View Full Version : Sent this to the whitehouse.gov site.

12-22-2012, 12:40 AM
probably should have consulted you all first, but I did my best to be accurate and provide solutions which if anything are better than what we face here already. So, flame away, I have a firesuit on.

ETA damn.. 2 typos and counting :facepalm:

Firstly, I would like to thank you for having an open forum. It means a lot to me personally as a gun owner to be able to speak when it seems as if the whole nation is up in arms against us.
The first issue I would like to address is the matter of wait periods. As a citizen of CA, we have a 10 day wait period for firearms. This is both good and bad. Obviously it helps to delay and deter a person who is up to no good. The problem lies with the fact that it also hurts those of us who have already passed our background checks, and previously purchased firearms. I don't mind paying the DROS tax per transaction, but having to wait each time I want to make a purchase makes no sense, if I already legally own a gun.
My suggestion is that if any national wait period is implemented, that it only be for first time buyers, and those with subsequent arrests for certain types of offenses since purchasing their last firearm.
Secondly, I would like to address the issue of magazine capacity. Instead of hurting recreational shooters by limiting magazine capacity, why not require a background check for magazines not purchased with a legal firearm (which already requires a background check)? This will not hinder shooters with legal intents, but will restrict non eligible persons from buying magazines. While I would obviously love to purchase magazines without this hassle, I would prefer the hassle of a background check, to the hassle of reloading countless times, and having magazine capacity restrictions.
Thirdly, I would like to address the class of firearms which have come to be known as "assault weapons." It is a common misconception that semi automatic AR-15s, and AK-47s are somehow more dangerous than other weapons. They are often portrayed as if they shoot more rapidly, have more powerful bullets, longer range, or more capacity than other weapons, because our and other military groups carry similar weapons. They look "scary" so to speak. The truth is that while these are very functional weapons and each feature has a purpose, it does not making any more dangerous than any other rifle.

In fact neither the 7.62x39 round (one of the common chambers for the AK-47) or the .223/556 round (most common chamber for the AR-15 platform, and the primary round used by our military) are even near the top of the spectrum as far as effectiveness. The reasons that our military use it (to the best of my research) are that it is potent enough to render enemy soldiers unable to fight, it has a good medium range capability, and it is cost effective. The .223/5.56 is a 22 caliber bullet, about the 3rd smallest in common use, next to the .22LR, and .177. The 7.62x39, while it is a slightly larger round, is comparable in ballistics to a 30/30, and has half the effective range of the 5.56, and only marginally higher stopping power.
To claim that the AR/AK platforms are more deadly based on ammunition is simply erroneous. Most if not all “classic looking” hunting rifles, both bolt action and semi automatic, fire larger, more powerful, more accurate, longer distance projectiles.

The '94-'04 ban both focused on a set of ergonomic features, which have nothing to do with lethality. I have already addressed magazine capacity, so I will not redress it here.

The term “flash hider” is a misnomer. It does not hide the flash, but rather dissipates it slightly, so that the shooter is not blinded in a dark/semi dark environment, such as an indoor range, or outdoor range at night. It is if anything, a safety feature to allow the shooter to see what he/she is aiming at, and whether a shot was successful.

A bayonet lug allows a bayonet to be attached to the muzzle of a weapon. I haven't heard of anyone stabbing someone with a mounted bayonet recently, and the fact is that swords (which I do not believe should be banned) are just as/more dangerous than a bayonet, mounted or no.

The grenade launcher referred to is a muzzle mounted grenade which was designed to fire a now obsolete, and already illegal (per destructive device regulations) grenade which would be inserted down the barrel, and mounted to the muzzle before fired via the rifle's firing pin. As I stated, these are obsolete, illegal, and incredibly rare, rendering such legislation entirely useless.

A pistol grip is an ergonomic feature which allows a more comfortable and natural grip on the rifle, which in turn provides more control. It in no way makes the rifle more deadly than nay other grip, and so legislation against this serves no purpose other than as a detriment to shooters wrists and pocketbooks.

A “collapsible/telescoping stock” primarily refers to the stock of an AR015 or other tactical weapon which is adjustable for different shooters. For example, if I have longer arms than my spouse, and wish to pass the gun to her at the range, it would be safer, and more comfortable for her to shorten the length of pull before attempting to fire the weapon. Since there are already minimum length requirements while a gun is in a fire-able configuration, restricting adjustable stocks is not only redundant, but harmful to ergonomics.

None of these features produce a more deadly weapon, but oftentimes, because a firearm looks “scary”, or resembles a fully automatic class 3 assault weapon, people jump to conclusions about how powerful it must be, and assert that it must be banned. These are all ergonomic /safety features, or obsolete “Feel Good” legislation. I urge the council to consider this as they draft their legislation.

In addition, I challenge anyone on the council to reconsider suppressors. These devices are often portrayed as making firearms to be near silent, and produce a high pitched “pew” sound, rather than a deafening gunshot. This is the fictional portrayal of Hollywood effects, and no suppressor makes this sound. Rather, the goal of a suppressor is to protect the hearing of a hunter or other shooter without requiring ear protection, by reducing the Db value to less than 144. Hunters need to be able to hear both predators and prey for their safety, and thus wearing hearing protection jeopardizes their safety. The ability to use a suppressor does not make the sound inaudible, but rather makes it just safe enough to use without ear protection. If the NFA status were overturned, it would not bring about hundreds or thousands of assassins silently eliminating targets.

Finally, the topic of non-violent felons. There are many offenses which bring about a felony conviction in the united states. While I condone NONE of these, I do believe that not all of them deserve a ban on firearm ownership. If a felony is non-violent in nature, I do not see why such a person should be rendered permanently unable to defend themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights. Please also bring this matter before the President.

I would like to restate how grateful I am to this council for taking the time to look at both sides before making these important decisions.

God bless you all, and this Great Nation we live in.

-Alexander Leslie.

12-22-2012, 2:29 PM
The problem I see with the mandatory waiting period is not the inconvenience to experienced gun owners, but rather the danger it places on someone who is purchasing a firearm, possibly their first, because of a substantial threat.

A perfect example is a woman who has been threatened by an ex-boyfriend or husband.

I understand the concern about someone, in the heat of the moment, purchasing a firearm and committing murderous mayhem. I'm not sure if that ever really happens, but if we are to accept waiting periods, we should have at least an exception for people who can demonstrate a genuine fear of imminent danger.

12-22-2012, 3:00 PM
A perfect example is a woman who has been threatened by an ex-boyfriend or husband.

If I recall correctly, that exact scenario happened in CA and the woman was killed during her waiting period. I'll try to find it.

And background checks to buy magazines? F that. I'm not paying an extra $25 to buy a $20 magazine.

12-22-2012, 11:04 PM
I don't think it was all that bad, but honestly I doubt that they will even read it. I'm guessing they already know what they want, and no matter what you say they're going to stick to their agenda. Hope I'm wrong.

No, unfortunately you're right on.