An open letter to Rep. Gael Tarleton

I am not publishing this to show the internet how smart I am. I just want the correspondence between all myself and the representatives for my state to be public to help keep our voices a little louder.

I'll begin by showing my email to Rep Tarleton and her reply.

"Dear Representative Gael Tarleton:

My name is David. I ve been living in Washington state since 2005. I am a member of the National Guard, an active member of my community. I wanted to express my concerns about the possibility of further deterioration of our 2nd amendment rights. I am opposed to any further legislation restricting the ability of the people to legally keep and bear modern firearms. I hope you will do what you can to protect our fundamental right to self-protection.
I love living in Washington state and I plan to live here the rest of my life so long as my constitutional rights are protected. Thank you for all you do."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Her reply:

"Dear David,

Thank you for your service, and for contacting me to express your support for the rights of private citizens to keep and bear firearms. I understand that for many people this is a very personal issue. However, as a state representative,  I must take a public policy position on this issue. There is one principle that guides my approach to public policy decisions: do the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest term.

When it comes to gun rights and gun laws, I believe in adopting public policies that protect public health and safety while also protecting the individual's constitutional rights. There are many constitutional rights in our U.S. and State of Washington Constitutions: a right to privacy; a right to a quality public education; a right to free speech, due process, a jury of your peers, and an absolute freedom to exercise one's own religion as well as the freedom to not adhere to any religious beliefs.

When one individual's rights interfere with or deny another individual's rights, legislation is required to protect everyone's rights to the maximum extent possible.  I would never consider passing legislation that violated people's constitutionally guaranteed rights. And for most of this nation's history, the second amendment was not considered by the Supreme Court to provide an unlimited right to gun ownership.

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, once addressed the nature of a  'a well-regulated militia.'  He noted: "If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18-year-old persons be regulated in the use of arms, the way an automobile is regulated?"

The bills I have supported surrounding the regulation of firearms this session would not infringe on constitutional rights. Laws to prevent teenagers from obtaining rapid-fire weapons, to ban trigger modifications that make weapons even deadlier, or to allow the Washington State Patrol to destroy confiscated weapons are necessary to ensure public safety and public health.

I know that we may continue to have different beliefs on these issues, but I hope you can see these debates as good faith efforts to make all of us safer. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about this or any other issue.

Your voice in Olympia,
Gael"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My rebuttal:

Dear Representative Gael Tarleton

Thank you for your personal reply to my email. Like you said, we will likely continue to disagree on the subject. However, I would like to share my views on some of the points you brought up.

“When one individual's rights interfere with or deny another individual's rights, legislation is required to protect everyone's rights to the maximum extent possible”

One thing we can agree upon is that one’s freedom ends where another begins. The rights you listed (a right to privacy; a right to a quality public education; a right to free speech, due process, a jury of your peers, and an absolute freedom to exercise one's own religion as well as the freedom to not adhere to any religious beliefs) are in no way threatened by the right to bear arms. And I will hold you to your promise to support legislation required to protect everyone’s rights (including the right to bear arms) to the “maximum extent possible”

“I believe in adopting public policies that protect public health and safety while also protecting the individual's constitutional rights.”

Okay then you should support private gun ownership and enforce laws that are already in existence. Supporting responsible firearm ownership achieves both goals by allowing people to protect themselves while keeping their constitutional rights.

“And for most of this nation's history, the second amendment was not considered by the Supreme Court to provide an unlimited right to gun ownership.”

On the contrary, the 2^nd amendment was created affirming the right of private citizens to own “arms.” Typically, “arms” are used to describe military level weaponry. This can be demonstrated in the letters of marque and reprisal from James Madison in the 1700’s for private sailors to have cannons. If the authors of the 2^nd amendment had intended private citizens to have the cutting of weapons technology for their time, I’m sure they would have no issue with the people having weaponry that is technologically inferior to the military. The intention of the 2^nd amendment was very clear by James Madison, the co-author of the 2^nd Amendment. “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

The very phrase “shall not be infringed” means there should be no limitation or restriction put on that right. No further explanation is needed.

There instances in history where gun ownership has been restricted actually the exception.The national firearms act of 1934 and “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” of 1994 are the only instances of legislation that broadly restricts firearm ownership. Again, these acts restricted, not banned, certain types of weapons. Private citizens may still own restricted items with a 200 dollars fee and semi-automatic rifles could still be owned if they were manufactured before the “assault weapons ban” was passed. Here’s the real take away. Neither of these acts had any measurable effect on deaths by firearms.

“The bills I have supported surrounding the regulation of firearms this session would not infringe on constitutional rights. Laws to prevent teenagers from obtaining rapid-fire weapons, to ban trigger modifications that make weapons even deadlier, or to allow the Washington State Patrol to destroy confiscated weapons are necessary to ensure public safety and public health.”

Let’s get real for a minute. “rapid-fire weapons” is just a scary way to say modern rifle. When one thinks of a “rapid-fire weapon” they think of a M-240B machine gun or some other Hollywood rubbish. You are talking about keeping legal adults from owning a modern rifles under the presumption that because of their age, they cannot possible handle them responsibly. I am in acquaintance with many “teenagers” who have operated actual military grade weapons in defense of our country. I myself have operated crew served, belt fed machine guns. If the young men and women of our military can responsibly handle military grade weapons, the law abiding young men and women of this country can handle a modern sporting rifle (not rapid fire). This is not a question of age, it’s a question of responsibility and proper education. Let’s further dissect this idea of “rapid-fire weapons.” You are referring to autoloading or semi-automatic firearms, that is, a firearm that discharges one projectile per pull of the trigger. With the exception of pump action shotguns, antique firearms, and bolt action hunting rifles, virtually ALL firearms operate this way including revolvers (1 projectile per pull of the trigger). So when you talk about taking away “rapid-fire weapons” you are talking about a major infringement of the 2^nd amendment.

When you talk about trigger modifications I assume you’re talking about bump fire stocks because all other modifications (like the binary trigger) are already illegal in this state. I’ll assume that many people are simply ignorant to the fact that bump firing is a technique and a special attachment is not required to do it. Watch this video for demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64. Banning private ownership of an item like this is not only a prime example of government overreach into the private lives of citizens, but completely pointless. As for your claim about these restrictive measures being “necessary to ensure public safety” you are making a false assumption that these restrictions would make the public safer. There is no evidence to support that assumption and measures taken to do this in the past had no measurable effect on public safety.

You are supporting legislation and ideology that is harmful to the liberty and safety of your constituency. You are falsely assuming that a ban on modern rifles is a way to prevent violence and mass shootings when statistics are not on your side. You are implying that the government has the right to alter what freedoms the people have, and if that’s the case, the people have no freedom at all. This is exactly why the 2^nd amendment was written in the first place.