One of our state representatives in the area, Steve Santarsiero, has proposed the state completely outlaw “military-style” weapons. My response can be found in the comments below, but I thought I’d reproduce it here:
I live just outside your district, but I know many gun owners who are constituents. Like you, we were shocked and horrified by what happened last Friday, and many of us are still trying to come to terms with the magnitude of evil we saw on display. We are friends, neighbors, and parents, and our hearts go out to the people in Connecticut, as we cannot imagine what they must be going through. But the politicization of this act, and the scapegoating of lawful gun owners only makes this pain more difficult for us. Instead of grieving along with the nation, we’re told we should feel shame. We’re told we should surrender our rights. I do not understand how any member of the Pennsylvania Legislature proposes to ban millions of commonly-owned rifles, when, according to Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, Pennsylvania has reported ZERO mental health records to the federal background check system. As you may know, true military weapons, those that are capable of fully automatic fire, have been heavily restricted for civilian use for sometime. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s our mental health system. The de-institutionalization of dangerously mentally ill persons has not only failed society, but failed the mentally ill, many of whom often become homeless, or end up in the prison system. Gun owners are willing to talk about solutions, but we want to see solutions that have a prayer of working. Connecticut is one of the small handful of states that already bans the kind of guns you propose outlawing. It is ranked number five in the nation by the Brady Campaign for having strict gun laws. Those laws failed to protect those children. Perhaps getting the mentally ill the help they need would actually help to enhance public safety.
Feel free to use this as a template in your dealings with lawmakers. I think it’s important to humanize ourselves first, and then propose solutions. We’re not going to be able to depend on the Second Amendment and constitutional arguments to win this one. When the chips are down, no one except us really cares about Constitutional rights, and those arguments never win.
We have to win by counter proposals that deflect attention away from guns, and into areas, that, quite frankly, may actually have a prayer of making a difference. Something will be done, and we’re going to have to work very hard to ensure that the “something” is not more feel-good laws that have no prayer of actually working, and only will lead to a new round of restrictions at the next horrific shooting.
