From jhardin@impsec.org Thu Jun 10 21:04:17 2004
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: John D. Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
To: Maria_Cantwell@cantwell.senate.gov
Subject: Re: From the Office of Senator Cantwell

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 Maria_Cantwell@cantwell.senate.gov wrote:

> While I support extending the assault weapons ban, I am also 
> committed to protecting Second Amendment rights,

I do not see how those positions can be reconciled. The Second
Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." It does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed, except..."

"shall not be infringed" is one of the Constitution's "bright lines"
that limits the power of the government, along with "Congress shall
make no law..." (Amendment I).

Support and defend the Constitution as you have sworn an oath to do.
Oppose the "assault weapons" ban.

> That is why I also cosponsored an amendment to expand the ability
> of law enforcement officers across the country to carry concealed
> weapons as they already have the right to do in our state.

Bravo. I am pleased to hear that. However, I do not consider this to
excuse your actions in curtailing *my* freedoms.

Have you also cosponsored any legislation to expand the ability of
NON-law-enforcement persons - regular, law-abiding, peaceful citizens
like myself - to carry concealed weapons across the country?

> As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect
> the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners,

"legitimate rights" is dangerous thinking, and leads to erosion of
Inalienable Rights.

> while continuing to support responsible legislation to reduce
> crime and make our communities safer.

Swift and severe punishment of people who use firearms in the
commission of violent crimes will do that.

Firearms safety education will do that.

Banning firearms will not do that. Handguns are banned in Washington,
D.C. - what was their per capita murder rate again? - and the next
logical step after the AW ban is to ban handguns.

> I believe both of these goals are important and can be
> simultaneously accomplished.

As do I. I disagree absolutely that unconstitutionally taking firearms
out of the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens is the way to do
it.

> I value the input of responsible gun buyers and sellers in forming
> common sense gun policy.

"Common sense gun policy" means punishing people who use guns to hurt
others. It does *NOT* mean "let's take guns away from peaceful,
law-abiding citizens".

Prior Restraint in abridging the freedom of speech is met with howls
of condemnation. Why is Prior Restraint in infringing the right to
keep and bear arms not also met with howls of condemnation? Is it
really a second-class right? Why then was recognizing that right the
subject matter of an amendment in the Bill of Rights?
 
> Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.  
> Please do not hesitate to contact me again on this or any other
> issue.

Thank you for your response. I will be watching how you vote to
protect my freedoms, and I will vote on whether you keep your office
on that basis.

--
        John D. Hardin