Columns
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Gun-Control Firebomb
Around the State
Get ready. There's a doozie of a seismic shift coming on Jan. 22 when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is due to introduce her "Grand Plan," a sweeping bill that would go further to rock the Second Amendment off its foundation than any legislation in the previous 112 sessions of Congress.
The author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004 is seizing the Newtown moment to introduce what many protectors of the Second Amendment characterize as "a firebomb."
Dianne Feinstein
The post-election-frisky Obama administration apparently is cheering the bill on.
Less than a week ago, The Boston Herald reported that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” gun-control advocate and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino this: President Obama will pass wide-ranging firearms reforms by the end of the month.
RedState blogger Ulysses Arn writes, "This gun grab, this attack on the Second Amendment, is just the latest in a long list of usurpations of our Constitution."
Alex Jones of InfoWars calls it "the effective END of the Second Amendment in America."
But, wait. Before the earth moves, consider this:
Feinstein's gun-control legislation has about as much chance as a rabbit in a dog show. And most thinking liberals agree: Despite the almighty dust-up likely on the Senate floor, any attempt to ban guns is going up in flames.
But liberals are blaming the wrong party. The reason the California senator's bill won't pass isn't as they think, because of those blockheaded numbskulls running the NRA. They can blame the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
When all is said and done, most Americans hold the Second Amendment sacred. Most Americans understand full well that the Constitution isn't an a la carte menu from which we can choose the laws we like and discard the rest. Our Constitution is the whole meal, all of it -- it's everything this nation stands for, everything that makes it great in a single succinct document, including the right to bear arms.
Nicholas J. Johnson, professor of law at Fordham University -- one of the country's most respected authorities on the Second Amendment -- puts this overreaching bill into perspective on the Library of Law and Liberty website:
"Senator Feinstein will get lots of opposition to this bill," Johnson writes. "That it is an unconstitutional taking of property; that it irrationally treats semi-automatics more harshly than true machine guns; that it is an unconstitutional application of the taxing power that grounds the National Firearms Act; that it attempts to ban guns in common use in violation of D.C. v. Heller; that it attempts to ban the quintessential militia weapon which seems protected even under Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller; that it will drive the targeted guns into the black market; and, that it will trigger militant resistance."
If any part of Feinstein's bill is passed -- even the smallest part -- it likely will be challenged, will make a lot of lawyers rich, will drone on for years and most importantly, will obscure, as Johnson states, "the core question of how to protect the 7-year-old in the classroom, with tired oversold ideas that mainly serve to mask the structural state incompetence that the progressive political class cannot profitably acknowledge."
Where are the bills to help frustrated and frightened family members quickly get help for their mentally ill or troubled and socially isolated sons and daughters, husbands and wives? Communities need resources and ideas. They need support. Where are the bills to augment real help in preventing another Sandy Hook?
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.
Comments (70)
The currently proposed Feinstein “assault weapons ban” defines an estimated 50% of all rifles and 80% of all pistols as “assault weapons” and makes all magazines over 10 rounds illegal. It then requires us to pay a $200 tax on each item we already legally own, apply to a government bureaucracy to determine if we can continue to own what we already legally own, give a government bureaucracy the power to approve where we can store and transport what we already legally own, creates a federal registration list of every “assault weapon” including the identification of the registered owner and the physical address where it is stored, possibly allow a government bureaucracy to enter our residences without prior notice to verify that we are storing our legally owned property in accordance with their regulations, prohibits us from selling or transferring our legally owned property, and then finally requires that we forfeit to the government, upon our death, property we legally own. Is such a law a sensible, common-sense, approach that has a high probability of being effective, and is it even Constitutional?
Is using the Terror Watch List, which is a secret, non-reviewable, non-challengeable government list, to deny citizens US Constitutional rights without any legal recourse, a sensible, common-sense, approach that has a high probability of being effective, and is it even Constitutional?
Is limiting magazines to 10 rounds the result of a “very thorough [thought] process”? Without justification, why not pick 11 or 9, or 5 or eventually none? What is the basis for determining the probable effectiveness of that approach? As an example, New York State currently has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, among them a 10 round magazine limit and some of the highest violent crime rates in the country. The new NY SAFE Act changed the magazine limit from 10 to 7, again without any rational justification and greatly expanded the definition of “assault weapons”. My personal opinion is that the number 7 was selected because almost no manufacturer of modern handguns produces a magazine with a capacity of less than 10 rounds, thus eventually making almost every modern pistol illegal in New York State. Is that a sensible, common-sense, approach that has a high probability of being effective, and is it even Constitutional?
Other than expanding the background checks and fixing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, nothing that I have seen in the media meets the test of “sensible, common-sense steps” and “what makes sense, what works.”
Also, what is their next step after the next mass shooting; because there will be a next one? In view of this, the buying of all available ammunition, magazines, and firearms makes absolute sense before these laws are enacted. New York has already passed their SAFE Act yesterday!
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [Scalia; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER]
Pathetic . . . .
"Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...The natural meaning of “bear arms,” as used in the Second Amendment, means wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person...The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation...“Well-regulated,” as used in the Second Amendment, implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training...“Security of a free state,” as used in the Second Amendment, meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States...A limitation on the right to keep and carry arms is that the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time...Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or future judges think that scope too broad...It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right...We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
See Frank I am aware of the scope of allowable regulation. I am also aware of what Feinstein and Biden and Bloomberg and others like you want to achieve. They will not succeed, trust me. However, they will only b prevented from complete banning and confiscation by the efforts of those of us who fight and continuously remind them and the people about the 2nd amendment and what it protects. Now you quit your fantasizing.
PATHETIC . . . .
(1) Your "Of course you don't have the right to bring your guns onto the private property of another if they don't allow it" - - Perhaps you'd like to tell that to private businesses that they have the "right" to keep their customers or employees from bringing weapons onto their private property, even if such property is not considered to be "public" - - Florida law says otherwise s.790.251, FS
(2) Your earlier "this is my last reply" - obviously not.
(3) Your "quit claiming that you . . . . do not want to prohobit (sic) owning guns" - - I've made it very clear that I oppose an overall ban (and own my own guns) . . . that's just an inconvenient truth that you wish to spin with your politics of the "Big Lie" . . . . in your continuing efforts to be just . . .
Pathetic . . . .
Gun owners, for the most part, are not "afraid of black helicopters" but we recognize the need for the people to be able to stand up and fight for what this country is, even if it is a losing fight. There was no gaurantee that the founders would fight successfuly fight off the British but they tired anyway.
People who don't understand guns see the media presented photos of scary looking "assault rifles" and don't realize that their function is no different than not as scary looking huting rifle. As a matter of fact my 308 "hunting rifle" is much more powerful than the 223 cartridge used in the ar-15 and I could easily modify the huting rifle to accept magazines. The fact that the ar 15 has a "folding stock" or a "forward grip" doesn't make it any more dangerous.
The police can't protect everyone! The only 2 times we have had a false alarm at our house it took the police a very long time to respond. Our alarm went off at 8:15 Saturday morning, a police officer showed up around 11:30. When I asked about the 3+ hour response time he replied that most alarm calls on Saturday morning are false alarms. I'm not sorry in saying this grabbing my handgun is a lot quicker than waiting for police. If that alarm had been caused by an intruder and we had been attacked we would probably not be alive. Even if we were just badly injured any chance of saving us would be long gone 3 hours later.
Crime goes down in right to carry states. I feel safer in my home state due to the right to carry laws because criminals here are not virtually guaranteed that their victim is unarmed, they have to take more of a chance here than in other states with strict carry laws.
School shootings almost never happened before the "gun free zones"
If guns are the cause why are the mass shootings happening in gun free zones as opposed to at gun conventions. Clearly there is something to be said about the fact that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show. Why not? because you wouldn't be able to aim the thing before 50 other people aimed back. In gun free zones the criminal is guaranteed no armed opposition.
Let's apply this logic: If a gun ban wil get all the guns off the street and correct the violence problem in the country then we should also ban drugs because clearly that will end the cocaine, speed, meth etc problem.
Bans don't work, prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption, the war on drugs hasn't ended the drug problem and an "assault weapon ban" won't end the violence problem.
I personally think every politician who votes for this ban should be stripped of their armed guards and see what it would feel like to be alone and defenseless against a criminal with an illicit gun. But hey don't worry, the police will be there in 20 minutes.
(1) If more guns make us safer, why aren't we the safest country in the world?
(2) A war of treason against your country will involve armed drones, gunships, fighter planes, M-1 or better tanks on the government's side . . . . guess you can't have enough weapons . . . .
(3) Raising the "black helicopter" UN takeover image clearly demonstrates you need real professional help to address your delusional state . . . . please seek it . . . .
Pathetic . . . .
jackass
(1) The Swiss seem to be doing ok :)
(2) The British were better funded, trained and armed. It's happened before
(3) Seriously? I was referring to the ones who DO think that, not me. It's no secret the the paranoid-of-guns anti gunners think that we all harbor some sort of paranoia about secret societies and black helicopters when it is the anti gun crowd suffering from delusions. It seems irrational to me that anyone could believe an inanimate object could be capable of causing harm on it's own. That's like a kid telling his dad that the ball magically flew up in the air and broke the window.
And it was YOU not I that mentions specifically a UN takeover.... I therefore believe it is you who "demonstrates you need real professional help to address your delusional state"
Please, for the good of us all "seek it"
I do agree with you on one point after reading your post, it is in fact pathetic
Washington's arms were comparable to the British arms, and in some cases, superior for the type of war they often fought.
Yes, "black helicopters" is NEVER a reference by the far right to the UN takeover conspiracy theory, now is it . . . . just more politics of the "Big Lie", so . . .
Pathetic . . . .
"Switzerland has many guns but few murders …. The country hosts some of the largest rifle shooting events in the world. Swiss households use firearms mainly as a peaceful, sport-shooting family occupation at contest festivals where eating, drinking, socializing abound. Shooting-range festivals have come to be recognized as a wholesome community activity. Well-enforced rules apply to permits, safety training, and gun/ammunition handling. Ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. Males 20 to 42 must keep their rifles and pistols at home. This culture fosters gun safety. Over time, these social attitudes have helped to keep Swiss total gun and non-gun homicide rates far below those of the U.S.!"
So since I believe in a right to bear arms for self defense I now believe that the black helicopters are coming? Dude, I'm not Alex Jones. The far right does not inclue everyone on the right.
And why must you end every post with "pathetic"? Does that make you feel bigger by attempting to belittle someone? Can't you have a reasonable debate without an attempt to start a 1st grade sandbox fight?
Ah, yes, the "Dude" phrase . . . . now I understand the immaturity . . . .
Pathetic . . . .
Isn't the issue firearm murders? Isn't that what everyone is getting all up in a fuss over? Or did I miss the news report that the Newtown shooting was the result of the gun accidentally discharging? Accidents happen, there's not cure for stupidity (you will probably spin that comment around and say something degrading about me, blah blah blah) No law will prevent stupid people from either accidentally blowing their heads off (or leaving guns around for kids to get to and do the same) nor will it prevent the emotionally unstable from committing suicide. So what are we left with? Murder
Are you aware that there are more deaths caused by blunt objects in the US than guns? BAN HAMMERS! HOME DEPOT IS THE DEVIL! Serial numbers, background checks, licensing, training for all hammers now!
That would put a serious burden on contractors. I wonder if they will grandfather all the hammers that were made prior to the ban.
http ://www .breitbart . com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
BTW, where's your opinion on the fact that the police can't get to you in time? There was a recent shooting in Colorado where one victim was able to call police. The dispatcher heard her scream "NO", then a gunshot, then silence. You're telling me that the police can protect us? Get out from under your rock DUDE. If she'd had a .357 she might have survived. Isn't her life worth saving at the cost of a maniac?
Police in the UK still have bullet proof vests, why? 'Cause criminals don't surrender their guns!
Here's what I propose:
Without your childish comments, without getting off topic and attacking me for some perceived inferiority, answer this:
Why should I be put in a position where a criminal should be allowed to have his way? What you suggest is that I should be unable to prevent a gang of thugs from beating me possibly to death in my own home. We have been victim of a home invasion, the perp was later caught and was a drug user with a record a mile long. Fortunately he ran when he heard me coming down the hall (I was NOT a gun owner at the time). But what if he'd been more "jonesin' " for a fix?
My wife is an ER RN, she regularly leaves work late at night and believe me the walkway to the parking lot is DARK, and the lot isn't that much better. (the hospital should look into and fix the issue, but that's not the point right now) If a rapist/murderer were to attack her at 3am while she is leaving work I would rather have her explain to the police the dead rapist than the police tell me about my dead wife.
Seriously, give me a good, well thought out rebuttle to why I should be at the mercy of the very people who can't be required to register weapons (self incrimination) and simply won't turn them in. Why?
Oh, by the way, your - - "Are you aware that there are more deaths caused by blunt objects in the US than guns?" - - that is an outright lie . . . perhaps you need to learn to better read and understand with a little more preciseness what you read in English on SSN (or hear on Fox News) . . . . .
Pathetic . . . .
When will you ask me to turn in my hunting knives?
Love it!
We'll just use some of the data from Nancy Smith's blog article here on SSN . . . she indicated that "By 2011 there were . . . . 496 hammer-and-club murders" . . . . . . FBI data also indicates that for 2009, there were 10,224 homicides that involved a "GUN" of one type or another . . . . . those number are typical year-to-year with some variation . . . . taking a particular sub-set of a type of guns you may be able to make a statement like you wanted to make (barely), but that's NOT the shrill spin point you made . . . you said "guns" and based on total gun deaths, you're off by a factor of at least 50 fold. . . . .just . . .
Pathetic . . . .
Police can't be waiting at the door of every home in the country to prevent crimes from happening. Average police response time is over 10 minutes.
What the hell are teachers going to protect us from?
Even with all the weapons the military has there would still be chance considering the number of civilian gun owners in the country. Go ahead and keep underestimating
Pathetic . . .
http ://www. youtube. com/watch?v=vQMwpbSjC1A
Another question comes to mind; do we punish millions of law abiding citizens for the crimes of the few? If so, shouldn't we round up the entire middle eastern population just because of the acts of so few?
let history speak for itself:
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
If you say "That would never happen in America" that's because they haveen't been able to... Yet!
Pathetic shrill . . . .
Pathetic . . .
Then look who is pathetic.
Senseless factoids with no perspective or context...pathetic.
Welcome to your new home, slave. Prison Planet Earth.
Pathetic . . .
Feinstein admitted to wanting to take all the guns when doing an interview for 60 minutes back in the 1990's. She said she couldn't do it because she didn't have the votes. And gun confiscation during the aftermath of Katrina was ubiquitous. There are lots of examples; you just have to pay attention.
Pathetic . . .
Oh, and welcome to your use of a highly original alternative alias for an another membership in my SSN fan club . . . . . oh, but "troll" again? . . . can't you get any more original as you continue to switch to new alternate aliases . . . . sad to know I've reached your neuron limits . . . .
Pathetic . . . .
Answer: It wouldn't.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Pathetic . . .
Eat a bag of dicks.
I also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution (unlike you). The Constitution, Frank, not a government. But if it makes you feel good keep creating strawmen and inventing what you want your opposition to say.
Now hurry and see if wikipedia or huffpo has a good counter argument.
Yes, you must be right (at least in your own mind) . . . . you totally know which oaths I've taken throughout my 64 years (or even how much law I've written) . . . . . although it's becoming increasingly clear that you're willing to promote activities that would violate yours if carried out (armed insurrection, rebellion, treason) . . . . regardless of whichever SSN fan club member you happen to be (and that's becoming clearer) . . . sad and . . . .
Pathetic . . . .
There were no autos at our founding. The elite infantry weapon then was the musket. You know, the same weapon private citizens owned and used in the "rebellion." Use simple logic (I know that is asking too much from you). Those treasonous colonists kept their weapons rather than allow the brits to confiscate them and, as a result, we won freedom, ratified an amazing Constitution, and now have the most powerful country on the earth today. Now we all know that if the colonists had been like you, we would never have had the opportunity to have a Constitution. But that doesn't phase you because the colonists were evil white racists right Frank, and the Constitution doesn't matter to you. You prefer to be a slave to your beloved celebrity leader (Boxer the horse I will call you from now on). I prefer to actually DEFEND the Constitution and take whatever measures necessary (hopefully only peaceful measures will be necessary) to ensure that all of the rights protected in it remain intact for all Americans.
Now tell me more Frank about how the president is going to order the military and other agencies to employ drones, tanks and other high tech weaponry to slaughter American citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights. You must be insane. Who do think will follow any order like that? All those military personnel who are also citizens and most of whom are lawful gun owners? Right Frank...pretty sick that you even fantasize about that but just stupid that you might think it a possibility...
Jackass...
Pathetic . . . .
Leave a Comment on This Story