Automated letters are great and certainly better than nothing but I believe that a personally crafted letter to your legislator will have most impact. The folks processing these letters can tell the difference between a one-click response and one that is actually written.
Several folks have expressed that they do not know what to write. Below I have included what I wrote and sent to my Senators and Representative. Interestingly only (1) responded back at all (not even auto-generated replies from the other two).
Feel free to use it as you like or take pieces from it. You may not agree with everything I say, or feel it reflects your tone -- I simply hope that it gives you ideas to craft your own. If nothing else please contact your legislators!
CA has just introduced draconian legislation to best even NY's recent laws. The time to act must be now!! It just takes a few clicks!
Who is your Representative? Find out here -> http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Who are your Senators? Find out here -> http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Here's what I sent to my legislators:
Dear Senator, I am writing in opposition to S.150 et al. Rhetoric on both sides is heated/debated so I will keep this brief.
1. Criminals don't obey laws. You are punishing lawful gun owners.
2. This is a supposed response to the Newtown Shooting. However, nothing in this bill or any proposed legislation would prevent this in the future (No bans, background checks, etc.) See #1 above. Even VP Biden has stated this and says that since public mood has changed is a good opportunity to push gun control. Ironically, CT already has many of the proposed controls in place. The Newtown shooter violated multiple laws, adding more would change nothing. If his mother did not have the firearms to steal (remember he killed her over) he would have found alternate means of destruction. He was not hindered by a "gun free zone." The worst U.S. school massacre was done with an explosive device - not a firearm.
3. This Bill is poorly written and ambigious. The military-like features provision is very interpretive. In particular the "pistol grip" definition could fit any firearm. It specifically bans "thumb-hole" stocks--I am not aware of ANY military firearm that uses a thumb-hole stock. These are cosmetic restrictions. What's next? All semi-autos like Australia?
4. A 10-shot magazine ban is arbitrary. Folks fear that it is just a stepping stone and will be reduced. Not so crazy when you look at NY's recent passage of a 7 shot limitation, now followed with similar bills in NJ, CT, Minn. In fact, there is a bill in CT to limit magazines to 1 shot!
5. A lot of folks are proposing confiscation (see NY's original draft) and the passed legislation requires that >7 shot mags be turned in or shipped out of state! Ex Post Facto? No grand fathering? It is not much of a stretch to think of the potential that once their "registry" of firearms is up and running that they simply rule that owners do the same thing.
6. Last but not least, the Constitution. I know this is hotly contested but I will quote James Madison, the man who wrote the Bill of Rights, from the Federalist Papers: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Founders knew what they were doing.
Additionally, I think that if a school decides that it wants armed security, police, or even wants to purchase metal detectors that we should help. The arguments that the kids will be traumatized are silly -- they go to the bank, mall, concerts, sporting events, airport now without a second thought.
Thank you for your time.
