PDA

View Full Version : My letter to Jeff Amador


6172crew
08-06-2006, 6:53 PM
Im going to start this off and post my "work in progress" letter for all of you to beat up. I know it needs to be shorter and more to the point, I wrote using the only writing format I know how, .mil:cool:

Anyhow, let me and my letter have it!

To: Jeff Amador, Dept of Justice Firearms Division
From: 6172crew
Subj: Notice and Comment regarding semi-auto rifles Aug16, 2006

Mr Amador as a firearms owner I am opposed to the new definition of a assault rilfe. I am concerned that the change will be contrary to the legislative intent and will not clarify what the DOJ has already been guiding firearm owners and law enforcement on "assault weapons" laws.

The tools given to your department haven’t been used. I suggest opening a registration period to help me or any other Californian firearm owners stay within all the ruling to date. Further court time in this matter will cost taxpayers more than they can already afford and which has already been law for 5+ years.

If the Director of the Firearms Division continues down the path of changing the current ruling then I might suggest the Department tell us how this will affect the other hundreds of rifles that can be made into a semi-auto detachable magazine fed rifles from what are perfectly legal rifles today, these rifles might include a M1 Garand with a detachable magazine kit, the California legal SKS which can be made into a assault weapon but is legal today to buy.

If the SKS with the swing down type magazine is going to be a future assault weapon in the departments new ruling are they going to open a registration period for those rifles as well as the AR15s that are currently using a magazine catch that requires a tool to remove?

Respectfully submitted,
6172crew

SemiAutoSam
08-06-2006, 7:22 PM
That looks just about perfect. short and sweet and too the point.

Way to go 6172Crew

Satex
08-06-2006, 7:50 PM
Since they probably keep count of pro/con letters. I would state explicitly that I am opposed to the proposed rulemaking. I also stated it both at the start and end of the letter so there is no misunderstanding.

HUTCH 7.62
08-06-2006, 8:58 PM
I like the part where you mention SKS swing down mags

crzpete
08-06-2006, 9:51 PM
Since they probably keep count of pro/con letters. I would state explicitly that I am opposed to the proposed rulemaking. I also stated it both at the start and end of the letter so there is no misunderstanding.

That’s exactly what I did with my letter. I started with “ I oppose to this” so that if they do not have the time to read the entire letter then they now they have a “NO GO” on my part from the start.

Fate
08-06-2006, 10:31 PM
Third paragraph...change "effect" to "affect." ;)

chris
08-07-2006, 4:48 AM
very nice letter and to the point. well done

6172crew
08-07-2006, 5:33 AM
Thnaks guys, proper changes made.

Chris you should post your letter, it looks good to me but both of us arent S1 so Im sure they both could use help.:D

anotherted
08-07-2006, 7:19 AM
A little constructive criticism: Watch out for run-on sentences/comma splices.
Otherwise the letter looks great.

PanzerAce
08-07-2006, 7:25 AM
in the first line, rilfe should be rifle

:D

6172crew
08-07-2006, 7:28 AM
A little constructive criticism: Watch out for run-on sentences/comma splices.
Otherwise the letter looks great.
You will have to be specific:) A PM will keep me honest and a post here will keep me humble.:D

Its totally cool to point out my screwups and is why I posted it out in the open.;)

BTW I have abnother one Im working on right now but this one will be a Calguns effort and anyone here should feel free to copy/paste what you need to make your own. Id rather see more letters sent to the DOJ and if my letter can help cut the grease then so be it.

ibbryn
08-07-2006, 11:06 AM
Fixed some run-ons for you.....


Mr Amador as a firearms owner I am opposed to the new definition of an assault rifle. I am concerned that the change will be contrary to the legislative intent. The change will not clarify misleading advice the DOJ has already given firearm owners and law enforcement regarding "assault weapons" laws.

The tools given to your department to enforce the assault weapon ban haven’t been used by you though they have been available to you for 5+ years. I suggest opening a registration period to help me or any other Californian firearm owners stay in compliance with the law. Any further court time in this matter will cost taxpayers more than they can already afford.

If the Director of the Firearms Division continues down the path of changing the current ruling then I might suggest the Department tell us how this will effect the other hundreds of rifles that can be made into a semi-auto detachable magazine fed rifles from what are perfectly legal rifles today. These rifles might include a M1 Garand with a detachable magazine kit or the California legal SKS which can be made into an assault weapon but which is legal today to buy.

If the SKS with the swing down type magazine is going to be a future assault weapon in the department’s new ruling are they going to open a registration period for those rifles as well as the AR15s that are currently using a magazine catch that requires a tool to remove?


Good job and good initiative! Short and sweet, yet hints at the can of worms they are opening.

6172crew
08-07-2006, 11:08 AM
Crew, re the runon sentences --
Para 1 can be 3 seperate sentences. Just add periods into what you have.
Para 2 also can be 3
Para 3 can be 2
Para 4 works as one long sentence.

Good job! Short and sweet, yet hints at the can of worms they are opening.

Ill be damned if I can find another spot for a third period in the first paragraph, but I think I got the rest of it cleared up. Thanks Brian!:)

tman
08-07-2006, 6:22 PM
Im going to start this off and post my "work in progress" letter for all of you to beat up. I know it needs to be shorter and more to the point, I wrote using the only writing format I know how, .mil:cool:

Anyhow, let me and my letter have it!

To: Jeff Amador, Dept of Justice Firearms Division
From: 6172crew
Subj: Notice and Comment regarding semi-auto rifles Aug16, 2006

Mr Amador as a firearms owner I am opposed to the new definition of a assault rilfe. I am concerned that the change will be contrary to the legislative intent and will not clarify what the DOJ has already been guiding firearm owners and law enforcement on "assault weapons" laws.

The tools given to your department haven’t been used. I suggest opening a registration period to help me or any other Californian firearm owners stay within all the ruling to date. Further court time in this matter will cost taxpayers more than they can already afford and which has already been law for 5+ years.

If the Director of the Firearms Division continues down the path of changing the current ruling then I might suggest the Department tell us how this will affect the other hundreds of rifles that can be made into a semi-auto detachable magazine fed rifles from what are perfectly legal rifles today, these rifles might include a M1 Garand with a detachable magazine kit, the California legal SKS which can be made into a assault weapon but is legal today to buy.

If the SKS with the swing down type magazine is going to be a future assault weapon in the departments new ruling are they going to open a registration period for those rifles as well as the AR15s that are currently using a magazine catch that requires a tool to remove?

Respectfully submitted,
6172crew


"Hmmm... Good letter, I suppose he does make some good points... But who the heck is six one seven two crew?"

6172crew
08-07-2006, 6:29 PM
"Hmmm... Good letter, I suppose he does make some good points... But who the heck is six one seven two crew?"

6172 is a Marine MOS for a crewchief for a CH46E helicopter.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/marineenjobs/bl6172.htm

Im just not ready to post my last name on the net just yet.

Chris;)

thmpr
08-07-2006, 8:44 PM
My letter will be in the lines of having a non PG configuration since it does affect going that route. I do not want a fixed magazine thus it will interfere with my right to have this configuration.

6172crew
08-08-2006, 5:31 AM
My letter will be in the lines of having a non PG configuration since it does affect going that route. I do not want a fixed magazine thus it will interfere with my right to have this configuration.

I dont think your concern is what is going to be addressed at this meeting and the only way they will be able to stop that one is with AB2728.

You can call up today and the DOJ will tell you your PG-less setup is good to go as far as I know.

6172crew
08-09-2006, 5:06 AM
Here is another version of my letter, Ohsmilly :) had a look at mine and came up with a better setup. Once again feel free to take what you need to make a letter of your own.

To: Jeff Amador, Department of Justice Firearms Division
From: 6172crew
Subj: Notice and Comment regarding semi-auto rifles Aug16, 2006

Dear Mr. Amador:

As a firearms owner, I am opposed to the new definition of what constitutes an “assault rifle”. I am concerned that the change will run contrary to the original legislative intent, will not clarify the Department of Justice’s policy on enforcement and is counter to the previous definitions.

The authority and procedures granted to your department have not been used. In order to remedy the current quagmire of conflicting definitions, legislation, and enforcement, I suggest opening a registration period to enable law-abiding gun owners to stay within the law and create a class of assault weapons to stop more firearms from coming into the state that can potentially open a gun owner to criminal liability for extremely minor modifications. Any judicial proceedings regarding this matter will simply bog the court down with the complex issue of what is or is not an assault weapon. This will be an inefficient use of taxpayer money and will not bring about a favorable outcome for either side of the issue.

If the Director of the Firearms Division continues down the path to alter the current definition of what constitutes a “detachable magazine”, then I believe it would be necessary to inform myself and other concerned gun owners how it will affect the vast number of other rifle models that will be affected by the definition change. These rifles include, but are not limited to, the M1 Garand and the California legal SKS. Both of these rifles have fixed magazines in their original factory configuration. However, with the mere change of a few parts, they can be converted to detachable magazine configuration. If the proposed definition change takes effect, these rifles, with fixed magazines, could become assault weapons depending on what features they are configured with because the fixed magazine will be seen as a detachable magazine as per the definition.

If the SKS with the swing down type magazine is transformed into an assault weapon per the definition, then it seems it would necessitate the opening of a registration period to allow previously legal rifles, which have become AW’s, to be registered.

In conclusion, it is important to note that the proposed definition change will implicate many other rifle models which will only serve to further confuse the issue in an already nebulous area of the law and possibly create a whole new group of assault weapons.

Respectfully submitted,
6172crew

ohsmily
08-09-2006, 7:08 AM
If the SKS with the swing down type magazine is [b]will be transformed into an assault weapon per the definition, then it seems it would necessitate the opening of a registration period to allow previously legal rifles, which have become AW’s, to be registered.


Strike out the WILL BE...

C.G.
08-09-2006, 8:22 AM
I like it!:)