Apparently during the press conference where this picture was taken she swept the muzzle of the firearm she is holding across the entire audience.
She basically broke the law, not to mention two of the three primary gun safety rules.
Posted on 07/21/2005 2:28:56 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
While the big news of the day is President Bush's pick for the Supreme Court (more on this below), Gun Owners of America is hearing rumblings that the Senate will soon be considering legislation to slow down the number of frivolous lawsuits against gun makers.
Although GOA is supportive of this legislation, S. 397, we must remember that anti-gun Senators used this legislation last year to load it up with all kinds of anti-gun riders -- things like gun show restrictions, semi-auto bans and more.
In the end, pro-gun supporters were forced to vote against (and kill) the lawsuit protection bill in order to defeat the anti-gun amendments.
GOA told Majority Leader Bill Frist that all of this could have been avoided if he used certain parliamentary maneuvers to keep Senator Dianne Feinstein from offering her gun ban amendment to the bill. Later, when she tried to attach the semi-auto ban to another bill, GOA asked you to contact Frist and urge him to use those parliamentary procedures.
(Excerpt) Read more at gunowners.org ...
I'm SICK of these games played by our reps.
Haven't heard much from Feinschwein lately. I knew she had to be up to no good.
As I wrote on another thread, why do law-abiding gun owners always have to play defense? I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but it would appear on the surface that NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 violate at least the Second Amendment to the Constitution, maybe more. Seems like we could put the gun-grabbers on defense if we went after repeal of those two laws, either through legislation or through the courts. Who knows? Maybe the repeal of those two laws could start a domino fall of all other stupid anti-gun legislation.
We need a line item veto for the president.
Can't we just ban feinswine? And boxer? And the rest of them?
Mark
Apparently during the press conference where this picture was taken she swept the muzzle of the firearm she is holding across the entire audience.
She basically broke the law, not to mention two of the three primary gun safety rules.
That picture and pin stripes makes her look like part of the mob. Great photo.
I would love to be able to exercise my RIGHTS without having to worry about being killed by law enforcement for doing so.
The violin case was cropped out.
Feinstein thinks we "commoners" shouldn't have access to any type of firearms.
Think about it.
And remember: always beware any politician who fears an armed citizenry.
Oops. Looks like we have an anti-war gunner at the end of that link, DC.
The problem is that some people are more equal than others. There is no way that the goosestepping administrators at any of the alphabet soup agencies, particularly the JBT's at the ATF are going to stand for being as equal as their employers.
"I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but it would appear on the surface that NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 violate at least the Second Amendment to the Constitution, maybe more. Seems like we could put the gun-grabbers on defense if we went after repeal of those two laws, either through legislation or through the courts. Who knows? Maybe the repeal of those two laws could start a domino fall of all other stupid anti-gun legislation."
The irony is that the 1939 "U.S. v. Miller" decision http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html so frequently quoted by the anti-gun crowd is actually very pro-gun. If only Miller had an attorney represent him on the Supreme Court level, and if only that attorney had presented evidence that a short-barreled shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then NFA would've been struck down. The exact quote that lost the case for Miller is:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment" and their "use could contribute to the common defense."
The fact is that sawed-off shotguns were used with great effect by the Army in the trenches of France in WW1 (they were called "trenchbrooms"), only 21 years before the case was heard. Then, since and in the future, full auto guns will be "part of the ordinary military equipment" and their "use could contribute to the common defense" and, as such, should be protected against the '34 NFA by the 2nd Amendment. Such a position would satisfy the worshippers of stare decisis (i.e. precedent), as well as the originalists. Between those two groups (assuming that Roberts makes it in), we've got a real shot at a win. Of course, it would be better once Ginsberg and Stevens leave (she has cancer and he's 85) and are replaced with people that can actually read the Constitution and, more importantly, who give a rat's hindquarters about what it says.
I'd love to see someone put a sear from an M-16 into an AR-15 variant, and then challenge the case on 2nd Amendment grounds, citing "Miller" and submitting volumes of evidence that full auto guns are "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Yeah... it detracts a little bit. But the over all tones of the article itself is good. No need for an ad hominem on this one as the points the author makes are pretty universal to those on the Constitutional side of the issue.
I don't have the financial resources to run a full court challenge like you purpose. More than likely, they'd change up the charge from simple possession to something else and screw you that way. They've done it before.
Just last weekend, the "Gunny" on Mail Call, showed film clip of our troops overseas using a really short barreled shotgun as an entry weapon. The segment was actually on the Marines new semi-auto shotgun, which is not short barreled, but the short barreled ones have definitely been used in the past, and will continue to be used in the future by our military forces.
I happen to agree that how we fight the war is up for debate, so I agree. We're dangerously close to offering too much power to the government, however legitimate it is. I don't happen to share his views that the government we've elected today is the threat. It's future governments, e.g. a Hillary Clinton with a Democratic majority in congress, that I'd fear -- if we continue forward without taking back our second amendment rights. I happen to also agree that we're just being done a favor today with our "privilege" to own arms.
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.