Saturday, October 28, 2000 1:47 PM
Subject: Sent to Friends of Geo. Allen via FAX

The Honorable George Allen, US Senate Candidate, Richmond VA

Dear Governor Allen,

Thank you for refunding my campaign contribution. Thank you also for your letter, in which you discuss what your current Second Amendment position is.

Actually, the letter contained no surprises to me, though it gives me the opportunity to address your position in some detail, and to explain why I have concluded that you don't intend to protect my Civil Rights.

In your letter, you say, ".I have always been a strong supporter of these rights", and that, "this has not changed." While I will grant that your previous record is excellent, and that you were indeed an excellent defender of Virginians' Civil Rights, I do believe though, that this HAS changed.

When you say, "I believe that law-abiding citizens have a Constitutional right to own firearms for sport, collecting and personal safety", you list three supporting reasons for this right, but you have left out the only reason listed in the Second Amendment itself, which is the clause about the Militia!

Since you are a lawyer, I will assume that you understand this, and choose your words carefully. And so it seems you have chosen words that exclude the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, and at the same time justify your support of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban". Assault rifles are perfectly suited to use in the Militia.. I have therefore concluded that you are aware that the ban is unconstitutional, but that you will support it anyway, instead of protecting my Civil Rights.

So you say that supporting the ban on so-called assault weapons is consistent with your desire to enforce existing laws, but at the same time, you say that you will support your constituents' Second Amendment Civil Rights. Which is it? These two statements are diametrically opposed!

In your letter you say that you will strongly oppose S.2009 which seeks to register and tax all guns, at a minimum. How am I to regard this promise? That bill is still in the Finance committee, where Chuck Robb, of all people, is vigorously opposing its inclusion in anything that is sent to the Senate floor for debate. The fact that you volunteer to oppose something that has no chance of passing is meaningless. I can only regard the fact that you chose this bill to oppose instead of something like the Juvenile Justice bill, as disappointing. This is further evidence that you do not intend to support your constituents' Second Amendment Civil Rights.

These things, combined with the fact that you broke your explicit promise to oppose the so-called assault weapons ban, (on the GOA questionnaire), give me ample evidence to conclude that you were not honest, and that you do not intend support your constituents' Second Amendment Civil Rights. This is why I asked for my campaign contribution back.

Regards,

R. Scott Mallonee (electronic mail, November 1, 2000).