Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester

It has come to my attention that HR 127 has been gaining traction in the House, and as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of the State of Delaware, First State of the Union, I would like to voice my issues and concerns with the resolution and ask you to please vote AGAINST this bill.

Firstly, my understanding is that HR 127 will require gun owners to report all owned guns with Make, Model and Serial Number to the government, as well as where they are kept in their homes. All of this information will then be put into a database that is searchable by the general public. Of course, there are major personal safety concerns that arise from such information being made public. For example, the city of Wilmington where I live - which you've represented for years, by the way - has a Crime Index of 1 out of 100 (100 being the best), and 3,690 property crimes a year. Wilmington is a city in which my likelihood of being the victim of a property crime is 1 out of 19 (https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/de/wilmington/crime), which is horrifying in and of itself. Add to it the fact that now, any individual who was staking out my house for a break in would know exactly which types and what kinds of guns I may or may not have in my house, by simply searching it online. If I were a gun owner, this legislation would make protecting myself, my family and my property extremely difficult. It would also be a complete violation of my right to privacy as a United States Citizen. I hope for this reason alone, you will not support HR 127.

Secondly, this bill would require a citizen to apply for a license to have any gun. To acquire this license, one must be 21 years old, pass a background check, pass a psych evaluation, pay for 24 hours of training, AND purchase an "insurance policy" form the government at around $800 per year. The last two elements of the licensure being extremely expensive for the average citizen of Wilmington - again, your city - notwithstanding, limiting gun ownership to citizens over 21 years old is a direct and obvious infringement on the rights of all individuals between 18 and 20 years of age. As you very well know, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As an infringement is a limitation according to the Oxford Dictionary, limiting the ownership of guns to citizens of a certain age would qualify as an infringement.

Now I do agree that a criminal background check and even psych evaluation are considerably reasonable, and I would say they are fair. Age restrictions and mandatory (but more importantly arbitrary) financial obligations are not fair, however, and for this reason, HR 127 should be shot down. Pun intended.

Third, if an individual was evaluated to be mentally unfit, has ever in their life been diagnosed with depression, has ever had any brain disease of any kind, was determined to have an "alcohol problem" by the examiners, or if an ex-lover or scorned family member spoke against the individual to the evaluators, that individual would be denied the license. But my question is what are the parameters of integrity that bind the evaluators? How stringent and accurate is the testing? Is there any legitimate testing at all? What if a person was diagnosed with depression at a very young age and has not experienced depression since? What if a person was incorrectly diagnosed with depression in the past? What if a person was born with a brain disease that was cured? What if the person's brain disease was completely physical and had no effect on their mental, emotional or psychological health? What if the examiners had any bias towards the person, or their race, or their gender, or some combination of other factors? What if an examiner called an ex-lover with very strong hatred for an individual who made up lies about them? Would the examiner fact check, or just take their word? There are clearly too many open ends in this bill that cannot be addressed, and for that reason you must vote against it.

Fourth, this bill dictates that for "Military Style" weapons, individuals would need a separate permit for ownership. Also, that magazines would be limited to only 10 rounds. As we've already agreed, permits, licensure and limitations are infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, but a separate permit for separate types of weapons, and a limit on the number of rounds that can be owned are extreme infringements and derelictions of Constitutional Integrity. I know you have integrity and great regard for the Bill of Rights, and for these reason, you must vote against HR 127 to maintain your integrity.

I could say more, but I believe this message is long enough and in that light, I'll conclude with this. I expect that a person who has such high regard for the US Constitution and the rights that you've sworn to protect as a Representative of the citizens of Delaware, would already be planning to vote against HR 127. It wouldn't even be a question, or up for debate, if you or any Representative was following the Constitution. But for some reason, and it may be the wave of party-line politics that has been eroding our great institutions for years, I felt that it is my duty as a law-abiding, tax-paying, regularly voting citizen and patriot of this great country to remind you that we do indeed have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and that Congress may make NO LAWS that infringe upon it. HR 127 does infringe on this right in more ways than one, and for this reason, I implore you to vote against HR 127.

Thank you.

(name omitted) Wilmington DE