In 1994, I had been out of federal law enforcement for several years and was working for the NRA's ad agency. For those old enough to remember, 1993 - 1994 were some of the more turbulent years for gun owners, ranging from the Brady Bill to the Assault Weapons Ban to the Clarence Thomas hearings (an ardent pro-gun Second Amendment supporter, by the way) to FBI Filegate.
We had just endured the tragedy at Waco. Lest anyone think otherwise, it is my professional opinion that mistakes were made on both sides. One of the ATF agents that was killed . . . I worked with his wife quite a bit when we were doing undercover work. I was a groomsman at their wedding. I did not like ATF then and I do not like it now, but losing a friend always hurts.
Prior to Waco, we saw the absolute travesty of justice that is now known as the Incident at Ruby Ridge (Idaho). I knew agents from both FBI and US Marshals Service who were involved in that utter fiasco, and to this day, they maintain it was a fiasco. Again, mistakes were made on both sides, but during all the years I wore a badge with an eagle on it, nowhere did our Rules of Engagement ever, ever, ever allow us to even think about shooting an unarmed woman in the face--especially a woman who was holding a child.
Ruby Ridge happened under one administration, Waco happened under another. The common denominator is that government was involved in both situations, the Tenth Amendment was trampled by the feds in both situations, and the result was that thanks to cable TV, more people in more locations than ever before were able to literally watch events as they unfolded--often times listening to the live feed as it occurred.
So what does this have to do with me getting a letter from (then) President Bill Clinton?
I had proposed a series of ads and direct mail pieces for the NRA in which we signaled that both of the above mentioned incidents illustrated the incredible power the federal government had at its fingertips--and more importantly, what could happen when that power had no "checks and balances."
I pointed out that the Second Amendment was not about hunting. It was not about sporting events. It was not even about self-defense.
It was about ensuring that the Government be FORCED to trust the citizenry because the citizeny's right to keep and bear arms was THE only "check and balance" in which the Government would have to answer to, lest its power to trample other rights become too great.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was spinning these events as "proof positive" that "ordinary citizens didn't
need such weaponry, or access to such weaponry.
Again, for those of you who remember, the Clinton adminstration were the masters of spin. I say that with some disgust, but with even more professional admiration. I'm married to a retired PR executive who spun things for the merger between GTE and Bell Atlantic, which gave us Verizon. I wrote enough spin in the form of "new and improved" advertising crap to know true professional spin when I see it.
The Clinton adminstration was the best we've ever seen in that respect.
The (NRA) agency began responding to this spin, and with me being the ex-cop and ex-military guy, I took some different angles and approaches. I took one angle which infuriated the (Clinton) administration, supposedly, we heard, all the way up to both Hillary and Bill.
It infuriated them so that we received a protest letter written by Dick Morris. I responded back to Bill Clinton with a letter of my own in which I gave him all the specifics he and his CoS could ask for: My military dates, including operations and missions, awards, medals and commendations, my civilian service with an agency with DoD and finally my federal law enforcement background, experience and accomplishments.
In my letter to the President, in the first paragraph I asked for a truce on the war of words that had been flying back and forth. I asked for a reasonable, intelligent look--rather than an emotional look or a look based upon poll results--at the Second Amendment, the weapons the administration was targeting, and the facts.
The point of my letter was to enforce existing laws and target existing criminals rather than creating news law which will only create new criminals who will not or who will refuse to comply with the "bans" that were being proposed and passed at the time.
The letter I am posting a scan of here (less my confidential information) was handtyped and hand-signed. And even though it was (supposedly) dictated by the President himself, it still stinks of the hyperbole and catch-all, generic, feel-good, "canned responses" that ALL politicians have become famous for.
And for what it's worth, my wife and I were audited by the IRS for the next three years, consecutively, until we filed in U.S. District Court for injunctive relief.
Folks, please think about all of this as we come into this time to decide who we either put into office or who we keep out of office or who we kick out of office.
This probably should've gone into the "Legal & Political" area, but I gave my word to TheBluesMan that I would stay away from that area of the forum--it normally raises my blood pressure too high and has me saying and acting in manners that I normally would never do.
But I just found this letter last night while going through some of my reloading files. It brought back a flood of memories, and I felt it important enough to share here.
Jeff
