The Honorable Bill Frist Senate Majority leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Frist,

Both polls and Democratic candidates agree: support for gun control by Democrats cost them control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Given the politics of the issue, it is surprising that the only legislation likely to pass on firearms issues, as this session of Congress comes to an end, is an anti-gun bill.

Legislation to ban non-existent "plastic guns" is being rushed to the Senate floor. This legislation may seem harmless, but sets a dangerous precedent. If non-existent guns can be banned as a means of preventing danger, certainly real guns, which stand ready to defend millions of homes, can be seen as a greater danger.

While the ban on non-existent guns is on the fast track, legislation to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits languishes in the Senate. Such lawsuits threaten the very existence of gun makers, rendering them unable to produce real firearms, not to mention futuristic firearms. Thus, a real solution to a real problem is not given the time of day while the Congress engages in a mere charade.

Please consider several reasons to oppose all attempts to extend the ban on non-existent plastic firearms:

• As all sides agree, no such gun exists at present. Therefore, such a ban is a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars. The Congress may as well ban "lightsabers" and "transmooker devices."


• Not only do such firearms remain in the world of make-believe, but the firearms industry is not very close to perfecting such technology.


• Detection technology of non-metallic weapons is much farther along than plastic gun technology. In fact, a March 7, 2003 article in Government Security notes that in the future a walk-through "portal will spot [a plastic gun], identify it, take a picture of the man, and mark the location of the weapon on the photo."


• Even if such firearms did exist, there is no reason to believe that an Al-Queda terrorist would be thwarted by a gun ban. There are enough examples of real gun bans that have resulted in the deaths of real people to know that criminals do not obey the law. Just look at England, an island nation that in 1997 virtually disarmed its citizens. The result? Crime, including crimes involving firearms, has skyrocketed to the point that newspapers dub Manchester "Gunchester" and the Mayor of London told reporters that he feels safer on the streets of New York than in the British capital.


• Perhaps most importantly, even if such guns existed, they would still be protected by the Second Amendment. It is a very dangerous precedent to carve out exceptions to the Bill of Rights because perhaps the Founding Fathers did not foresee 21st century technology. I hope that you have not bought in to the argument that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, changeable based on the whims of modern-day politicians.

I urge you, therefore, to have the Senate take up meaningful legislation such as lawsuit protection, instead of the anti-gun make believe bill that is expected to come up for consideration.

Sincerely,