Contact your Congressman and Senators

Civil Rights Task Force of / Northern Nevada | home

Copy and paste this letter to your word processor then sent it to each to your Congressman and Senators

See what kind of responce you get.

The Honorable

United States Senate or Congress

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear :

My question concerned the following: During the Clinton-Gore administration an ominous gun an measure was signed into law in 1996 (See 104th CONGRESS 2d Session S.1632 March 21, 1996 and 104th CONGRESS 2d Session H.R. 3455 May 14, 1996) as part of the TREASURY-POSTAL OMNIBUS APPROPRIATION BILL. This measure, the domestic violence gun ban, was named after its author, the Sen. Frank Lautenberg. This NEW law was annexed in U.S.C. 18 Sec. 922(d)(9) to disarmed people for life for minor offenses (misdemeanor) that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member! The Lautenberg gun ban's broad language is so expansive that unsuspecting parents have lost their Second Amendment rights for SIMPLY using legitimate corporal punishment in disciplining their children!

The NEW annexed law in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(d)(9) reads "has been convicted in any court of a MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence." Prior to 1996 in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 there was no (d)(9).

When this annexed law was passed, three Reno police officers were taken off the streets and put behind desks. They were made to turn over all firearms they owned as well as all firearms issued to them by the city. Not one of these officers is an ex-felon. Not one of these officers has ever been convicted of a felony. However, these officers were convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors prior to the annexed new law of the Lautenberg gun ban. You are encouraged to interview the three involved officers by contacting Sgt. Jeff Church at 775-334-2194.

My question is Senator/Congressman , was this legislation 104th CONGRESS 2d Session in clear violation of the United States Constitution when it annexed in retroactive "has been" language which unquestionably violates Constitutional strictures under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, falling under the Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law strictures in the Constitution and in violation of the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment? There is absolutely no Constitutional justification for anyone being denied his right to keep and bear arms for having committed a misdemeanor crime!

Or, was it the liberal news media that gave the presumption that anyone convicted of this misdemeanor crime, even prior to the new annexed law would lose their Second Amendment rights?

Or, is this new annexed law just being misused and abused?

Or, Is there a body of public officials in the United States which is knowingly subverting the Constitution by conspiring to deny full, unrestrained application of its letter and spirit as given to us by the Founding Fathers?

Let us agree that persons who commit misdemeanors and persons who commit felonies cannot be justly lumped together. I point once again to the fact that the Lautenberg gun ban refers to misdemeanor crimes. It does not refer to felony crimes.

Senator/ Congressman, I ask you: How is it that Congress permits itself to pass laws that are not in compliance with the supreme law of the land and not follow the Constitutional Rule of the Law?

Returning to my position on Constitutional strictures, I call your attention to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, (Powers denied to Congress): "No bills of attainder or Ex Post Facto law shall be passed." This means that no person convicted of a criminal offense before the passage of the Lautenberg gun ban can be justly punished under Lautenberg's gun ban. IN THAT, LAUTENBERG'S GUN BAN IS AN EX POST FACTO LAW!

In approving Lautenberg's gun ban, members of Congress KNEW or should have known they were overstepping their limited authority and jurisdiction when they conspired to deprive, violate and restrain our LIBERTY INTEREST in our Constitutionally-guaranteed protected right to be free from Congress imposing Ex Post Facto Laws or any LAW that is repugnant to the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison.

Sincerely,

Your name

CC: Senator

CC: Congressman

Also in support of Rep. Virgil Goode (I-VA) re-introduced a bill as H.R. 276. Copy and paste in your word processor and send it your friends and elected legislators.

In the House of Representatives, January 18th, 1790.

The House took into consideration the report of the committee to whom was referred the resolution of the Congress of the United States, of the fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, viz:

• Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That inasmuch as the Constitution of United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust; no law shall be in force or enforced in said Territory respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized; nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. In all criminal prosecution the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. No law shall be made or have force or effect in said Territory which shall require a test oath or oath to support any act of Congress or other legislative act as a qualification for any civil office or public trust, or for any employment or profession, or to serve as a juror or vote at an election, or which shall impose any tax upon or condition to the exercise of the right of suffrage by any qualified voter, or which shall restrain or prohibit the free discussion of any law or subject of legislation in the said Territory, or the free expression of opinion thereon by the people of said Territory.

Words repeat themselves as history does as it is said. When our elected legislators stray from the words as above and in its true meaning, the people from time to time must remind our elected legislators to stay within the limited contract that is imposed upon them when they take their office. When bad law is passed it is the duty of the people to redress our elected legislators to repeal such bad law. Section 658 of Public Law 104-208 domestic violence misdemeanor is bad law and needs to be repealed.

April 17, 2001, Rep. Virgil Goode ( I-VA) introduced a bill, H.R. 1455, to repeal the onerous Lautenberg gun ban which was signed into law in 1996 as part of TREASURY-POSTAL omnibus appropriation bill. This gun ban that was named after its author, the former Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Unfortunately, there is not overwhelming interest among our elected legislators to repeal this bad law.

January 8, 2003, Rep. Virgil Goode (I-VA) re-introduced a bill as H.R. 276, to repeal the said law. Again, there is not overwhelming interest among our elected legislators to repeal this bad law. Before the Lalutenberg gun ban was passed, most all states treated first offence domestic violence misdemeanor the “same” as a first offence DUI misdemeanor. I know of no one, who had been convicted of first offence DUI misdemeanor to lose their gun rights under this Lalutenberg gun ban, therefore no equal protection and it discriminates. This law should be repealed just for these facts.

“OUR MAIN AGENDA IS TO HAVE ALL GUNS BANNED: We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if we have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed if all who oppose us have been totally disarmed.”-Sarah Brady, chairman of Handgun Control Inc. to Senator Howard Metzenbaum.

Is this what our elected legislators believe in? This bad law certainly falls within Sarah Brady’s agenda.

The founding fathers new that there would be government officials such as Lautenberg that would be enacting arbitrary or vindictive legislation to subvert the Constitution for his own political and Sarah Brady’s agenda.

General George Patton said, "[R]emember that no [one] ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other [guy] die for his country." We can best serve the next generation of veterans by giving them the resources and tools they need to fight and win - and live to be honored in Veterans Day parades 50 years from now.

Is this how we honor our Veterans and the Framers intents that our elected legislators believe in the Sarah Brady's agenda?

If you have no overwhelming interest then let it be said you believe in Sarah Brady’s agenda.

If you have a overwhelming interest to support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then please support Rep. Virgil Goode (I-VA) bill H.R. 276 and restore the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Respectfully Submitted