search
top

Feinstein Wants to Keep the Gun Issue Alive in 2014

If I was a Democratic party insider, I would almost wonder if Sen. Dianne Feinstein is actively trying to cause the party to lose the Senate this year. She is circulating a letter to gather signatures on a message to President Obama that calls for him to bring up the topic of gun bans this election year and use executive powers to cut off imports of any semi-automatic rifle that might possibly accept a magazine of more than 10 rounds or could possibly be converted to accept more a magazine of more than 10 rounds.

28 Responses to “Feinstein Wants to Keep the Gun Issue Alive in 2014”

  1. Peter O says:

    Ok, WTF is an Assault Pistol? From her bullet points, she calls for a ban on Assault Pistols as well as Assault Rifles.

    • Patrick says:

      Maryland has a list of “Assault Pistols” that was enacted in 1994. Today the list is mostly C&R relics (Uzi, etc.). They have been banned since that time, but nobody really bought them anyway. The list still exists.

      The idea is that any pistol they define as sooper-dooper lethal must be banned. Today I think their definition is going to be any pistol that can hold more than ten rounds. Or seven. You never know.

      One reason we don’t know is that they are not talking about this one in public. The fact she said something surprises me. This was their goal after universal background checks and registration: banning semi-auto pistols. Talking too far into the future gets them into trouble, because they only work by slow constriction. Let everyone know the end game and they lose and lose big.

      They want to ban Glocks. That’s not a guess, they actually want any gun with the label “Glock” on it to be banned, much like they want any rifle named “Bushmaster” to be banned. These things have meaning to them.

      • Jim Jones says:

        I look forward to the day where they actually try to outlaw semi-automatics. If Heller did not allow them to ban handguns, I doubt they would allow legislatures to ban semi-autos.

        • Patrick says:

          The legal argument is that as long as they don’t ban the entire category, it is not a “categorical ban”. So they can ban, “sub classes” of firearms all they want.

          Most recent example of this was a federal judge talking about a challenge to a new AWB, saying she didn’t view the banned guns as a “class”, but only as a “subclass”, despite the AR-15 being the most commonly owned rifle in the USA. She ruled accordingly, letting the ban continue.

          If SCOTUS changes stripes by one justice, then that logic will become law of the land: as long as you can get some kind of handgun, then they can ban semi-autos capable of holding more than ten rounds. Or seven. Or all semi-autos. Anything short of 100% would be acceptable.

          This is never going to end, short of a new amendment or a strong statement from the court.

          • Jim Jones says:

            Don’t forget that little “common use” dicta that Scalia threw out there. Should the Heller 5 remain, I don’t think any AWB or semi-auto ban would stand. Should one fall, well it’s like you said.

          • ruralcounsel says:

            It isn’t likely to be resolved just in the courts. It’s going to take some serious and widespread civil disobedience (like CT and NY are experiencing) to make it understood that these infringements on the 2A are socially destructive at a very deep level, creating great hostility to government and law enforcement. No compliance. That’s the new rule.

          • harp1034 says:

            Yeah, we would be reduced to single shot pistols and long guns.

        • According to some federal courts, you could ban every pistol except cap & ball revolvers and it’d be A-OK with Heller. I would be leery of leaning too far on Heller for preventing this sort of nonsense.

  2. Patrick says:

    She is being told constantly by those who make the Kool-Aide that support for gun control is over 75%, and that banning “High Capacity Assault Magazines and Rifles” is supported at 90%.

    So from her perspective, this is an election-year winner that could help them maintain the senate. She thinks it will divide the public in a good way. If you are as deep inside the bubble as she is, you tend to believe the things you are told instead of learning on your own. They show her some nebulous push-poll results and she thinks, “Win!”.

    Others know better. They are not as safe as she is, and hence their bubble is not so insulated.

  3. Dannytheman says:

    With Peruto case going on here in California new of concealed carry has more people paying attention to gun issues. I think more sympathizers to our side as they get educated on how we got here. I think DF is way off base here. I hope she keeps talking, BUT she might be just getting the NRA to spend money where it may not be truly needed.

    • Bitter says:

      Fortunately, I don’t think the NRA is spending money in this case because it’s unlikely to get any real traction at the moment. In fact, I think her extreme demands will probably end up in fundraising letters. :)

      • Archer says:

        I think it’s possible the NRA is not fighting this one for two reasons:

        First, because it’s not binding law, it’s basically a referendum letter.

        Second, when it’s signed and made public, our side will have – at zero cost – a written record of who supports more gun control. The NRA is constantly trying to get legislators on record as supporting or opposing gun bills; why spend money and political capital pushing for it if they’ll do it themselves?

        • Bitter says:

          Why would the NRA try to fight Dianne Feinstein’s ability to send a letter? That would seem rather extreme, even to someone like me, if they announced a fight to keep lawmakers from voicing their own opinions. I don’t believe that NRA should “fight” a letter, regardless of whether or not we see a version of who signed on.

          • Archer says:

            Perhaps “fight” was too strong a word.

            I’d still like to see who signs on, though.

  4. anon says:

    Face it, unwavering devotion to bad ideas is a hallmark of both parties’ long time denizens.

  5. Henry says:

    Oh I hope she does! I hope it’s on every yard sign and billboard, on every radio spot and TV ad. I hope they spend billions on this campaign.

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

    • Bitter says:

      Well, she already is sending the letter, so you don’t have to hope for anything there. There’s text that’s been sent around looking for supporter to sign on. You should definitely hope that her letter isn’t successful because the changes made by executive powers can’t be undone by changing the Senate. We’d have to suffer under them for years waiting on the next presidential election, assuming we even win it.

      • Geodkyt says:

        Wrong — EOs can be undone by Congressional action, by eliminating the authority for the EO.

        For example, Obama issues an EO to give Feinstein exactly what she wants, calling all these guns “nonsporting”. Great — the GCA allows the Executive Branch to define “sporting”.

        What happens is “suitable for sporting purposes” is completely neutralized by a rider on a “must pass” bill, such as happened to guns on Amtrack and guns in National Parks? Um, the authority to deny the import of “nonsporting” guns suddenly evaporates, and the Exectutive Branch no longer plays a part in deciding what is or is not “sporting”.

  6. ruralcounsel says:

    I hope the response she gets from the public is on par with a red hot piece of rebar shoved up her a$$. May she regret keeping this issue alive – because it will burn her fellow pols across the country to be associated with her.

    • Sigivald says:

      Well, “the public” doesn’t matter a lot to her.

      Her district does, and they keep re-electing her.

      Because it’s not a gun-friendly district, so to speak.

      • harp1034 says:

        FYI, Fineswine is not from a district. She is not a Representative but a Senator for the State of California. Of course California is part of the left coast.

  7. TS says:

    So she wants to line the pockets of domestic AR/AK manufacturers by eliminating the import market? She’s such a tool for the gun industry.

  8. Matthew Carberry says:

    If The Pres. goes the Exec. Order route he hands an ’16 election issue to the GOP. They may be wishy-washy on guns but they aren’t going to pass up a gift.

    If the GOP takes the Senate with a pro-gun majority the blowback from the House and Senate on Exec. Orders like an import ban would likely be epic.

    I’d go for optics, call for a vote on every gun rights wish list item and get the opposition on record and hopefully keep Obama busy veto-ing and being overridden. Defund his policies in the House and make him be openly defiant in moving funds.

    Sporting purposes clause, gone.

    Mandate ATF response time to NFA applications due to use of NICS.

    Hughes, gone (call them both “revenue enhancement”).

    SBR/SBS/suppressors to Title 1 or back to a $5 tax.

    DC “shall-issue”.

    National Concealed Reciprocity: If the 9th holds there will be little justification to coddle the remaining 14% of the population in the few actual “no issue in practice” jurisdictions – NYC, DC, Baltimore, NJ, RI. The GOP isn’t gonna win there regardless for a while, no point avoiding tweaking them.

    • Patrick says:

      It gets worse (for Obama).

      We typically think of laws in terms of “Gun Bills” that go up or down on their own. Creating a nice gu bill is easy, and it makes the red meat crowd happy. But they rarely pass, and even with GOP controlling both houses they won’t get over the veto hump.

      The real concern for Obama is the amendment process. Now that Obama made gun control a major issue, you should see the GOP more willing to be openly pro-gun.

      Amendments to non-gun bills are the real way to move forward. For example, you can check guns in on Amtrak because Obama wanted a credit card bill passed; the GOP attached the Amtrk gun provision to that bill (instead of creating a stand-alone bill). Obama had to veto everything or take the guns. He swallowed the bill. Same with national parks.

      If the GOP really wants to be pro-gun, they could attach reciprocity to the re-authorization of a program he loves, or a non-discretionary budget item he needs. The GOP has once already made DC shall-issue via amendment to the DC House Representation Bill (DC getting a real vote in Congress). Everyone thought it was a done deal but the DC Council balked at the last minute because they wanted to maintain home rule authority over guns (the House technically runs DC, and the DC city government operates under a home rule allowance from the House. It can be revoked or modified by congress at any time).

      So the GOP could make the veto stamp come with real pain for Obama.

      If you want to see forward movement in gun rights, don’t ask a GOP-controlled Congress for pro-gun bills. Demand pro-gun amendments to necessary legislation, instead.

    • I think that’s an optimistic (but plausible) scenario.

      It is equally possible that we get stuck with some heinous EOs — ruling “assault shotguns” to be DD’s under the NFA, import bans, etc — and the GOP makes some ineffectual gestures, tries to use it as a election wedge, and we get nothing.

      Frankly if Obama whacks us with EOs right after the midterms, with some good cover from the media, a good number of people may forget about it by the next presidential election.

  9. Clay says:

    I thought she would be too busy this year complaining about how the monstrous national intelligence gathering network she helped create is now crossing the line by spying on her and her staff instead of just spying on the common man. Guess I was wrong.

  10. Pat Offenberger says:

    Last time I looked at the C & R list, Uzi’s weren’t on it. Guess I need to revisit that rather dry reading material.

top