Here is what I wrote with the personal identifiers of who I am removed.

I am writing this to you as I have become aware of the pre-filed bills submitted by Representatives Rush (IL), Lee (TX) and Green (TX). The Bills are numbered HR 30, HR 121, 125, 127, 130, and HR 167. Most of these bills, at least in title, as the full text is unavailable publicly, appears to be restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

HR 30: To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.

On the surface this law may be fine, it was just included for the sake of completeness, and in order to ensure that it has at least crossed your desk and that it is on your radar. Typically, when a bill is written to “increase safety” it is most often flying in the face of the principles set forth by Benjamin Franklin when he said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

HR 121: To provide for the hiring of 200 additional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents and investigators to enforce gun laws.

At this point in history, it would be prudent to expand the rights of law-abiding citizens and shrink the ATF's enforcement division. Following a year of public outcry to defund the police, the federal police should not be exempt from that level of public scrutiny, and as such, should be defunded, and that funding, along with other agencies, should be provided to states to bolster state and local level police forces. Thus, police can still be defunded, but not severely. I would like to see the ATF enforcement division be fully halved if not quartered to meet the public demand to restrict law enforcement.

HR 125: To amend Title 18, United States Code to provide for a 7-day waiting period before a semiautomatic firearm, a silencer, armor piercing ammunition, or a large capacity magazine may be transferred.

Waiting periods have been demonstrated to be ineffective through states which have such laws. In fact, the "Charleston Loophole" was a necessary addition to existing gun laws to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms would not be indefinitely delayed by bureaucratic process. In 1957 a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was quoted as saying “A right delayed is a right denied.” This maxim held true when used in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail as “Justice delayed is justice denied,” and it holds true today, as growing numbers of people on all sides of the aisle grow impatient with misuse of resources and overuse of force by police.

HR 127: To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

This system exists in Illinois through their FOID card system, and makes it illegal for persons outside of Illinois to carry firearms or ammunition through the state, even under Peaceable Journey protections. This system also creates a de facto registry of firearm owners, which runs contrary to the 1986 FOPA. A direct comparison between the licensing of one right (keep and bear arms) may be made to the now defunct Jim Crow laws, which required licensure, proficiency tests, and other hurdles to prevent persons from exercising a right guaranteed to them and which was not to be interfered with by government officials. The case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (a First amendment case, yet another right to which direct comparison may and must be made) confirmed this in holding that “A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it.”

HR 130: To require the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, and to require the investigation of reports of improper storage of firearms or ammunition.

This bill, in title, seeks to circumvent the fourth amendment and potentially harm due process in the same manner as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs or Red Flag laws). Furthermore, the decision to store firearms in a locked box may not be financially feasible for some folks, and thusly affects persons disproportionately based on income.

HR 167: To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer.

This bill, in title, seeks to eliminate what was once a compromise (the "gun show loophole" was a concession in the 1986 FOPA bill in response to the 1968 GCA to make it palatable and to clarify some confusion in the earlier language) and turn it into a crime. There is no evidence of any sort to suggest that gun show sales contribute to crime at a higher rate than guns sold through any other means.

These, and all other laws related to the bearing and keeping of arms run afoul of the Second Amendment. In Marbury v. Madison, Marbury stated “Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged.” A law which seeks to infringe upon the natural right of self-defense, and the natural order of governance by consent, is inherently repugnant to the Constitution and must be repealed and stricken.

You're not wrong. The federal bill seeming similar to the Illinois issue is what I was trying to draw comparison to. I perhaps could've made that distinction more clear.

Go for it! I hold no claim on these words. I borrowed most of them anyway.