1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Fed gun grab - week in review (w.e. Jan 18, 2013)

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by CATO, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    This WND sums things up nicely about where we stand.

    So far, about 17 patriot states are telling the King his rules are unwanted (this was rewritten several time as there was much profanity involved). There are the loyalist states like NY, IL, and CA who are either going along or adding more stringent laws. The sheeple are uneducated about what an 'assault weapon' is and the media is having a black out on the truth. While many gun aficionados do not care for the NRA, they are going head-to-head with the King and gaining more members everyday.

    If things play out like the King wants and certain states comply, while the Patriot states stand firm backing the Constitution, I can see freedom-loving citizens fleeing those oppressive states for the Constitutional safeguards of the Patriot states. When the dust settles, the Loyalist states are likely to have more population regarding voting, because it's much easier to be stupid than think for yourself, so the next Presidential election is still iffy. The Senate needs to do its job.

    The tipping point has been reached (those on assistance outnumber those paying for the assistance) and things cannot go back to normal. What is going to happen? Where will we be in 10 years.

    Be sure and check out the 'related posts' section

    States pulling rug from under Obama gun plans

    Bills exempting rifles, handguns, magazines from coming federal limits

    Rallies have been scheduled to protest Barack Obama’s gun agenda, members of Congress are pondering their resistance and American consumers are speaking daily with ever-new records for gun purchases.
    Now states are getting into action, with several legislatures already developing bills that would simply pull the rug from under the president’s agenda by specifying that unconstitutional rules or regulations, or executive orders, won’t be allowed.

    Rep. Kendell Kroeker of Wyoming introduced HB 104, The Firearms Protection Act, and spoke to WND about the bill.
    “The new bill expands to any gun owned in Wyoming and any gun regulation handed down that has to do with banning automatic rifles, banning magazines or gun registration will not apply to any gun, so long as they stay in Wyoming.”
    In Wyoming, they like to get right to the point, and the plan states, “An act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable…”
    Texas also has started its work, developing a plan to block enforcement of those efforts that are in violation of the Second Amendment, which notes that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
    Texas Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, filed HB553 on Wednesday to make it a misdemeanor for state or federal officials to “enforce or attempt to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.”
    Missouri has also joined the fight. On Tuesday Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, introduced HB170, a similar bill that would block state or federal enforcement of a wide range of unconstitutional federal restrictions on firearms. It also affirms the state’s authority to regulate firearms made and owned within Missouri and makes it a felony for any federal agent to attempt to enforce a federal regulation on those weapons.
    Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina also have similar bills pending before their legislatures. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate as many as a dozen more states could follow suit in the coming weeks.
    Alaska also is planning an upgrade of its firearms freedom act too, much like the actions in Wyoming and Texas. Those existing Firearms Freedom Acts were adopted several years ago, and simply state that federal regulation of firearms made, sold and kept in the states is banned.
    The federal government imposes regulations and licensing requirements under the Commerce Clause, which regulates commerce among the states. The states challenge that weapons that don’t cross state lines are exempt.
    In Wyoming, the “upgrade” should get the attention of federal agents. It states any official charged, “upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one year and one day or more than five years.”
    The bill additionally tacks a $5,000 fine upon the official for violating Wyoming law.
    Estimates now are that there are 17 states with some type of freedom act for firearms.
    Alaska House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski introduced HB 69, which exempts “certain firearms and firearm accessories in this state from federal regulation; providing criminal penalties for federal officials who enforce or attempt to enforce a federal law, regulation, rule, or order regulating certain firearms and firearm accessories in this state.”
    Chenault told Sitnews.com, “We began work on this bill before the president’s announcement … and now I’m extremely glad we did. Twenty-three executive orders have been signed … without a review from Americans’ elected representatives.”
    Kroeker agreed. He said that wanting to upgrade the current Firearm Freedom Act is “I think it is pretty clear that his agenda is to disarm Americans and take way as many guns as possible.”
    Texas Rep. Steve Toth told radio host Joe Pags, “If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution.”
    Kroeker said Obama likely will back off, because he’s “smart enough to know that if he does it he would have an armed rebellion on his hands.”
    He described the brewing hostility between states and the federal government as “standing up to a bully.”
    He said. “We want to try and stand up to the federal government bully and let him know we’ve had enough. … In Wyoming we’re sick and tired of the federal government overstepping its constitutional limits.”
    Governors even are starting to respond. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, “The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”
    The Firearms Freedom Act actually was launched in Montana in 2009, and that law currently is under review at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Montana also has raised the issue that gun-making certainly was going on at the time Montana became a state under a compact in 1889, and the federal government was not given permission then to restrict that activity. They state says the federal government cannot arbitrarily change the agreement.
    Poll: Seeds of tyranny present in America
    Obama plan: ‘Assault-weapon’ ban, universal background checks
    47 states revolt against Obama gun control
    Rush Limbaugh: Obama ‘wants people to snap’
    ‘Obama has dramatically overshot’
    Oops! Gun-map hate mail goes to wrong paper
    Constitution ‘no impediment’ to Obama
    Chicago murders top Afghanistan death toll
    Virginia’s solution to guns in school
    States pulling rug from under Obama gun plans
    See WND’s latest columns on gun control:
    How Obama’s gun ‘order’ will backfire by David Kupelian
    Gun grab: It’s about freedom’s end by Joseph Farah
    School shooters and pharmaceuticals by Bradlee Deab
    Sandy Hook: Obama’s latest exploitation by David Limbaugh
    The peerless malevolence of redcoat Piers Morgan by Ilana Mercer
    Obama’s disgusting use of kids as pawns by Diana West
    Obama’s dictates will cost lives by Jeff Knox
    Obama’s gun plan doesn’t go far enough by Bill Press
    Guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do by Ann Coulter
    What happened to Lanza’s 4 handguns? by Jack Cashill
    The consequences of volatile speech by Phil Elmore
    It’s all about safety by Craige McMillan
    Guns and government by Andrew Napolitano
    ‘Gun Culture’ – what about the ‘Fatherless Culture’? by Larry Elder
    ditch witch and Brokor like this.
  2. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Uncle Joe showing you exactly how much of a moron he is.

    VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller

    I don't know why, but this has made me madder than anything else this week:

    So, what's the f'ing point to everything else??

    During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.
    Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
    Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge’s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
    Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, told TheDC that he was given five minutes to present the NRA’s concerns and the approach the group saw as being the most effective to prevent another massacre like the Newtown, Conn. shooting. During those five minutes, he said, he mentioned the need to prosecute existing gun laws.
    He pointed to the low number of prosecutions for information falsification and the relatively low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes.
    Biden was apparently unmoved by Baker’s concern.
    In 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.
    In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check.
    “We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws,” Baker told TheDC.
    “If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now,” he added.
    Gun prosecutions in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration’s peak in 2004, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
    Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said he was shocked by the administration’s lack of interest in pursuing individuals who lied to obtain a firearm.
    “They don’t have time to pursue people who are dangerous, who aren’t supposed to get guns, and the message they have sent is literally ‘Good luck, go get them elsewhere,’” Cox said in an interview with TheDC.
    Cox reiterated that he believes the real issues the country needs to deal with are mental health and crime, and he stressed the importance of enforcing and prosecuting existing laws.
    “You can talk all you want,” Cox said, “but until there is a will to follow through, then it is literally just going to paper over the problem and guarantee that bad people continue to have access to firearms and good people will be blamed for it.”
    Vice President Biden’s press office did not respond to requests for comment.

    EDIT: related post Liars Who Attempt to Get Guns Not Punished
  3. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    :lol: Doesn't have the time to prosecute offenders, yet wants to make more with additional rules and regulations? What's he smoking, anyway?
  4. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Well it isn't Wacky Weed, as that is still a Federal Offense, and we all KNOW, that Herr Obummer would NEVER commit a Federal Offense......[gasmask]
  5. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Zero isn't the one in question, it's his sidekick (or lap dummy, if you prefer.)
  6. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    That's the whole problem with this bunch: they pick and choose what they want to prosecute--ignoring anything that they don't have an issue with and coming down hard on other issues. Forget equal protection and the 14th.

    Holder is a criminal. Obama is a criminal. Biden is a moron.
  7. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    South Carolina's stance: members of the "state militia" are exempt. The militia is comprised of anyone over the age of 17.

    My thoughts on this are it's SC's way to pussyfoot around the issue. WY and TX do a better job at reminding the King he can't do anything he wants.

    SC bill would exempt state militia from federal gun rules | The Daily Caller

    While a handful of states have moved to nullify President Barack Obama’s recent executive orders on guns, a quartet of tea-party state senators in South Carolina introduced a bill Wednesday claiming to offer pro-gun citizens a different way around the federal rules: exempt the state’s unorganized militia from federal gun regulations.
    The unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied people over the age of 17 who are U.S. citizens residing in South Carolina and legally allowed to purchase a firearm, according to current state law.
    The governor may activate the militia in a case of “imminent danger of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, resistance to law or process or breach of the peace” when the National Guard is insufficient to deal with the unrest.
    The bill, sponsored by state Sens. Tom Corbin, Tom Davis, Kevin Bryant and Lee Bright, excludes members of the militia — essentially all state citizens who are at least 18 years old — from any federal gun rules passed after New Year’s Day.
    “A militia member, at his own expense, shall have the right to possess and keep all arms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a South Carolina citizen as of December 31, 2012,” the bill reads. “This includes shouldered rifles and shotguns, handguns, clips, magazines, and all components.”
    Because of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and long-established legal doctrine, enforceable federal laws always trump conflicting state laws. States are also not constitutionally permitted to prevent the federal government from passing and enforcing otherwise lawful legislation.
    It is highly unlikely, then, that the South Carolina bill — which broadly precludes the federal government from exercising its basic constitutional authority to regulate firearm ownership, without limiting its scope to the enforcement of any specific federal law — would survive a legal challenge by the federal government.
    The state bill, which has been referred to committee, applies to any gun law passed by Congress or rule implemented by the president.
    Obama signed 23 executive actions Wednesday, strengthening federal background checks and resuming funding for federal research on gun violence. He also pushed Congress to ban so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity ammunition clips.
    “The unorganized militia may not fall under any law or regulation or jurisdiction of any person or entity outside of South Carolina,” the legislation reads.
    Corbin explained that the one-page bill is meant to protect the state citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
    “The premise is that that is our state standing army, and the federal government has no jurisdiction to tell our militia what sort of weapons we can possess,” he told The Daily Caller.
    Current state law bans automatic machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and sawed-off rifles.
    “Obviously you can’t have automatic weapons,” Corbin said. “I’ve had people come up to me and say, ‘Hey, as citizens we need to be able to possess the same firepower that the military has.’ You’ll never get that passed in a bill.”
    “And do we really want people having flame-throwers and shoulder-launched grenades and things like that?” he continued. “It simply protects what we have now from confiscation or regulation by law or executive order by any body or entity outside the state of South Carolina.”
    Corbin said that it takes a skilled shooter “less than 10 seconds” to change an AR-15 clip, and that limiting the number of rounds in a clip would be an ineffective solution.
    “What we want is to stop bad people from doing bad things, and gun control just doesn’t do that,” he said. “It just doesn’t work, and it infringes on our citizens’ rights, and it’s not the right way to go about solving the horrible problem.”
    kellory and tulianr like this.
  8. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  9. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    There is a high probability, the fall out at the state level was initiated by knowledge of 0bama's original EOs. None of the mainstream media carried this story; the only reference which is all over the web comes from the "Republican Insider" whoever they are...
    However, my guess is the contents of 0bama's original EOs were known in political circles and we are seeing the reactions by some States.
    BTPost and ditch witch like this.
  10. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    "Corbin said that it takes a skilled shooter “less than 10 seconds” to change an AR-15 clip, and that limiting the number of rounds in a clip would be an ineffective solution." Really? ten seconds? Try less than two! Ludicrous restriction.

    (even this idiot)
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Known (as surely they were at the federal level) or not, the reactions of the states seem well founded, and probably have The Malaprop Mouth more perplexed than usual. So far, I (for one) have not seen any confirmation that the EOs have been signed (much less quoted where we can find it easily, but I've not put a lot of effort into looking) nor of these letters to zero from various sheriff's offices other than quotes that are reputedly well sourced. That said, if the executive branch is paying attention, they'll be rigging chicken plates on their chairs before Chuck Todd goes public with confirmation.

    There is slim chance that zero will be impeached, and surely he won't be convicted. I'll settle for him back in Chicago where even the Secret Service may fear to tread.
  12. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    The drill hasn't changed since the mid-1960s. ;)

    Trigger finger hits mag release, mag drops and is replaced then poke the bolt stop and bang - bang.. Even a cherry is fairly quick with one.

    From the safety to field stripping it, everything about a M16 is located with thought and consideration for use, ease of access etc. Someone and probably more than one person on Stoner's design team knew what it took to be a real combat weapon. AKs are a lot slower as hitting the mag release isn't close to being as quick; plus cycling the weapon to chamber a round is a lot slower that releasing the bolt stop. As they all work well, it is the ergonomics which separate the great weapons from the almost as good weapons.

    A cherry is someone who graduated Infantry AIT on his first combat deployment. My guess is there is a name for it today. I was a cherry once same as anyone else in the same situation, so there isn't any flame to anyone intended.
    bebop and BTPost like this.
  13. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    I don't travel in those circles so I would have a snowball's chance in Hades of knowing. Personally, I am not part of that insider community in any way shape or form.

    As it isn't going to happen, no one believes 0bama would be impeached. The impeachment was a pointed comment or perhaps even a veiled threat by a former Ag and others. Sort of a "keep pushing and I'll kick your a$$" statement. Unless the other guy continues; nothing happens.

    Potentially based on rumors about 0bama's EOs; it seems more than a few states reacted to rumors. Perhaps, there was a strong possibility there was some truth in them; I wouldn't know. However, I am basing my opinions on their actions and my doubt our elected Representatives have the common sense to come in out of the rain much less draft such laws unless there was a catalyst.

    Just say the rumors were truth, if you were a State Senator or Representative would you tell a highly upset population we passed this law because?
  14. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    If the rumors prove true, then how the state legislatures will react, we can't know yet. The sheriffs are either reacting properly or taking proactive stances to set the standards. Either way, kudos to the sheriffs that have taken a stand, and also to any state legislators that have spoken up. We can only hope they survive the next elections for doing the right thing at the right time, even if their sheeply constituents can't see it.
    BTPost, oldawg, CATO and 1 other person like this.
  15. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    W.E. 1/25/2013

    EDITORIAL: Sen. Mitch McConnell Warns Gun Owners: ‘We’re surrounded by gun-grabbers’ - Guns.com
    EDITORIAL: Sen. Mitch McConnell Warns Gun Owners: ‘We’re surrounded by gun-grabbers’

    In a letter written by his campaign manager, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) warned gun owners and potential voters in the Bluegrass State that, “gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment.”
    The letter, which is seemingly designed to strike a cord with the state’s conservative base and shore up support for McConnell’s reelection campaign in 2014, pulls no punches when it comes to politically charged rhetoric.
    It reads:
    Dear Patriot,
    You and I are literally surrounded.
    The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment. On your rights. On your freedom.
    Just the other night, President Obama urged them to act. And then he went one step further, spelling out the 23 different Executive Orders he will take to get your guns.
    My friend, our freedom is under direct assault.
    From those who want take your guns. From those who want to shred our Constitution, and as our good in friend Rand Paul from Kentucky says, from those who want to be King.
    Let me tell you, Mitch McConnell is ready to lead the fight to protect your rights.
    Will you stand with Mitch today?
    Our Founders fought a revolution to secure our rights. They would have been appalled by what they heard from an American president the other day.
    President Obama has the left wing media in a frenzy. And, like his old Chief of Staff, he is determined to not waste a crisis.
    The gun-grabbers are in full battle mode. And they are serious.
    What’s at stake?
    There are almost too many schemes to list. But President Obama’s worst center around:
    -The Feinstein Gun Ban, which will criminalize firearms by how they look.
    -A thinly-veiled national gun registration scheme hidden under the guise of “background checks” to ensure federal government minders gain every bureaucratic tool they need for full-scale confiscation.
    -An outright BAN on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
    -And that’s not even close to the end of it.
    23 new Executive Orders.
    It is almost hard to believe the sheer breadth and brazenness of this attempt to gut our Constitution.
    Well, Mitch McConnell is not going to stand aside.
    Mitch McConnell will stand and fight. He will lead the Senate Republicans against this unconstitutional agenda, and with your help, we will prevail.
    But Mitch can’t do it alone.
    That’s why I am asking you to sign the attached Defense of the Second Amendment pledge today to show that you stand with me in this vital fight.
    Friend, from his very first run for office, Leader McConnell has always stood strong for your gun rights.
    Like you and me, he firmly believes that the Second Amendment protects YOU as an individual.
    And, he absolutely will not let president Obama or the Senate Democrats take that right away from us.
    So please help him fight back today.
    For Freedom,
    Jesse Benton
    Campaign Manager
    Sen. Mitch McConnell
    P.S. President Obama and his allies are committed to eroding your Constitutional freedoms. Please sign your pledge TODAY to let him know that we stand with Mitch McConnell in opposing this gun grab.

    This passionate missive to gun owners was flanked by a phone recording disseminated via autodial in which McConnell says, “Know that I will be doing everything in my power as Senate Republican leader, fighting tooth and nail, to protect your Second Amendment rights, so that law-abiding citizens such as yourself can properly and adequately protect yourself, your family, and your country.”
    “President Obama and his team are doing everything in their power to restrict your constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” McConnell continues in the recording. “Their efforts to restrict your rights, invading your personal privacy and overstepping their bounds with executive order, is just plain wrong.”
    In reading Sen. McConnell’s remarks I am struck by two countervailing thoughts (a) deep appreciation for the Senator’s commitment to stop Draconian gun laws and (b) disgust for the apparent fear-mongering and histrionic manner in which he is trying to secure votes.
    Does that make sense?
    To clarify, there’s no doubt that one should support McConnell’s effort to stop the Obama administration and the pro-gun control forces in Congress from radically reforming the nation’s gun laws, but at the same time, one shouldn’t embrace McConnell’s rather obvious ploy to play upon the fears of gun owners in the hope that it can be later cashed in for votes.
    The question needs to be asked, does McConnell really care about gun rights? Or does he really just care about getting reelected?
    One can check out his voting record on the issue of guns here. For the most part, it appears he is pro-gun, but again it’s not clear as to whether that’s pro-gun for political reasons or pro-gun because he really believes in the Second Amendment.
    Though, practically speaking, it doesn’t really matter, does it?
    I mean, so long as one is willing to vote for gun rights, to campaign on gun rights, to defend the Second Amendment, it doesn’t really make a difference if the candidate actually feels that way or if he/she’s adopted the position purely for political reasons (Mitt Romney comes to mind as someone who was politically pro-gun, but didn’t personally care about gun rights).
    Now, given this reality one is probably wondering, why even bring up this issue? Why criticize Sen. McConnell and point out the obvious (his political ambition)?
    For me the answer is simple, I want politicians on both sides of the aisle to know that gun owners are NOT a bunch of rubes, that we see right through the political B.S. being spouted from Washington, that we know when someone is trying to curry favor in order to advance or maintain a political career.
    So, what I propose to all of the pro-gun lawmakers (whether genuinely pro-gun or politically pro-gun) working in DC is that instead of telling us how much you support gun rights, do your job and show us that you really care about our right to keep and bear arms. Go on the offensive. Start introducing more pro-gun bills into both chambers of Congress (why not create a comprehensive pro-gun proposal to combat Obama’s pro-gun control plan, why not galvanize the House and Senate to support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act that would establish universal concealed carry in all 50 states? )
    What gun owners need right now from their elected officials is a little less conspiracy-laced talk and a lot more legislative action. In short, just do your job and you won’t have to worry about getting reelected.
    ghrit likes this.
  16. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Feinstein revives assault-weapons ban

    Feinstein revives assault-weapons ban

    Bill faces tough going in the Republican-controlled House.

    WASHINGTON — California Democrat Dianne Feinstein will begin her fourth full term as a U.S. senator much as she started her Senate career: fighting for a ban on assault weapons.
    Feinstein's new bill, which will be introduced Thursday in the Senate, among other things proposes to:
    • Ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of about 150 named firearms, plus certain rifles, handguns and shotguns fitted for detachable magazines and having at least one military characteristic.
    • Strengthen the 1994 ban by moving from a two- to a one-characteristic test to determine what constitutes an assault weapon.
    • Ban firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons."
    • Ban the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
    • Ban high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
    The bill would grandfather in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempts over 900 specific weapons "used for hunting or sporting purposes."
    Feinstein first got involved with gun control 34 years ago, when San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk, the nation's first openly gay elected official, were murdered by disgruntled former city supervisor Dan White.
    FULL COVERAGE: Debate over guns in America

    "I became mayor as a product of assassination," she told USA TODAY.
    While county supervisor and mayor, Feinstein said, she saw "up-close and personal the death and destruction that these guns carry with them."
    "I have watched these incidents from 1966, which was the first one, the Texas bell tower, and watched it go through school after school, business after business, law firm after law firm," she said. In 1966, former Marine Charles Whitman killed 14 people and wounded 32 others while shooting from atop the tower on the University of Texas campus in Austin. (A MENTAL case--just like all the others!!!!!)
    But it was a mass shooting at a law firm in a San Francisco high-rise in 1993 that began her long push against the availability of assault weapons; the first version became law in 1994 and expired in 2004.
    "I have worked on this for a long time," she said. "I'm not a newcomer or a novice to guns."
    Feinstein has pushed to renew the assault-weapons ban ever since it expired in 2004, but the murder of 20 children and six adults last month at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., has given it an unfortunate new relevance, she said.
    The issue has made her a frequent opponent of the National Rifle Association, a group she says goes "out of their way to develop hate toward anyone that does have a different view than they."
    "The NRA sort of specialized in trying to denigrate me, but I don't think there's anyone around that's spent 20 years on this subject, plus some," she said.
    This year's effort will be as hard, if not harder, than the last time the bill became law, particularly because Republicans control the House.
    "It is an uphill battle all the way," she said. "That doesn't mean the battle shouldn't be waged."
    Although the NRA frequently calls Feinstein hostile to gun rights, she said she supports the Second Amendment.
    In fact, when a terrorist group targeted her in 1976, she bought a gun to protect herself.
    "They put a bomb at my house, shot out windows of the beach house," she said in a recent interview. "I got a permit from the chief of police and was instructed in a handgun which was a five-shot revolver, a .38 special for myself."
    She never used the gun, she said, and eventually had it melted down with other weapons and forged into a cross to give to Pope John Paul II as a gift.
    "I don't think it can get much worse than Sandy Hook school," she said. "And the numbers of bullets used, the damage done to these little bodies. ... It is absolutely horror and it should not happen in America."
  17. Quadfather

    Quadfather Monkey

    They are talking about 5 round mags in N.J. And banning the ar. If this passes I'm moving to tx and looking for work. Not easy to find work in a wheelchair but I'm not staying here without my rights
  18. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    @Quadfather Look around the Austin Area, that is the State Capitol, and they have a Handicapped Hiring Preference, sometimes..... Especially for Vets...
  19. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Our texican folks think that Austin is liberal hotbed, deep in the heart of Texas. Houston might be better.
  20. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Austin is about as 'Liberal" as you get in Texas, that is true.... but they actually have significantly MORE Jobs, than Houston Area does.... Just Remember how long @Falcon15 was without, and looking HARD, in Houston.....
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary