Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feinstein to push assault-weapon ban
L.A. Daily News ^ | 2/26/2005 | AP

Posted on 02/26/2005 1:02:36 PM PST by Sterrins

Feinstein to push assault-weapon ban

Shooting prompts senator to reintroduce bill

By Associated Press

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday that she will reintroduce legislation banning assault weapons after a city maintenance worker allegedly shot and killed two fellow employees with an AK-47 assault rifle.

"Once again, we've seen the tragic consequences of the ready availability of assault weapons throughout our society," Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement.

Thomas Sampson, 25, was booked for investigation of first-degree murder early Friday for the deaths of his supervisor, Rene Flores, 54, and co-worker Ricardo Garris, 49, police said.

Sampson, who was held without bail, turned himself in Thursday after the late-afternoon shooting, said Officer April Harding, a police spokeswoman.

Garris, of Inglewood, and Flores, of the Sunland area, both had worked for the Bureau of Street Services for more than 20 years. The department fills potholes, fixes curbs and distributes asphalt in the city.

Feinstein in her statement said the shooting occurred just days before the anniversary of a Senate vote to extend the assault-weapons ban for 10 years. The legislation expired after President George W. Bush failed to urge Republican leaders to move the legislation, Feinstein said.

Feinstein said she intends to reintroduce the legislation next week and she hoped for support from Republican leaders.

Mayor James Hahn also sent a letter to Congress urging renewal of the assault-weapons ban. Though the city and state have laws banning assault weapons, they are still readily available across the state's borders, Hahn said.

"Therefore, it is critical to have an assault-weapons ban that prohibits the manufacture, importation and sale of assault weapons and ammunition throughout the United States," he said.

Sampson and Flores earlier Thursday afternoon had a dispute over Sampson being late for work, police said. Sampson later abandoned his city-owned truck on Interstate 10 in West Los Angeles and took a bus to where he parked his car. He then drove home, changed from his work clothes into a suit, armed himself with the AK-47 and drove to the field office where he waited for Flores, confronted him and shot him, police alleged.

Garris was shot because he happened to be in the office when Flores was attacked, police said.


TOPICS: Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 109th; awb; bang; banglist; doa; feinstein; fienswine; govwatch; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: Sterrins
"Once again, we've seen the tragic consequences of the ready availability of assault weapons throughout our society," Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement.

Greedy bitch, isn't she? Dance on the graves of two innocent workers in order to deprive people of the means to abolish a tyrannical government. Way to go, bimbo!

61 posted on 02/27/2005 12:29:22 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

the word was only used in reference to what a NY guy I think posted to me saying that in their bill they were trying to get rid of ALL semi autoloaders including shotguns like Rem 11-87 or what have you.....I was just using the term "regular" as a generic term for most firearms like trap or skeet shotguns, semi auto rifles like REm 760 or 740 cant remember which is pump or auto etc. So it was just a quick post in reference to that as opposed to what we generally call assault like AK47, M1A, M14 etc. I've shot them all....well not an AK, and I know you are being specific like pistol grips on shotguns, Mossberg 500 has them etc....I realize that, I wasn't getting into extreme specifics, just quickly pointing out that their bill was even more extreme than ours was.......I don't believe any firearms should be banned myself well except for full auto's which you may not agree with, but I may give them that.....also, I think some of the cheap ass mini handguns and "so called Saturday Night specials" are somewhat circumspect but not because of 2nd amendment policy but on safety policy.......hope that clears it up a little.....didn't have time with this guy to pontificate on all the specifics and variables like magazine capacity etc.


62 posted on 02/27/2005 12:35:58 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sterrins; Admin Moderator

Someone makes fun of Feinstein in Post #9, and the post gets deleted??? This censorship is going way to far.


63 posted on 02/27/2005 12:48:34 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
NorCalRepub said: "I don't believe any firearms should be banned myself well except for full auto's which you may not agree with, but I may give them that.....also, I think some of the cheap ass mini handguns and "so called Saturday Night specials" are somewhat circumspect but not because of 2nd amendment policy but on safety policy.......hope that clears it up a little..."

It clears it up a lot. Your stand is perfectly consistent with the stand of most anti-gunners; that the government is justified in banning some arms if they can make the claim that they are too dangerous. That is exactly the reasoning that Feinstein has used to cause me to remove five of my non-"regular" rifles from Kalifornia. You and Feinstein only differ on which arms should be banned.

If you really think that full-auto makes a firearm too dangerous, then you probably won't want to own one and you are willing to confiscate them from your neighbors.

If you really think that some inexpensive handguns are too poorly made, then you probably won't want to own one and you are willing to confiscate them from your neighbors.

64 posted on 02/27/2005 12:50:05 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
I see now that Iowa is also trying to do this.....

IOWA??? WTF is wrong with them? Are they a blue state?

65 posted on 02/27/2005 12:52:53 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

I don't want to confiscate anything.....you obviously know firearms and I look at some of the cheap crap out there like I would an unsafe car....that is all.....and yes, if you want to pigeonhole be because of fully automatic weapons than so be it.....I know anyone who knows much about firearms can file down or make a semi into a full auto fairly easily.....I don't think people should own anti tank guns or 50 caliber machine guns etc......yes there is a line to be drawn but it is drawn and has to be somewhere. I don't think even the NRA is angling to get .50 caliber machine guns back into use.....I"m not talking about the 50 caliber bolt or semi's ......that is all I really want to discuss this.....i'm having too much fun on my other threads.....I understand what you are saying and that is fine......to turn me into a liberal or something really is a stretch.....just that my line is drawn perhaps different than yours but we probably agree on 95% of this........would be a shame to keep arguing over 5% don't ya think?


66 posted on 02/27/2005 1:04:48 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

no but I read this on another FR thread on friday or something like that......not sure of the details.....


67 posted on 02/27/2005 1:05:54 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Well, let's see, first you said "rock on, babe" in response to the Feinstein's push to ban "assault weapons".

Then you said: "A federal study recently showed incontrovertibly that ALL gun controls have no effect on crime.", followed by "This has nothing to do with facts whatsoever."

You're sending mixed messages. "Incontrovertible" and "has nothing to do with facts whatsoever" are contradictory. Nobody except you can clarify that, so what are you waiting for? What, exactly, are the facts?
68 posted on 02/27/2005 1:08:56 PM PST by lastlostfight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004
Does Feinstein even recognize the Second Amendment?

Only as an inconvenience.

Mark

69 posted on 02/27/2005 1:17:52 PM PST by MarkL (That which does not kill me, has made the last mistake it will ever make!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
NorCalRepub said: "...would be a shame to keep arguing over 5% don't ya think?"

As usual, it always comes down to whose 5% gets sacrificed.

The Second Amendment allows for no infringement. The amendment process of the Constitution is available to make adjustments so that full-auto firearms could be restricted. The requirement to make such a change is more than just a majority vote of Congress and there is a very good reason for such protections of fundamental human rights.

What you claim is 5% is for me, in fact, at least 33% since I have had to relocate five of the fifteen firearms I own to storage 3000 miles from my home.

Would you be willing to allow a majority of Congress, with the consent of the President, to eliminate the requirement for trial by jury? How about just eliminating the requirement of trial by jury for 5% of defendants? How about eliminating 5% of the requirements for search warrants. How about shutting down 5% of freedom of the press?

70 posted on 02/27/2005 2:25:09 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

there you go again....I"m trying to be nice but I'm not sure whether you took any debate classes or not cause you know are extrapolating to other areas that don't even relate....doing that we could chat for the next decade about "exceptions" to rules......sorry you had to relocate, you have different priorities than I....but throwing this 5% exception thing in now makes you look silly and indignent. There are alot of things in nature and politics and whatever that suffer the 3rd standard deviation of the bell shaped curve and get curtailed....Since you are just looking to argue, this is now a mundane issue....I notice that when people bash Calif that many of them are Texans. Well I don't know what this superior than others vein is but it is not attractive....You many know more about firearms than I, I'll give you that, but I have an advanced degree in Psychology and usually this kind of riduculing or sometimes bashing is a classic bullying type syndrome and most of the time it is caused by subconcious jealousy or insecurity.......I'm sure that statement will piss you off but in this case, I really do know what I"m talking about....In fact, it is exactly the non compartmentalized and random badgering that proves my point.......just have a nice day and know that you won the arguement and you now are better and smarter and than I.........OK?


71 posted on 02/27/2005 2:37:09 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

ps.....I mistook you for another person from Texas, my apologies.........


72 posted on 02/27/2005 2:39:22 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Sterrins

Feinstein, Boxer and other useless Kalifornia politicians were a major factor in my decision to pack up and leave the state years ago, I see things haven't changed.

If she's really interested in banning something, why not the illegals that continue to cross the border. Far more citizens have died at the hands of illegals than by assault weapons.


73 posted on 02/27/2005 2:54:45 PM PST by Amish with an attitude (An armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastlostfight
I will leave that to your interpretation.

Is he pro-gun control?

Is he pro-gun?

Perhaps only his barber knows for sure.

74 posted on 02/27/2005 3:22:03 PM PST by Lazamataz (Proudly Posting Without Reading the Article Since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
NorCalRepub said: "In fact, it is exactly the non compartmentalized and random badgering that proves my point.......just have a nice day and know that you won the arguement and you now are better and smarter and than I.........OK?"

It is not "random badgering" to ask someone to clarify what they are saying. Such clarification revealed that you approve the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms in the case of full-auto weapons and so-called Saturday Night Specials.

I further asked you whether you would consider it reasonable to infringe other rights protected by the Bill of Rights or whether the Second Amendment for some reason is deserving of less protection. Does your three-sigma argument apply to firearms but not newspapers? Why are you unwilling to explain why you think there should be exceptions to some rights and not others? How do you decide?

The federal government had virtually NO firearms laws prior to 1934. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed as a revenue act to avoid the obvious challenge that would have been expected at that time because it infringes the right to keep and bear arms.

The battles of Lexington and Concord, which initiated the warfare which eventually resulted in the establishment of our union, were a response to confiscation of arms. The resulting Constitution and Bill of Rights were to prevent the government from once again tyrannizing the people. The enemy during the American Revolution was not "the British", it was "the government".

75 posted on 02/27/2005 4:04:04 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
good lord man....my diagnosis confirmed.......go look at my post #32 which you first wrote me.....the guy I wrote back knew what I was talking about......in that post I wrote that any AWB would be frivolous.......did you read that?.. of course not cause you focused in on one semantic difference and kept drilling into that....."badg·er ( ..tr.v., -ered, -er·ing, -ers. To harass or pester persistently.".....yes I think you are doing it....where in my original post did I say I wanted to infringe on something....again, anyone can pick apart semantics. To me it is analagous to driving 100 mph. Who decides the speed limit?...well I have to leave it to the govt....and of course some rights are limited. We have the right to kill in defense generally don't we. In you logic you are saying there should be no exceptions but there are exceptions to most things in life....why can't children buy liqour if their parents say it is OK?..We all know the answers to these questions but for some reason you want some detailed and specific answer....well that is the best you are gonna get.
76 posted on 02/27/2005 4:42:16 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
NorCalRepub said: "...and of course some rights are limited."

Is there no way that our Founders could have written a Second Amendment that would protect me from your infringing my right to keep and bear a full-auto firearm? Besides "shall not be infringed", what should they have written?

If I support amending the Constitution now to restore my rights, how should it be worded? Must I list all barrel lengths protected? Must I list every caliber protected? Must I specifically list all firing modes and firing rates that are allowed?

Is there any way to word a Second Amendment that protects my rights from infringement by a simple majority vote of Congress?

77 posted on 02/27/2005 5:12:20 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

that is a good question....don't know.......does that mean my neighbor can mount an antiaircraft gun in his front yard or own a tank to go hunting.......those are extremes but I guess can be classified as firearms......I'm just saying there are limits and what is up for debate is where they are drawn......don't confuse that with me wholesaleing being anti gun....we may have different limits or wording but I am hardly anti gun......my history of ownership, marksmanship with both battle rifles and assault rifles would speak favorably.....you just don't like my limits but I know those who would own a howitzer or toad missles if you let them....theoretically I agree with you that it says the "not be infringed", but the founding fathers couldn't have imagined alot of things.....


78 posted on 02/27/2005 5:20:53 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
NorCalRepub said: "...does that mean my neighbor can mount an antiaircraft gun in his front yard or own a tank..."

That was the case as recently as the 1960s. The only thing that has changed is the liberals' unwillingness to hold people responsible for their own actions. Everyone is a victim nowadays. Sexual predators are sentenced lightly and then murder little girls when paroled. Presidents perjure themselves and get a pass from the US Senate. Cub Scouts are not allowed to carry pocket knives at school.

Would YOU harm your neighbor with an anti-aircraft gun or a tank? I doubt it. Why, then, don't you expect the same restraint from all of your fellow citizens? Why is the solution to societies problems more and more prior restraint? We are making our rules such that little or no discipline is required from even the least well-behaved among us.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not concerned with what people might do with a cannon or a warship? They expected power to be handled responsibly and punished those who failed to do so. Why do you see things so differently than Washington or Jefferson?

79 posted on 02/27/2005 5:38:32 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

haha.....you mean those slave owners.....Washington and Jefferson.......well cause even though you and I wouldn't hurt others with a howitzer, the world is different know and there are people that would and the gov't has to protect us in some things....sad to say........need to go and eat dinner and watch the god awful oscars.......see ya later......


80 posted on 02/27/2005 5:42:56 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson