Letter to my Senators - "Please, no restrictions based on false information and hysteria"

This is a letter I just sent to my Senators.

Title: Please, no restrictions based on false information and hysteria

Please do not support any efforts to restrict the firearms that were used by the murderer in the Aurora, CO theater.

The weapons he used were not "assault" weapons, military-style, or automatic. While some "assault" weapons were outlawed for a period of time, the weapons he used have never been outlawed, despite misinformation provided by some sources.

Further, while the weapons he used were not "AR-15" rifles, those are also neither assault weapons nor automatic. Some have talked recently about the rapid fire rate of "machine guns," but neither AR-15 style rifles nor the weapons actually present in this massacre were any form of automatic weapon.

Also, even though the shooter had a rifle at the time, which had a large-capacity magazine, his shooting was actually done with a shotgun for which no one is suggesting any restrictions.

In summary:
1 - The weapons present in the recent massacre involved neither an AR-15 nor any type of automatic weapon or machine gun.
2 - The AR-15 weapon often referenced, which was not used in the massacre, is also neither an automatic weapon or machine gun.
3 - The rifle owned by the killer and highly criticized was not even used.

Placing restrictions on Constitutional rights, particularly based on clearly false claims, would be an extreme knee-jerk reaction. It would be akin to outlawing pickup trucks after a drunk driver causes a severe accident with a station wagon.

We want our rights back!

Wow! We've got some REALLY positive news for a change!

Several states are putting together similar laws. The law is that guns made, sold, and remaining within that state are not subject to any federal gun laws, but will only be subject to state laws. The federal gun laws are under the authority of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and since these items do not have anything to do with interstate commerce, those laws do not apply.

And a major factor is that 20 states are working on these laws; the Court strongly considers societal trends in its decisions. They could easily decide that a strong federal government was the way people wanted it fifty years ago, but now people want decisions to be more local. It's the same idea as with gay marriage; the courts decide, not based on law, but on what most people want. If you are in state government and reading this, push for state laws matching the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The more states that have this law, the more ground the court will have to expand on it.

They are gearing this to go quickly to the courts, and then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been leaning this way, as shown in recent decisions, but those cases were too small to bother with.

This involves guns, so everybody will be watching. The government knows that gun and ammo sales are a direct indicator of trust in the government. When people trust the government, sales are flat; but when people don't trust the government, sales go through the roof.

If this goes well, it can lead to overturning all regulatory laws that affect anything other than interstate commerce. After all, the laws were based on interstate commerce; they've just gotten WAY out of control. Minimum wage laws are based on interstate commerce. Maximum hours per week are based on interstate commerce. The entire EPA is based on interstate commerce!

Mind you, these regulations may continue for businesses that deal across state lines, but small businesses, those that are only in one state, those that are currently getting regulated TO DEATH since they can't afford to hire hundreds of people just to deal with the regulations, may find some relief in the next few years. The ultimate solution may take two or three years to come, but it's heading that way.

Unions vs The Law

For some reason, the Obama administration seems to really like the unions. Two situations that seem to show this:

The "Employee Free Choice Act", also known as "Card Check".

This act, which Obama sponsored last year in the Senate, will eliminate the secret ballot for unionizing a business. Whether a business will be unionized used to be determined by secret ballot. The "Employee Free Choice Act" will remove this, instead requiring employees to sign a card while being observed by a union official.

In the past, the pressure step, signing while being watched, was only a petition of intent; it only allowed the organization to proceed with the secret ballot. With the "Employee Free Choice Act", unions can return to early 1900's tactics of pressuring a person to vote for the union or else suffer some kind of punishment.

The Chrysler bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy law requires that secured lenders, those who have some kind of collateral with the company, like a home loan that has the house for collateral, or a car loan which has the house for collateral, get their money before those who have unsecured debt, those who lent the money just on the credit of the company, like a credit card.

In this case, the main secured debt is corporate bonds. The biggest investors in bonds are the fund companies; these in turn wind up with our retirement accounts and such. The main unsecured debt is common stock. The major unsecured investor is the union. According to the law, the bond holders should get all their money before the stock holders get anything.

Well, Obama doesn't like that idea. He, and those who work for him, call the investment funds things like "greedy", "speculators", and "refusing to sacrifice like everyone else". Instead, he wants the unions to get all their money, and the bond holders to settle for 35% of theirs. Excuse me, but it's not just "greed" or "speculation". It's called "the law".