Re: From the Office of
Senator Cantwell
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: robert n lyman
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: From the Office of Senator Cantwell
Senator Cantwell,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my
concerns regarding the gun-show "loophole" bill. I have three simple questions
to which I would appreciate simple, direct replies:
You referred to the Brady Bill and the Assault
Weapons Ban as "responsible" gun control laws. This generates two questions:
1) Do you continue to support the Brady Bill
when two of the country's most strident gun-control activists concede that it
has not prevented crime? (See link below) If so, why support laws which do not
do what they claim to?
Link to article in the Journal of the American
Medical Association :
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html.
2) The definition of an "assault weapon" is purely
cosmetic. One can literally transform some guns from "hunting rifle" in to an
"assault weapon" or vice versa in a couple of minutes with a screwdriver (I
would be happy to demonstrate for you the next time you are in Seattle). How
does controlling the outward appearance of guns fight crime?
The final question concerns the gun-show "loophole"
bill.
3) Have you read the bill? In doing so, did you
notice that it does not merely require background checks, but also makes the
gun show promoter CIVILLY and CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ANY gun-law violation which
occurs during the show? I do not think that background checks will end gun shows,
but I doubt that anyone on earth would stake their freedom and financial stability
on the perfect compliance with thousands of complicated and arbitrary laws by
hundreds of vendors. Do you think that anyone is willing to take this risk in
order to sponsor a gun show? If not, isn't it fair to say that the bill as written
would end all gun shows?
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Robert Lyman
Seattle, WA
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
