Probably among the most pressing item, to them and Obama, are the upcoming automatic budget cuts. The cuts represent a 2% cut across the board, $85 billion. That amount is nearly negligible. It equates to two trips to Starbucks a week for a family making $50k a year. It still leaves almost $1 trillion in deficit, for the year, to be contended with. In any deal to avoid cuts to various special projects that GOP congress members may attempt will come demands to raise taxes and demands to raise the federally mandated minimum wage to $9 an hour. Either of these two measures will just cause further harm to our already limping economy. Combined, they will send us further into recession if not bring about another depression. Then again, this is what socialists want. A depressed economy lubricates the weak-minded into welcoming more government intrusion into their lives.
In the grand scheme of things, the sequester cuts are best left untouched. They will sting, like getting a Vitamin-B shot. However, the benefits will outweigh that little discomfort in the long run.
Call your Representatives and Senators. Tell them to leave the sequestration alone. Tell them to hold fast on the federal debt limit. Tell them to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment and to pass a budget. A huge part of the country's current economic problems is that there has been no federal budget in over 4 years.
The second issue of concern revolves around the knee-jerk reactions to that horrible and devastating act of evil Adam Lanza committed at Sandy Hook Elementary.
If you do some objective research, you'll find that evidence weighs heavier against any stricter gun control laws or infringements of the Second Amendment.
Limiting the capacity of magazines will just lead to criminals carrying more magazines.
An "assault rifle", by definition, is one that is capable of firing multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. M-4s and M-16s are capable of firing 3-round bursts with a single pull. AR-15s are not. They may look mean. Dressed in picatinny rails, they may look intimidating, especially since flashlights and laser sights can be mounted to them. That makes them more accurate and more safe, since there is less chance of collateral damage. But they are not "assault rifles".
Universal background checks sound good on paper. However, they will require increased manpower and more government employees. The government is broke. They are looking to furlough employees. How will this be paid for? Which party in a private to private individual transfer will be responsible? If you wish to sell a used television in a garage sale, you don't have to jump through red tape. Television ownership and usage are not directly protected by a constitutional amendment. Firearms are.
With these background checks there are also questions concerning individual privacy. Things that some want included in these checks are things that are protected information. HIPPA laws actual forbid the sharing of that information to include NCIC/NAC databases.
Then there is the whole issue of the Fourth Amendment to consider. It takes an order from a judge to restrict/revoke/suspend somebody's Second Amendment rights. That power should never be given to physicians or psychiatrists. It is what objective justices are for. Our constitution was set up that way on purpose.
Another issue revolves around the idea of national level gun buy-back programs. Studies indicate that it requires 65,000 guns to save one life from a violent crime or accidental death. Many people use the buyback programs to finance an upgrade to the gun they sell to the government. So, the numbers taken "off the streets" are, in reality, much lower than claimed.
The latest rumors are that officials in the executive branch as well as some members of congress are looking for that buyback to be mandatory, especially if an individual currently legally owns one of the firearms they propose to ban. That violates the Fourth Amendment as an illegal mass confiscation. It is also an ex post facto law, and therefore unconstitutional.
You can run the research. While you are doing so, look into various court decisions from Circuit through Supreme. Many proponents of gun control will cite the Miller decision from 1939. What they fail to state is that the court decision was one concerning taxation, not one concerning ownership of a firearm.
Write your representatives and senators. Start with facts. Then let them know where you stand on having your present and future firearms ownership decisions made by them instead of by your self. It is your decision to decide what you own or don't own, not theirs. The US Constitution says as much. The Second Amendment says as much. The Tenth Amendment bolsters it.
Reportedly, there are 20 or so fence sitters, mostly
|Sen. Max Baucus||202-224-2651|
|Sen. Mark Begich||202-224-3004|
|Sen. Susan Collins||202-224-2523|
|Sen. Joe Donnelly||202-224-4814|
|Sen. Kay Hagan||202-224-6342|
|Sen. Martin Heinrich||202-224-5521|
|Sen. Heidi Heitkamp||202-224-2043|
|Sen. Tim Johnson||202-224-5842|
|Sen. Tim Kaine||202-224-4024|
|Sen. Angus King||202-224-5344|
|Sen. Mary Landrieu||202-224-5824|
|Sen. Joe Manchin||202-224-3954|
|Sen. Claire McCaskill||202-224-6154|
|Sen. Mark Pryor||202-224-2353|
|Sen. Harry Reid||202-224-3542|
|Sen. Jeanne Shaheen||202-224-2841|
|Sen. Jon Tester||202-224-2644|
|Sen. Mark Udall||202-224-5941|
|Sen. Tom Udall||202-224-6621|
|Sen. Mark Warner||202-224-2023|