SlashedMeHips86
NES Member
Seeing the new bills proposed by https://malegislature.gov/Legislators/Profile/DPL1/192 David Paul Linsky
Here is what is emailed to him. Feel free to copy and paste. It’s up to us to preserve what little freedom we have left. Sorry it’s a tad long winded.
Mr. Linsky,
I just wanted to let you know that I feel strongly discouraged to see the language in bill HD.135. Eliminating private transfers puts unnecessary limitations on lawful transfers, and undermines the ability to procure used firearms at more affordable rates. Increasing expenses and mandating fees only makes lawfully purchasing a firearm that much more difficult. There are already laws prohibiting the unlawful sale of firearms to unlicensed or unauthorized persons with steep penalties. Private sales have been in practice for a very long time, and hardly present any real problem in terms of gun violence and crime.
Proposed bill HD.136, essentially requiring firearms owners to obtain liability insurance, is a direct violation of what is an already protected right, and a gross misrepresentation of how the majority of firearms owners see this proposition. There’s no doubt our second amendment is under attack, and these laws, bills and other directives only make it more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to exercise their right to self protection. I’d like to know how enacting this bill will actually reduce crime, cull violence and incur accountability to those who violate the hundreds of laws that are already on the books. Are these more “feel good,” knee-jerk reaction measures, or do you have solid compelling evidence that enacting something like this will reduce crime and gun violence? If so, please share.
Please take into consideration the populations that you are representing, and how these proposals will negatively impact the majority.
Sincerely,
Your Name Here
Here is what is emailed to him. Feel free to copy and paste. It’s up to us to preserve what little freedom we have left. Sorry it’s a tad long winded.
Mr. Linsky,
I just wanted to let you know that I feel strongly discouraged to see the language in bill HD.135. Eliminating private transfers puts unnecessary limitations on lawful transfers, and undermines the ability to procure used firearms at more affordable rates. Increasing expenses and mandating fees only makes lawfully purchasing a firearm that much more difficult. There are already laws prohibiting the unlawful sale of firearms to unlicensed or unauthorized persons with steep penalties. Private sales have been in practice for a very long time, and hardly present any real problem in terms of gun violence and crime.
Proposed bill HD.136, essentially requiring firearms owners to obtain liability insurance, is a direct violation of what is an already protected right, and a gross misrepresentation of how the majority of firearms owners see this proposition. There’s no doubt our second amendment is under attack, and these laws, bills and other directives only make it more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to exercise their right to self protection. I’d like to know how enacting this bill will actually reduce crime, cull violence and incur accountability to those who violate the hundreds of laws that are already on the books. Are these more “feel good,” knee-jerk reaction measures, or do you have solid compelling evidence that enacting something like this will reduce crime and gun violence? If so, please share.
Please take into consideration the populations that you are representing, and how these proposals will negatively impact the majority.
Sincerely,
Your Name Here