Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Feinstein's Gun Ban Hurts Gun Control


Sentinel7
 Share

Recommended Posts

Liberal Law Prof: Sen. Feinstein's Gun Ban Full of Loopholes, Likely Unconstitutional, Hurts Gun Control

By Ken Shepherd | March 21, 2013 | 19:07

 
 

While much of the media reaction about Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to scrap the assault weapons ban has been predictably shrill and overwrought, to its credit the Daily Beast ran an interesting analysis from a liberal law professor that argued that a) the Feinstein gun ban was easy to get around with all its loopholes B) might not pass muster in federal court given Supreme Court precedent and c) that the focus on a weapons ban had poisoned the well for liberal gun control advocates who might have had more success had they not pursued a gun ban that energized gun rights advocates to rally against it.

In his March 20 piece, UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler -- who, by the way, supported the D.C. handgun ban in an amicus brief in the 2008 Heller case but argued against Chicago in the 2009 McDonald one-- groused that "gun-control advocates deserve a share of the blame for focusing on a symbolic proposal with little prospect of passage" (emphases mine):

 

Gun-control advocates will no doubt mourn the demise of Feinstein’s assault-weapons proposal. Yet, they may soon be asking if the proposal lived too long—just long enough to dash hopes of enacting any meaningful reform.

Banning the sale of assault weapons was a bad idea from the start. These guns may be scary looking, but they are rarely used in criminal activity. While involved in a handful of high-profile mass shootings, including in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, these weapons aren’t a significant contributor to gun violence overall. Only a fraction of gun-related homicides every year are attributed to rifles of any kind; assault rifles make up a fraction of a fraction. And anyone looking to do maximum damage, like a deranged mass killer, can easily find other guns just as deadly. So even if the assault-weapons ban were enacted, it would not have a major impact on America’s daily death toll from guns.

Assault weapons are often misunderstood. Although many people mistakenly believe that these guns have automatic fire, that’s wrong. They aren’t machine guns, which are already heavily restricted and illegal to sell in most cases. The weapons primarily covered by Feinstein’s proposal, largely variants of the AR-15, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger. They are powerful—they are, after all rifles—but fire smaller rounds than many game-hunting rifles, which wouldn’t be affected by the assault-weapons ban.

One reason these guns are misunderstood is that there’s no set definition of “assault weapon.” The guns targeted by Feinstein’s proposal were mainly semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and one or more military-style characteristics, like a pistol grip or a folding butt stock. This wasn’t the same definition used by the prior federal law enacted in the Clinton years. That ban required two or more military-style features. One thing the two laws would have had in common, though, is the ability to be easily skirted by gun manufacturers. Just as with the old ban, gun makers would just make the exact same guns, only without the military characteristics. And sell them by the millions.

That’s what many gun-control advocates failed to realize about the assault-weapons ban: the same gun, with the same rate of fire, the same bullets, and the same detachable magazine, would be perfectly lawful. It’s as if the problem with “assault weapons” wasn’t their lethality but their pistol grips.

Even if enacted, Feinstein’s proposal would be the most likely of all the major gun reforms being considered in Washington today to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects arms that are “in common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense. There seems little doubt that assault weapons are in common use, given the millions of them in circulation. Of course, the courts might still have upheld the ban; a federal appeals court recently said that outlawing this one category of firearm didn’t substantially interfere with anyone’s self-defense. Strangely, the best thing an assault-weapons ban would have going for it is its loopholes. Because you could buy the exact same gun without the pistol grip, you weren’t really denied the right to have a semiautomatic rifle to defend yourself.

There was one certain impact of proposing to ban the sale of assault weapons: it was guaranteed to stir gun-rights proponents to action. Ever since Obama was elected, they’ve been claiming that he wanted to ban guns. Gun-control advocates mocked this claim—then proposed to ban a gun. Not only that, the gun they were trying to ban happened to be the most popular rifle in America. It’s one thing to ban machine guns, which few law-abiding people ever wanted or used. It’s another thing entirely to ban a gun that millions of American gun enthusiasts love to shoot.

[...]

Had President Obama and Democratic senators focused all their energy and political capital on background checks, perhaps we’d be closer to enacting meaningful reform. There’s no doubt that the time spent on assault weapons, both in Senate committees and in public debate, wasn’t well invested. Indeed, long before Vice President Biden’s recommendations were issued in January, it was already clear that an assault-weapons ban had no chance of passing Congress. Now, three months after Newtown, the momentum for gun control has slowed, and the prospects for any reform’s enactment grow dim. That’s mainly due to the intransigence of the NRA and its allies. Yet gun-control advocates deserve a share of the blame for focusing on a symbolic proposal with little prospect of passage.

The assault-weapons ban may be effectively dead. The question now may be how much damage the proposal has done already to the gun-reform movement.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/03/21/liberal-professor-sen-feinsteins-gun-ban-full-loopholes-would-likely-h#ixzz2OGSXcFw8

 

 

We must keep putting pressure on our Representatives we need no new laws.

Universal back ground checks equals fire arm registration

The only way it could work

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we need to do is enforce the laws on the books now.  I have purchased two firearms recently and went through background checks on both, a pistol and a rifle.  Technically these firearms are now registered, which I feel is an infringement on my rights--I am a law abiding citizen with no record.  Anyway, enforce what we have, punish those that break the law using a weapon of any kind--a weapon doesn't have to be just a firearm.  JMHO  And, of course, please RV soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is far from over with if that's what you think.

They are not going to tuck their tails on this issue.

If they cant ban the AR they will come up with another plan of attack.

With this universal back ground check or requiring a mental back ground check when buying ammo. 

or a ammo tax. There`s many ways to make us hurt for the transgressions of criminals

who will keep on being criminals. We have to remember that these gun laws are meant to hurt the law bidding citizen.

and have absolutely no affect whatsoever on a criminal who disregards all forms of law. To them these laws mean nothing

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any and ALL gun control laws are in VIOLATION of the Constitution:

 

 

D I C K ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)
the Trump Card Enacted by the Congress
Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable  


The D I C K Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

 

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

 

The D I C K Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

 

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

 

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

 

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

 

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

 

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

 


D I C K ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)
the Trump Card Enacted by the Congress
Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable    (PART 2)


Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

 

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

 

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

 

www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any and ALL gun control laws are in VIOLATION of the Constitution:

 

 

D I C K ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)

the Trump Card Enacted by the Congress

Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable  

The D I C K Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

 

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

 

The D I C K Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

 

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

 

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

 

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

 

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

 

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

 

D I C K ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)

the Trump Card Enacted by the Congress

Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable    (PART 2)

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

 

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

 

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

 

www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

 

So if things got so bad that the draft would be reenacted......all an able bodied man has to do is join a local militia and hang out in the woods.with his machine gun he is allowed to have, because banning them in the 30's was illegal and unconstitutional?  The U.S. military has no need for those not willing to fight anyways......so it all works out.   <_< 

 

GO RV, then BV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One BIG change to this occured in how the National Guard is used.  According to the above - 

 

"The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

 

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

 

As we all know - and I can personally attest to - National Guard soldiers are now used world wide.  Believe it or not, I have still run into people who think the National Guard can only be used within the United States. If anyone is interested in how this changed...just google "Total Force Policy" and "Abram's Amendment"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what a normal charge is for a concealed carry permit? I saw a sign the other Day offering 2 for $25... not sure what I'd be carrying since I haven't actually purchased a gun... but I'm curious if that was reasonable. Post rv, we'll have a couple...

 

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what a normal charge is for a concealed carry permit? I saw a sign the other Day offering 2 for $25... not sure what I'd be carrying since I haven't actually purchased a gun... but I'm curious if that was reasonable. Post rv, we'll have a couple...

 

KK

Very good deal. Average price in the Cape Fear Region of NC is $130.00 plus for one. Well worth getting. Being a hunter, I always carry a backup in the woods. Sometimes I forget I even have it on me. Nice to have a carry when you know you'll be around large groups of people as well. In some parts of the country, walking to the mailbox is a potential issue. KEL-TEC makes a  nice small frame 9mm and Ruger makes a small and thinner 380. Hope that helps.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In mich it can run anywhere from $100 to $200 . It depends where you go to get your training cert. You have to have a training cert before they will issue you a ccw.

It really bites my a$$ to have to pay money for learning how to do something that I have been doing my entire adult life.

But its a good idea for people just getting into it so it is what it is.  I like to carry during the hunting season also. I have stalked through corn fields and 

made shots on bedding deer. My 41 mag has yet to make me fire a second shot. Great deer medicine 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In MT its $50 for first time, $25 for renewal and permit is good for 4 years.  There is also a $5 fee for fingerprinting.

 

As for having to show training - they of course accept NRA classes but also accept State Hunter's Safety certificates, Law Enforcement certificates, and Military Service records showing pistol training.  All I had to do was take in my last score card with a letter from my commander.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carry permit is $130.00 to the state for more background. $125.00 for the required training. Just to exercise your Constutional rights in tthe state of Texas. Just more tax for the tax cancer.

Plus you go on a list of legal carriers. Governemnt control is what this whole thing is about. They just can't stand it people have the right to control your own destinety.  Stinks to high heven.

I am 21 I should be able to do what is best for without asking the damm government for permissioin. Just my humble opinion

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what a normal charge is for a concealed carry permit? I saw a sign the other Day offering 2 for $25... not sure what I'd be carrying since I haven't actually purchased a gun... but I'm curious if that was reasonable. Post rv, we'll have a couple...

 

KK

 In Texas you normally pay around $100 for the class, then when you mail in your paperwork, it's about $140 for the license.without any discounts.

 

Feeling protected & secure - Priceless :)

 

Always qualify with a automatic. If you qualify with a revolver than you can not carry an automatic. With the automatic you can carry either, or even both. LOL

 

Money well spent in my opinion.

Edited by gymrat76541
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sucks for weapons manufacturers........the overtime was fun while it lasted.    I guess that's that.......who wants ice cream?   :) 

 

GO RV, then BV

Obama and Fienstien have to be the gun manufacturers salesman of the year!!!! Not just guns but ammo as well! Tried to go get a case of 12 ga shells the other day to shoot clays with my boys and Academy was sold out and Wally World only had 4 boxes left...... Needless to say, we shot for 20 minutes and went back to the cabin!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama and Fienstien have to be the gun manufacturers salesman of the year!!!! Not just guns but ammo as well! Tried to go get a case of 12 ga shells the other day to shoot clays with my boys and Academy was sold out and Wally World only had 4 boxes left...... Needless to say, we shot for 20 minutes and went back to the cabin!!!

 

Yep I have to agree. I needed a box of 40 cal to re-certify for my concealed carry. I could not find any in Dallas, Texas. I only had time enough to check a few places. I ended up using the 9mm from the range for qualification. I shot pretty well with their gun; A glock, I hate glocks. My S&W MP40 shoots so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.