.

* * * * *

Mr Representative Serrano,

It is being widely reported that you have introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. I know that you have been doing this at the start of every Congress since 1997, yet I don’t believe you’ve ever released a public statement as to why you’ve done this. I also know you’re not the first to attempt this.

If you have released such a statement explaining this move, please point me to where I can find it. If you have never made such a statement with regard to why you’d like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed, I would like you to make such a statement.

Freaking out over nothing

Jose Serrano is at it again. The Democrat in the House of Representatives has once again introduced into the House a resolution to amend the Constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment.

And everyone seems to be freaking out about it. For the uninitiated, there are two things to keep in mind.

1. Serrano has been doing this since 1997

In 1997, when Clinton had started his second term in office, Serrano introduced his resolution for the first time. And at the start of every new Congress, he’s introduced it, so 2013 was to be no surprise.

Now why he’s wanting to see the 22nd Amendment repealed is beyond me. He’s never released a statement to explain this, to the best of my knowledge. And if I were to attempt to contact him, as I’m not one of his constituents, he’d likely give me the “I only have time to answer my constituents” kind of e-mail, similar to what I received from Senator Lieberman when I contacted him about the Terrorist Expatriation Act of 2010.

If I do attempt to contact Representative Serrano for comment or statement, I’ll post the message to this blog. (Update: I’ve since contacted Rep. Serrano for comment.)

But to those who think that Serrano is trying to pave the way for Obama to become “Emperor” or something like that — one commenter to my previous article on this said “Next comes martial law, one world union, one world currency, the chip, the temple and Obama going inside and claiming to be God!” — then I think you’re seriously mistaken and need to get your head out of the clouds and come back and visit the rest of us in Realityland.

Oh, and one other thing: every time Serrano has introduced this amendment, it has never left committee. Why is everyone freaking out about this?

2. Repealing the 22nd Amendment requires amending the Constitution

This is the one part of this whole ordeal that no one seems to be considering. Amending the Constitution is an intentionally difficult process. There’s a good reason why the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since its ratification: amending the Constitution of the United States affects all 50 States!

For this proposed amendment to see the light of day beyond the House committee to which it was assigned requires the bill to be recommended by the committee for a floor vote. And then the House of Representatives must vote on that amendment, and the Constitution has defined a successful passage as 2/3rds of a quorum. This is far beyond the typical simple majority that is required for all other bills.

Once it passes the House, the Senate sends the proposed amendment through their parliamentary procedure. On the Senate floor, the Constitution again requires 2/3rds of a quorum voting ‘yea’ for the bill to pass.

Then once it crosses that hurdle in Congress, it isn’t the President that sees it. No the proposed Amendment is sent to the State legislatures for ratification. And 38 of the 50 States must ratify the Amendment for it to take affect.

Conclusion: The 22nd Amendment is not in danger

Attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been taken not just by Serrano, but also by former-Representatives Barney Frank [D-MA(4)] and Howard Berman [D-CA(28)], and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). No attempt has even left the committee. Even if the Amendment were to be proposed, what is the likelihood that such an Amendment would be ratified by the States? I’d say it is highly, highly unlikely.

After President Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945, while Truman was still finishing out that term in office, Congress moved relatively quickly to draft and propose an Amendment to the Constitution to limit the number of terms a person can serve as President. Prior to FDR, there was an implied or ceremonial term limit of 2 terms, as that is the most that George Washington served, though it was actually Thomas Jefferson who established the ceremonial practice. Few have attempted to go beyond that, and, until FDR, all those that attempted failed.

So when FDR managed to get elected to not just 3, but 4 terms in office, Congress moved quickly to enshrine in the Constitution the ceremonial limit Jefferson established.

And as such, the 22nd Amendment is not going anywhere. There is no reason for anyone to freak out about Serrano and his introduction of his resolution.

Message to Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO)

In light of the legislation that Senator Feinstein intends to introduce to the Senate in coming days (the record currently shows no bills introduced into the Senate), it is imperative that we contact those who represent us in the Senate to see to it that bill does not leave committee. Here is the message I sent to Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri — you will note it is similar to the letter I sent to Senator McCaskill. Again feel free to adapt this to send to your own Senator if you desire.

* * * * *

Mister Senator Blunt,

As you know times in the United States are currently bleak. A major event that occurred in Connecticut has pitted American against American, neighbor against neighbor. At the same time the government to which you were recently re-elected is considering restrictions on the liberties of all Americans as punishment for the actions of a few.

I am, of course, talking about firearms.

Now I’m not writing this message to give you information you’ve likely already heard from thousands of other constituents, nor will I be threatening to not vote for you in 2016, presuming you seek re-election. And as you enjoy an A rating by the National Rifle Association, I’m not going to waste your time telling you things you already know with regard to firearms and the Second Amendment.

Instead my purpose with writing to you today is to hopefully give you another angle with which to hopefully argue against any new firearms legislation by appealing to your sense of fairness, justice, and most importantly liberty. My hope is that the angle I am providing herein is one you’ve already considered, and that I will either be reinforcing that idea or persuading you to consider it with more seriousness.

All Americans pay for all actions of the Federal government. If taxes are increased, we pay with our wallets. If new laws are enacted that do not protect the liberties of other citizens, we pay with our liberties and freedoms. New firearms legislation means all Americans lose more of their firearms liberties. I’m sure to you this is not a novel concept.

It is no secret the views many Democrats hold on firearms. Senator Feinstein said in 1994 that if she could have gotten the votes, she would’ve gone for a bill calling for a blanket ban and confiscation of all firearms, completely in violation of the Second Amendment. Recent events play right into her desires as the United States is currently alight with anti-gun sentiment. Emotion reigns and reason and rationality have taken a back seat.

And following that vein, members of the government of the United States seek to punish every law-abiding firearms owner. I’ve called it “punishing the innocent”. And I feel it is a perfect description. And Feinstein’s intended legislation will do just that, punish the millions of law-abiding gun owners, treating all of us like common criminals even though we have done nothing wrong.

The United States enjoys millions of law-abiding firearms owners, most of whom cannot fathom the idea of taking even a single life, even if that life is taken in the defense of another. But if necessary, they will use their firearms to defend the lives of others against those intent on doing harm. Members of the Senate and House seek to strip them of that ability, which will leave us all at the mercy of those intent to do harm.

With all respect and courtesy, Mister Senator, I appeal to your sense of fairness and liberty. Please do not let the Congress of the United States pass legislation that only seeks to punish the millions of firearms owners who have done no wrong. Any legislation restricting firearms does just that, especially when it is enacted in the wake of a tragedy by those who think they have the answers. History has shown that gun restrictions do not do any good, and have done harm. And as has been demonstrated in 2012, “gun free zones” can be rendered anything but by someone seeking to do harm, and render helpless anyone in their path.

Again firearms restrictions punish the innocent millions for the actions of an insane individual. Please do not let Congress punish the millions of gun owners because one person flipped.