I have sent the following letter to my Senators and Congressman regarding Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments today about reinstating the ludicrously bad Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994, recently expired in 2004.  AG Holder wants to bring it back, compromise our constitution and my rights, and make the ban permanent.  I will not allow this to happen, and neither should you.  Below is the full text of my letter, which you may feel free to use as the basis of your own, or even copy it directly.  I do ask, however, that if you publish it elsewhere on the internet, you attribute this blog.  Thank you.

Mr. <Representative Name>,

I am writing today to express my extreme dissatisfaction with and concern over the comments made today by Attorney General Eric Holder.  He indicated that the reinstatement of the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 would be a priority for the Obama administration.

This is an unacceptable proposition.  As an NRA member, I track gun legislation at the state and national level with close interest.  As you know, the NRA opposes any ban such as the FAWB '94, and continues to do so to this day.  To provide you with information that you may not get from the cookie-cutter letters generated by internet PACs, please allow me to present a brief list of points against any FAWB reinstatement:

[One.]  The original ban was based entirely on cosmetic, not functional features.  It essentially bans guns that "look scary."  It preyed on the fears of an uninformed general public ignorant of gun politics and gun statistics.  When you ask most supporters of a FAWB reinstatement for a definition of "semi-automatic," for example, they will respond with a definition of "automatic."  These bans are worded to appeal to that ignorance, by repeatedly using words like "semi-automatic, bayonet lug, threaded barrel, and grenade launcher." This completely glosses over the fact that semi-autos fire one shot per trigger pull (not automatic, which are already banned and not the subject of this letter), bayonet lugs which attach a few-inches-long knife (which I think you'll agree pales in comparison to the bullet that comes out of the barrel above it), threaded barrels which can attach suppression devices to protect the hearing and eyesight of sporters at the range (not slip-on James Bond-style silencers that make murders inaudible), and grenade launchers which are already heavily regulated by the NFA '34.

Further, words like "pistol grip" are used to incite fear, most notably by the Brady Campaign, which alleges that such features are designed to allow a weapon to be "fired from the hip."  In this pinnacle of ignorant statements, the Brady Campaign reveals its complete lack of knowledge about firearm operation.  If I shoot a gun and want to hit something, I wouldn't fire it from the hip, I would aim by holding the gun like a regular human being.  The notion of shooting from the hip is a Hollywood myth and has no business being Federal law.  The ban talks about detachable magazines, high-capacity magazines, and folding stocks.  None of these features whatsoever affect the operation of the gun, but like the features listed above, do serve their own purposes.  Banning guns based on these cosmetic features is both ignorant and ineffective.  Do not allow AG Holder to shove this ill-advised legislation down the throats of the American people in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Two.]  The logic behind AG Holder's recent comments discussed problems with the efficacy of Mexican law enforcement.  As I'm sure you are already aware, Mexico is its own country and is not a member of the United States.  Their domestic problems have no business being part of American Federal law.  Especially in this time of great crisis, we need to focus on passing laws to benefit our own country, not restricting our constitutional rights for some perceived "positive impact in Mexico."  AG Holder relied on a State Department travel warning issued on Feb. 20 of this year, noting that conflicts between Mexico's ineffective LE and drug cartels have involved automatic weapons and grenades.  As I have noted already, fully-auto weapons and grenades are already banned in the US and their procurement is extraordinarily difficult, even impossible in some states.  The FAWB of '94 that Holder wants to reinstate doesn't address items like that at all, but it does prey on fears and ignorance of that fact. 

We cannot allow fear and ignorance to determine the policy of the United States of America.  We must instead rely on our Constitution, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  It does not state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be at the discretion of the Attorney General," nor does it state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except when the Federal Government deems it necessary," nor does it state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be upheld only at the discretion of the Mexican government." 

"Shall not be infringed."  That is where that sentence ends.  Yet the proposed re-instatement of the FAWB would execute a massive infringement of constitutional rights, including my own.  As a shooting enthusiast, I enjoy a variety of firearms, several of which would suddenly become illegal under the new FAWB, based on nothing other than their cosmetic features like pistol grips or magazines with a capacity higher than 10.  If we are going to ban guns with logic like that, we should also ban cars with yellow paint and gas tank capacities more than four gallons.  I don't like cars that look yellow; they're too bright.  And a four-gallon restriction would surely do wonders to save the environment!  People who need to go farther could always fly.  As a pilot, I would even be happy to offer my services.

[Three.]  History, and the NRA.  Throughout the years leading up to the creation and enactment of the FAWB '94, many gun-friendly politicians thought the legislation didn't stand a chance, and consequently did not act with strength and unity against it.  Much to every gun owner's horror, the FAWB did, in fact, pass.  While the NRA was able to punish those who supported the bill by clearing out both the House and Senate in the midterm elections of 1996, the damage at that point had already been done, and it would be eight long years thence before the ban would expire and the rights of gun owners would be restored.  Now, AG Holder wants to make the ban permanent.  It is absolutely imperative that you, as my representative Congress, do absolutely everything in your power to make sure this zombie FAWB stays in the grave where it belongs and not in the USC.  Work with your fellow Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to put up a strong and united front against this proposed unconstitutional legislation.  Nip it in the bud and make it clear that you and your fellow congressmen will not tolerate fear- and ignorance-driven policymaking by the new administration. 

Support the rights of the People of the United States of America.  Do not compromise their rights which millions of Americans before them served and died to protect.  Do not allow history to repeat itself with the FAWB.  It must not happen.  It cannot happen.  Fight it with every ounce of your strength.  Protect the Constitution from its domestic enemies like AG Holder, as you are sworn to do.  My rights as a citizen of this country and your seat as a member of the Senate both depend on it.