An Open Letter To Senator Larry S. Craig

Recently I received a form letter improvised by your staff, over your signature, endeavoring to mitigate what the majority of gun owners perceive to be a major mistake on your part of approving the spurious Lautenberg "Domestic Violence Law". That form letter, incidentally, is a virtual affront to the intelligence of all knowledgeable gun owners.

The letter contends you: "...have always supported taking guns out of the hands of violent criminals...". Altho hyperbole is an accepted form of discourse, Larry, you appear to be perverting it when referring to one convicted of domestic violence, as "violent criminal".

Domestic violence may occur but once in a long-standing relationship and labeling the perpetrator as a "violent criminal" is, to paraphrase an expression in your form letter: "That interpretation is nonsense; it flies in the face of common sense..."

How can it possibly be justified under such conditions to terminate one's Second Amendment right for a lifetime? If it is possible to terminate a citizen's lifetime Second Amendment right for a mere misdemeanor, how long, Larry, do you expect it to be before such rabid antigun recreants, as Lautenberg and Schumer attempt to implement it to extend to other misdemeanors?

These putative "Good Samaritans" are presently conspiring to, once again, introduce legislation to outlaw laser sighting devices. Naturally, it will be presented as another means of controlling "violent criminals"; probably another misdemeanor capable of a lifetime forfeiture of one's Second Amendment right.

One of our peerless leaders, Newt Gingrich, has solemly promised: "As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House." Some promise!

It's stated in the form letter, Larry: "My willingness to accept this new law in no way reduces my dedication to defending constitutinally protected rights of law-abiding gun users."

However, when the omnibus spending bill was in conference committee, not ONE Republican leader attempted to strip that reprehensible ban from it; and you, Larry, are supposedly one of the Republican leaders. Slick Willy must really have rubbed his hands together when you buffoons gave him that one. Sarah Brady is probably contemplating a national celebration.

How do you expect those of us who support you, Larry, to believe you (and Gingrich) when you both stuck-it to us gun owners with that iniquitous law? If you two are determined to equate a misdemeanor with a felony, we had better start burying our guns.

The fact remains, it is a stupid law and should never have been enacted. Only one member of the Idaho delegation, Helen Chenoweth, had the sagacity and mother-wit to actually see that statute for what it really is capable of doing. She has clearly established herself as one of the premier defenders of the Second Amendment on Capitol Hill.

Recently, she introduced HR 1009, a bill to repeal that law, altho undoubtedly aware it doesn't stand the proverbial chance of a "snowball in Hell", of passing. If it were to pass, it is an absolute certainty to be vetoed by that mealy-mouthed; lying; gutless; draft-dodging; antigun; excuse for a man, that is in the White House. And with all the pusillanimous weenies in Congress, it is also a certainty it won't be overridden.

The form letter inferred the BATF to be responsible for circulating misinformation implying the Lautenberg law to be retroactive. You, Larry, contend it is not. How do you explain Rep. Bob Barr's unsuccessful attempt to eliminate the retroactive portion of the law, when it was debated in the House? How do you explain why law enforcement agencies, nationwide, have been forced to reschedule armed personnel to unarmed positions? If the statute was not retroactive why should it be necessary to enact legislation stating it is not?

Nevertheless, you state: "...if the conviction occurred before the Lautenberg law was enacted the new law wouldn't apply". If those convicted of the same crime, prior to the advent of the law, are not prohibited from possessing firearms, why should future convictions prohibit it? In fact, Larry, just what in hell is the point to that stupid law anyway?

If you people in Congress actually suppose you have accomplished something exemplary, or effective, you are completely out of touch with reality.

The proponents of that bill have an agenda that goes far beyond mitigating domestic violence. It defies credulity to assume antigun zealots will accede solely to that singular definition. It doesn't work that way, Larry, and you should know it. You've been duped. Those feather-merchants will take all they can get -- when they can get it; and any help given them from the pro-gun side is an added bonus. Thanks to chubby Newty, and the rest of you Republican "leaders", they just got it.

Added to all this now, is the putative "crime bill" of your compeer, Orrin Hatch, the "conservative" that walks like a liberal. His "crime bill" is simply additional ammunition to be used against us by antigun fanatics. Thanks a bunch!