Representative Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA 8th)
9th-term Democrat from Massachusetts.
Photo: Representative Lynch
Bio & Contact Info
Send Message
Key Bills & Votes
Letters To Leaders
· More Letters to
  Rep. Lynch

· Search All
  Letters

Letters To Leaders
All messages are published with permission of the sender. The general topic of this message is Guns/Weapons:
Subject:
Contact Your Federal Officials

To:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Rep. Stephen Lynch

February 8, 2013

 I am writing to express my concern surrounding the discussions and movement to ban or drastically restrict firearms available to US citizens is simply not responsible. Not only is it irresponsible, it violates the Second Amendment. Please remember that when you were elected, you as the “leaders” of the country took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. You are not authorized to interpret the content. That function is reserved to the Supreme Court. Permit me to provide you with the opinions of the Supreme Court.
Previously there was an “Assault Weapons” ban that expired in 2004. This mythical term was created in order to further the personal agenda of previous leaders. The basis of this previous legislation was in large part founded upon the cosmetic appearance of firearms. It had nothing to do with function. Let’s think about this for a moment. Let’s ban it simply because it looks scary. Surely there was a better argument than that. Perhaps we should ban scary looking water pistols.
Fast forward to present day. The incident in Newtown, CT was nothing short of horrific. The actions on 14 December, 2012 were evil. Recalling, an individual attempted to purchase firearms on his own accord, and was denied by the system that remains today. Therefore in order to carry out the actions, he killed his mother (crime # 1), stole firearms from her (crime # 2) and then subsequently broke into the Sandy Hook Elementary School (crime #3). There he used the illegally acquired firearms to murder innocent people.
The media abhorrently reported that the firearms used were once again those pesky “Assault Weapons.” There was no effort to correctly report available information. It was only several weeks later that officials reported that none of the murders were at the hand of a rifle. Instead pistols were used, and I am most certain that spent casings of a pistol are easily discerned by an educated individual. This begs the question as to why the facts were not corrected during early press releases. Yet the media, was incorrectly able to shape the opinion of the world.
I understand that there is the perception that one might be able to legislate against further tragedies from happening. This belief is naïve, and certainly is not going to be accomplished in short order. The perception that an “Assault Weapons” ban is back on the table. I would remind you of the point that I previously outlined in the second paragraph. Although perhaps you will disregard common sense, and I will be forced to cite laws.
You may recall United States v. Miller 307 US 174 (1939). In this case, it was argued that Mr. Miller violated the National Firearms Act of 1934 by illegally transported a short-barreled shotgun across state lines. Mr. Miller had not paid the hefty tax ($200) for registering his weapon, and was therefore violation of the law. Although his defense did not present the case to the court, a conclusion was made that a relationship could be made that Mr. Miller’s possession of the firearm could have been in the preservation of a well-regulated militia. They also concluded that the provisions National Firearms Act were unconstitutional.
You may have the opinion that Mr. Miller’s possession and citizen ownership of a firearm is not part of the militia.
By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, be- [307 U.S. 174, 181] ing a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'
Furthermore the Heller Decision of the Supreme Court affirms (United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 ) does not limit the possession of firearms to a militia. But rather limits the weapons to those used by the militia, in common use for lawful purposes. So if the National Guard is issued a selective fire M-16/ M-4, how is then legal then to ban them. Once again, that virtually all of the so called “Assault Weapons” are not selective fire. So that I may be crystal clear, these are semi-automatic without the ability to fire in the fully automatic mode.

Lastly, I will remind you that the United States is a Republic. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a Republic is: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. The law is clear on the matter related to the Second Amendment. Actions to usurp the laws of the law be it by Executive Order, or other methods are to be considered tyranny. You will recall that the founding fathers of this country fought for independence from England. I am certain that this provision was put in place so as to avoid a tyrannical government from being able to come to power.

Quincy , MA