PA Assault Rifle Ban (and more!!!)

[billamj]

I would have to agree with CR at least in regard to the second bullet point that he pointed out. By immediately saying you will violate a law if passed you are telling a potential ally that you might react in a manner that could bring them unwanted attention by your actions. This is not the best way, IMHO, to win freinds and influence people. Overall the letter is what we are looking for. My only concern is the last bullet point.

[1FingrCHan]

Hello folks,

I just hope that PA does not turn into another New Jersey. I have heard that state is laden with corruption and 'dark' politic. It is the politician themselves are afraid of the armed populace and if these politician are the 'good' guys, then why do they fear?

The gun owners of New Jersey I think vote in these politicians who eventually would infringe on all the rights. Just like German people casted their 'last' vote for the tyrant but was unable to dislodge him until that whole nation came down by outside forces. I think the people need is to keep vigilant on the bill of rights no matter what political party they belong. I have seen pro-gun dems as well as anti-gun repubs, so this issue is beyond the party lines.

One should give the power to the person that has no desire to be a politician (or power to govern the mass). I read in psychology book most of the folks in politics are themselves, unable to control their internal turmoils so they 'protract' it out to the mass.

Just like cops, we got to give them tougher entrance tests. Once again, I have read somewhere that most of these guys have inner problems, once they got the badge and the guns, their heads seem to swell a little. Some guys told me cops like to shoot people too, but they are on the 'good' side of the laws. And I find this not amusing at all........but deep down I think it might be true.

I just draw the similarities in bad cops and bad politicians, sorry I don't know how to make it clearer.

Thanks for looking,



1FingrCHan

[djturnz]

Is there any point o contact anyone other than my specific senator and Representative?

should we also contact committee members or Big Ed?

[TrybalRage]

I think that there would be no harm in contacting judiciary members, they collectively represent us all.

[djturnz]

sweet, can we get a list of names and email addresses?

[TrybalRage]

Originally Posted by djturnz

sweet, can we get a list of names and email addresses?

I posted it Here.

Write away!

[crazyyankee]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Overall, I believe this letter to be well written, concise, and to the point. The only comment I have to the contrary is on the following:



I disagree with this, as IMHO the best way to fight an unconstitutional law is to either (a) force the legislature to repeal it (and vote people out of office if need be), or (b) test it's constitutionality. I know this isn't the easiest path for the average citizen, but IMHO it's better than becoming no better than the criminals by breaking the law. I see the point that an unconstitutional law isn't really a law, so we by rights don't have to follow it. However, it seems to me that this tactic just provides more fodder for the antis.

Just my $0.02; take it FWIW. Other than that, I find it to be a fine letter.

Another way to get rid of unconstitutional law is through Jury nulification. As a jury member you have the right to declare the law unconstitutional and therefore find the person/persons not guilty. The judges no longer tell you this information.
This is how the prohibition laws got changed, the juries found the people not guilty.

[Little Joe]

Very well written, Liberty556, I was going to sit down tonight after work to write one, but I will use yours. While I agree with the sentiment, I don't agree with telling them that you intend to violate the law if passed. I think that would only provide more ammunition for the anti's, and possibly alienate allies.

-Joe-

[1FingrCHan]

Hello folks,

I found this in wikipedia about jury nullification after reading a post about the topic, this is new to me as well, good thing we got well informed forum here:

Jury nullification occurs where a jury, apparently ignoring the letter of the law and the instructions by the court, and taking into account all of the evidence presented, renders a verdict in contradiction to the law. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, juries are reluctant to pass a verdict contrary to law. Jury nullification may signal an unwillingness by the members of the jury to accept the law and may have far reaching implications. In a case of jury nullification, the jury sometimes bases its verdict on the jury members' view about the validity of the law itself, a consequence of recognising a right to trial by one's peers.[1]




Also, the following is a great quote from Thomas Jefferson:


I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

—Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine


This is great forum, the more we are informed about the constitution, the more lead we can throw back at them antis. Heheheh



1FingrCHan

[PA_SIGpacker]

Wow I just started reading the text of HB 30... According to the definitions in the beginning, it even classifies a semiautomatic pistol with a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator as an "assault weapon"!

-How many competition pistols fall into this category?
-What kind of pistol OTHER than a competition pistol would have this configuration?
-How many criminals would shell out the big bucks for such a firearm with the intent of commiting a crime with it?
-I would be greatly surprised to learn if there has ever been even one single crime committed with this type of firearm.

HB30....just senseless.