I wrote a real, snail-mail letter to J.B. Priztker.

A few weeks ago I wrote and mailed a real, tangible snail-mail letter to my governor, J.B. Pritzker.

Why the fuck would you do that, Will? you ask.. Well, I have heard that - in the hierarchy of ways to get heard - traditional means of communication tend to beat out the more fancier, modern methods.

I had a lot to say - 4 pages worth, in fact - so.. Letter it is.

I didn't do this as some unhinged, handwritten screed laced with unknown substances; That's not my style. Instead, I spent 2 weeks working on this letter on-and-off in order to try and make my point in as clear and - more importantly - friendly way as possible.

Unfortunately I have yet to get a response; Who knows, a reply could be in the mail right now (even though I provided an e-mail address as my preferred method of response). Our governor is a pretty busy guy.

It could also mean that he just didn't deem my (admittedly niche) situation worthy of the effort of a response, given he can't use an auto-reply system to respond to me without someone actually entering my info into it.

Either way, now that some time has passed, I want to ask something of you:

I want you to do the same thing I just did.

If you live in IL and disagree with PICA and some of the other firearm legislation, I want you to write a genuinely nice, non-threatening letter to J.B. asking him to reconsider his position and reach out to us to discuss options.

I can't emphasize this enough: Do not get hostile. Hostility will not help.

All I'm asking you to do is write a simple letter. Nothing malicious. Just state your position as clearly as you possibly can without any hostility.

The more we make our voice heard, the more likely we are to get a real response.

Below is my letter for reference (minus the closing paragraph w/ contact details and a post-script). Additionally: You may disagree with some of my positions, and that's OK too!

//

Dear Governor J.B. Pritzker,

I am writing you to request you re-evaluate some policies implemented during your administration, as well as some that have been in place in Illinois for a long time. Policies that have created numerous challenges for poor and disabled folk in America, and ultimately will continue to fail to curtail the problem they were designed to deal with.

Let me also say this first: I am exceptionally proud to live in Illinois. I moved here from Missouri many years ago, and I don’t regret it despite feeling obligated to write you this letter. I also had no hesitation in voting for you, despite your positions on something I’ll discuss further below.

My personal perspective here is that of a disabled person who also has much higher than average medical expenses; I am not writing you from the perspective of some obnoxious lobby or someone with ulterior motives in general. I am a real IL resident with real personal concerns.

I say that because I am about to pull a bit of a bait & switch here, but I will note that nothing I said above is irrelevant to what I want you to consider. In fact, the above points are crucial to my request:

PICA and (some) other firearm regulations have direct negative impacts to the disabled and poorer folks.

To be clear: I am not saying there cannot be any firearms regulation. I can understand the goals you’re trying to achieve, and I do consider the desire to reduce gun violence laudable.

I just know – as someone who has grown up around firearms, and continues to enjoy target shooting to this day – that these regulations (much like President Clinton’s AWB) prevent folks like me from owning and using firearms in a variety of contexts, and I will get into specifics here in this letter.

To begin with, I’d like to start on the core rifle regulations contained within PICA.

PICA prevents the purchase of lower-cost semi-automatic rifles. It does this by making one of the most common (and therefore affordable due to manufacturing and parts availability) rifle builds – the AR-15 – illegal to purchase. Instead, Illinois residents have to spend 2 to 3 times the amount to get “PICA compliant” rifles of similar quality.. And those same rifles are only less visually intimidating and harder to physically use for folks with certain disabilities; they are still just as capable of causing harm as any traditional AR-15, but are essentially relegated to those who have more disposable income or are less responsible with their money.

As an example of an impact to disabled folks: I prefer a more “vertical” grip with my rifles as opposed to traditional ranch-rifle stock. This is easier for me to hold and operate due to my carpal tunnel and severe arthritis. With a traditional AR-15 I can easily swap the grip to something more comfortable for me to use; I can’t do that with a ranch rifle.

Additionally, PICA has created confusion in general for vendors; Should I wish to build my own IL-compliant rifle, most vendors won’t ship to IL because of the murky language contained within the bill.. And some feature bans – such as vertical foregrips – are baffling as to the reasoning behind them, and don’t make a firearm any more or less deadly.

Magazine size limitations? That I can understand, and am personally OK with; While loading magazines can be a hassle, there are a variety of assistive devices out there to make it easier for folks like me.

There are 2 other points I’d like to make in regards to firearms and accessibility for disabled folks:

Current legislation makes it illegal to place a pistol into a stock. I myself enjoy target shooting with a pistol, but sometimes my multiple disabilities create complications that make it harder for me to operate my pistol effectively without additional pain. Being able to either purchase – or even 3d print – a chassis with a stock that I can use with my pistol for those bad pain days would go a long way in helping me continue to enjoy a sport that I have loved for a long time.. And it is one of the few sports I’m able to be competitive in despite my disabilities.

It can even be argued that a pistol with a stock actually increases safe operation of pistols; Pistols are difficult for the average person to use in general. By providing the option to place it within a stock that can be shouldered and held comfortably (adding a 3rd point of contact which reduces reliance on grip-strength to ensure stable aiming), it relieves tension, mitigates recoil and reduces the likelihood of negligent discharges in unsafe directions given the stability afforded by the additional point of contact.

What makes this most baffling is that (long barrel) pistol caliber carbines (PCCs) allow effectively the same option as a pistol within a stock, just with a longer barrel. Again, this just creates a financial barrier, rather than a practical one, requiring someone buy 2 separate firearms to gain similar capabilities.

The second point I have in regards to disabilities and firearms is actually one that would benefit everybody in Illinois.. Even non-firearm owners.

I’m referring to the banning of civilian ownership of suppressors (or “silencers”).

Suppressors aren’t like they are in the movies for the most part: While you can shoot sub-sonic rounds (such as 22LR) with exceptional sound reduction, for most firearms and rounds it reduces the noise from “guaranteed hearing damage” to “potential hearing damage after repeated exposure when in close proximity”.. And it also has the benefit of reducing noise in rural communities where hunting occurs or outdoor ranges exist.

The closest outdoor range in IL where I can practice my favorite hobby – extreme long-range target shooting – Has been subject to civil suits in the past due to noise pollution, despite being in a very rural farm area. Civilian suppressor availability would most assuredly eliminate that problem.

From a personal perspective, I myself have exceptional hearing sensitivity; While I always wear ear protection at the range, it would be even better (and create less noise pollution) if everybody was capable of owning and using a suppressor (especially at indoor ranges, where the potential harm is amplified significantly).

Finally, I would like to discuss conceal carry laws.

I have nothing against a conceal carry permit personally; Others may have (reasonable) arguments against it, but I would at least like to cover a more specific issue I have with IL’s implementation:

It’s too expensive, creating a barrier for the most vulnerable to be able to obtain a permit.

It costs $150 for the permit itself; this is bad enough, and is out of reach of many people already given the costs of firearm ownership (safes, ammo, maintenance, range fees and more on top of the actual cost of a firearm).. But beyond that, the training costs required in addition to the application (and renewal) can double that or more.

Again, to be clear: I have no issue with the permit requirements personally. I actually also like the idea of folks getting training (or at least passing a written test), but the fact of the matter is the current law effectively makes getting a conceal carry permit for someone like me – a disabled LGBTQ+ person living in a district that is frequently actively hostile to me – an unlikely proposition due to the sheer costs.

I have no grand notions of pulling out a firearm and valiantly defending myself and my fellow human beings next to me. In fact, I am actually very much resistant to the idea of doing so, and don’t have a desire to carry at this time; I do, however, believe in preparedness, and would like to at least be able to know that – should things continue to get worse for folks like me in the US – I have the option to carry another defensive tool beyond pepper spray (which has its own risks).

Even simply having written tests processed at the same time and place as written driving tests would eliminate any meaningful overhead and still ensure CCL owners at least demonstrate knowledge of how to safely operate a firearm.

I can appreciate the goals you and the legislature profess to have with these regulations. They are laudable! I just know that the effectiveness is quite limited, having seen this all happen before.

America is not going to get rid of firearms any time soon, and honestly? I don’t think they should (and this is coming from someone who is on the far left side of progressive, FYI). I think we need a different approach: One that tackles the motivations for violence first and foremost, rather than the tools themselves. We need to enforce red flag laws properly. We need to provide ways for folks to temporarily surrender their firearms during a crisis (look up “Hold My Guns”) without judgment. We need to tackle the motivations themselves, rather than the tools. Violence is extremely accessible, even without firearms being considered.

As I have noted above, all we have done is harm the ability for folks like myself, and those who are poor, to exercise our rights and – at best, pursue a fun and challenging hobby, or at worst – potentially defend ourselves should the need arise. Those of us who are disabled are of particularly higher risk for harm; Many of us cannot run should danger approach us, and less-lethal options can also carry other risks to ourselves (pepper spray in tight quarters, for example, can send someone like me in severe respiratory distress).

Those who wish to cause harm will have no problems obtaining the tools to do so; As I noted earlier, you’ve just made it more expensive and harder to use firearms, which doesn’t stop someone with a credit card and no physical disabilities from legally purchasing and using one.. And we haven’t even talked about the methods for obtaining one illegally, which still continue to exist.

We also cannot rely solely on the law enforcement to be the arbiter of defense; While I am personally friends with a number of police officers, I think we can all agree that Uvalde was a wake-up call.. As is the actions of ICE and other federal agencies lately.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but I obviously have a lot to say on the subject. I could say even more.

I just hope you will realize that there is more to the issue of gun violence, and solving that problem cannot be effectively done just via firearm regulations. If you’ve read up to this point, I just want to leave you with a bit of my personal experience with firearms and how they are a source of positivity in my life.

I learned to meditate when I was a child via precision target shooting; My first rifle was a bolt-action 22LR, and I learned how to control my breathing and heart through shooting exceptionally tiny targets at range.

As an adult, I still shoot a 22LR bolt-action rifle; It’s a bit more customized, however, and includes a good scope to help me compensate for my failing vision, but it’s the same meditative process I learned as a kid.. Except now it helps me reduce my stress and keep my heart steady despite constant physical pain due to multiple chronic conditions.

It does get harder to operate, though, and being able to build my own AR-15-style rifle (on a budget) would go a long way to ensuring the hobby continues to be a part of my life and the lives of others like me.

Additionally, I now have my own little shooting challenge for my fellow disabled folks to celebrate our ability to be competitive in a space dominated by the able-bodied.. And I would like for more folks to be able to experience it, too.

I appreciate your attention here, and hope you will give serious consideration to what I’ve shared with you. I understand this has been a rather long read; I have actually spent weeks writing and revising it to attempt to cover as many points as possible in as clear a manner as possible. If you’ve actually read this in its entirety, know that I hold no ill-will towards you or your administration, and am especially grateful for the time invested in even reading this.

Most of us disabled folk have felt ignored for a long time; I hope that you’ll demonstrate that you hear us now and work with us to come up with practical ways to allow us to own and operate firearms while also reducing the harm caused by anybody who would commit violence against not just us, but any living person.