March 6, 2004 Senator Murray: Recently you sent an email to me in response to several letters I have written to you. Thank you. I attempted to respond to your email, but my response was returned as undeliverable. If your email system is not configured to permit replies to your emails, please state so in your message so that people can reply by other means the first time. My reply is reproduced below. Thank you. - John Hardin 17014 Broadway ave. Snohomish, WA 98296-8031 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:39:21 -0800 (PST) From: John D. Hardin To: Senator@murray.senate.gov Subject: Re: Response from Senator Murray On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 Senator@murray.senate.gov wrote: > Like all Americans, I am concerned about violent crime and its > effects on children, families, and communities. As a U.S. > Senator, I have supported legislation to increase punishments for > convicted felons. In addition, I have worked hard to emphasize > crime prevention strategies, especially among young people, and > rehabilitation and treatment efforts for those who are already in > trouble. I am firmly in support of holding people accountable for their actions. Those who use firearms in the commission of violent crimes *should* be severely punished. I also agree that education of young people is important in crime and accident prevention, and that a large percentage of people can be successfully helped by rehabilitation and other treatment programs. > I also believe that reasonable measures to control firearms should > be one part of our national crime-fighting strategy. Throughout > my time in office, I have supported common sense gun control > measures that reduce gun violence while providing the least > possible inconvenience to law- abiding gun owners. Here, however, I cannot agree with you. Supporting the "Assault Weapons" ban does nothing to reduce gun crime or gun violence, while reducing measurably the liberty of law-abiding gun owners. My concerns are NOT about "convenience," but about freedom. I have never committed a violent crime, nor do I have any intention of doing so. Why is *my* freedom being curtailed? > I voted for the Brady Bill because I believed it would keep > firearms away from criminals while still allowing law abiding > citizens to purchase guns. The Brady Bill has been dismally ineffective in keeping firearms away from criminals in, to name just one place, Washington D.C.; Gun Control measures such as the Brady Bill have helped Washington D.C. become one of the most dangerous places in the nation to live. In fact, the states that the Brady Center most dislikes - those with the most permissive laws regarding firearms and Concealed Carry - are the ones with the lowest levels of murder and other extremely violent crimes. Will the failure in practice of the Brady Bill have any effect on your position? Will you be swayed by reality, or will you continue to cling to the dream that banning guns will reduce violent crime? It has not worked in England. It has not worked in Australia. What is special about the U.S. that would make it work here? > On the other hand, I have concerns about legislation that would > give the government information about law-abiding gun owners. > Such proposals include recent bills that require federal > registration of firearms. Registration efforts could threaten the > privacy rights of legitimate gun owners. I agree with you and hope you will vote accordingly on future legislation. Thank you for recognizing this. > Gun control efforts must strike a balance between safety and > individual rights. Thank you. I don't have a problem with laws requiring guns be sold with safety devices that are not built in (Smart Guns are a dumb idea). I don't have a problem with laws that intend to keep guns away from unsupervised minors. I don't have a problem with laws that punish gun owners for engaging in unsafe behaviour with their guns, for example, brandishing them when the situation at hand does not warrant it. I have a huge problem with laws that purport to keep guns out of criminal hands by making possession of guns illegal. CRIMINALS IGNORE THE LAW. Please do not take away my liberty in an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals - such an effort will not succeed in keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, but only in restricting yet further the freedom of law-abiding citizens. Again, banning guns has not reduced violent crime in England or Australia. Why would it do so here? > Whenever gun control legislation comes before the Senate, I will > examine it closely to ensure that it is fair and evenhanded. > Rest assured, should such legislation be considered, I will keep > your concerns in mind. Your recent vote in support of the AWB Extension amendment to S.1805 makes me wonder what you consider "fair and evenhanded". The AWB bans a large range of weapons for purely cosmetic features - it could more accurately have been titled the "Scary-Looking Weapons Ban". It has also made me consider carefully whether I will support you should you seek reelection. In supporting the AWB you are not acting in my interests or, indeed, in support of the Constitution. Again, let me repeat my basic position: punish people for their *actions*. Do not punish innocent, law-abiding people because *somebody else* may do something stupid or hurtful or evil. > Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of service in the > future, please be in touch. I will continue to express my views to you on this and other matters, and I will continue to watch how you vote. Thank you for your time and attention.