I read with dismay, recently, that you have signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R.4269, legislation which bans the manufacture and possession of "assault weapons". Since I have voted for you in the past in the belief that you are a moderate Democrat and would *like* to do so again, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your support and sponsorship of this legislation.
The topic of gun control is one which is rife with misinformation and misunderstanding. As you are the representative for a district which is VERY gun friendly, I sincerely hope that you will take the time and trouble to inform yourself of the actual technical details relevant to legislation that you take up. Ours is a moderate district (my car has NRA *and* PFLAG stickers and I have seen others similarly configured) but, again, it is very gun-friendly. There are numerous shooting ranges and gun shops. Most people that I know either own guns or are moderate on the topic. I recently checked out at the local grocery store and the cashier asked about a gun magazine that I was buying because she is a local shooting instructor.
Perhaps no firearms topic is more misunderstood than the topic of "assault weapons" and the bill you are sponsoring is no exception. Thousands of these guns are undoubtedly owned in your district and you are essentially saying that we cannot be trusted with them. That is a mistake.
Please stop to consider the history and effects of the 1994 ban:
First, it cost Democrats their control of Congress in 1994. (article)
Then, the ban itself did not accomplish anything, as the New York Times (article) and the US National Institute of Justice (article) have said, outright. This is not too surprising, since rifles of all types are used to commit murders very infrequently, much less than knives and only half as much as fists and feet (FBI statistics).
The threat of the ban inspired many people who would not otherwise have been interested in such a rifle to buy one while they could. I wouldn't be surprised if all the artificial fuss about "assault weapons" has made the number in circulation twice what it would be otherwise. I know I bought one originally because I wanted to see what the fuss was about and tried a friend's. Now I occasionally use mine for competition.
And finally, to anybody with any technical knowledge of firearms the ban is rife with arbitrary and even ludicrous internal contradictions. Consider the two rifles in this picture. The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14: it fires the .223 cartridge loaded from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The bottom rifle is some sort of AR15 variant: it also fires the .223 cartridge from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The Mini-14 is specifically exempted from the ban and AR15 variants specifically banned.
These guns are functionally equivalent. Their only differences are in appearance.
Is this a distinction sharp enough that you are willing to turn your constituents into criminals over it? Is this a distinction you are willing to cheer lead in a district that will think you are crazy for doing so?
People talk constantly about modern high-powered weapons. But AR15s have been sold to the public since the 1960s. The AR15 .223 cartridge, on the left below, is dwarfed by the .30-06, the cartridge fired in the M1 Garand rifle...another semi-automatic exempted by the ban.
I hope that you will reconsider your support for H.R. 4269 and start discussing matters related to firearms with your constituents in the future. I don't wish to be hyperbolic but your job is at stake here...along with our civil liberties.
