Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273

    Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

    Further down in the article.
    "[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill's enactment."

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_697732.html
    I may be wrong so please excuse me and enlighten me. AR type sporting rifles use, what I told back in my military days, a "charging handle" vs. a bolt such as a AK. Even though the bill specifies firearms by name/model number.

    So, if a AR sporting rifle has a charging handle it does not have a bolt bolt and would be banned. But, a AK has a manually operated bolt (used for the first round) and thus is a sporting rifle that uses a bolt action to make the firearm ready to fire. Technicality? Maybe.

    We need a syntax pretzel emoticon.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Is an "official" different from an "employee"? Seems like just another way for Obama to reward his buddies (government employees).

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Aren't we all gov't officials? hehehe

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts ... any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; ..."

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_697732.html
    What does the actual bill say? If it is exempting government official and law enforcement during the execution of their duties that require firearms, then the exemption is reasonable. If the exemption is for their private use, then that is blatant hypocrisy.

    Not that almost everything in the bill isn't already horrifically unconstitutional, but let's gripe about the real violations of our rights.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What does the actual bill say? If it is exempting government official and law enforcement during the execution of their duties that require firearms, then the exemption is reasonable. If the exemption is for their private use, then that is blatant hypocrisy.

    Not that almost everything in the bill isn't already horrifically unconstitutional, but let's gripe about the real violations of our rights.
    It is not clear to me if your are referring to my OP comments or the bill in general. My comments are focused on the firearm types. If your comments are focused on the title of the thread please excuse my ignorance.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    My comments are directed at the quoted article, which is woefully lacking in significant details about the exemption for government officials. It makes a huge difference whether they are talking about duty weapons or personal firearms.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Re: Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It makes a huge difference whether they are talking about duty weapons or personal firearms.
    Actually it makes no difference at all. They should be banned while on duty.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Clearly it makes a difference whether they are required to carry on duty versus they choose to exercise the right off duty.

    Unless you are saying is that no level of government should require any official to carry ever. A valid opinion. Stupid and uninformed, but valid.

  9. #9
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Further down in the article.I may be wrong so please excuse me and enlighten me. AR type sporting rifles use, what I told back in my military days, a "charging handle" vs. a bolt such as a AK. Even though the bill specifies firearms by name/model number.

    So, if a AR sporting rifle has a charging handle it does not have a bolt bolt and would be banned. But, a AK has a manually operated bolt (used for the first round) and thus is a sporting rifle that uses a bolt action to make the firearm ready to fire. Technicality? Maybe.

    We need a syntax pretzel emoticon.
    manually operated means you need to perform a manual operation to eject every used round and chamber every new round, beyond a simple trigger pull of course. it directly refers to guns that are not semi-auto or full auto.
    the charging handle of an AR, and the small bolt handle on an AK do not fit these parameters, because they are only used to load the first round if a new mag is inserted while the action/bolt/slide is closed. and because these guns are semi-automatic; they reload every next round automatically

  10. #10
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    On-duty or off...if they are a legislator, they should be prohibited 24/7.

    Further, I am sick and tired of "retired LEO" exemptions and extra privileges...how about they just live like everyone else?
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    On-duty or off...if they are a legislator, they should be prohibited 24/7.

    Further, I am sick and tired of "retired LEO" exemptions and extra privileges...how about they just live like everyone else?
    How did "legislator" get into this? "Government officials" could include legislators, but is probably directed at officials in the executive branch. It is reasonable to exempt them from laws that prohibit carry or certain types of carry, depending upon their duties, which may necessitate carry--which is why I have asked for the language in the bill for the exemption. Who is really exempted, and under what conditions?

    Retired LEOs is another discussion entirely, apart from what I am discussing. That only serves to cloud the issue I am raising, so I will continue to focus like a laser on the question I have posed and ignore the distraction.

    Caveat: I am not saying that the bill is OK, just that "government officials," in the performance of their duty, when the duty requires the use of a certain tool, not be disallowed that tool. Under the 2A, and, in part, to protect ourselves from rogue "government officials" with tools, we should not be disallowed the use of the tools known as firearms.

  12. #12
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    How did "legislator" get into this? "Government officials" could include legislators, but is probably directed at officials in the executive branch. It is reasonable to exempt them from laws that prohibit carry or certain types of carry, depending upon their duties, which may necessitate carry--which is why I have asked for the language in the bill for the exemption. Who is really exempted, and under what conditions?

    Retired LEOs is another discussion entirely, apart from what I am discussing. That only serves to cloud the issue I am raising, so I will continue to focus like a laser on the question I have posed and ignore the distraction.

    Caveat: I am not saying that the bill is OK, just that "government officials," in the performance of their duty, when the duty requires the use of a certain tool, not be disallowed that tool. Under the 2A, and, in part, to protect ourselves from rogue "government officials" with tools, we should not be disallowed the use of the tools known as firearms.
    Legislators came into this because it is the self same legislators that are proposing the Unconstitutional limitation on OUR rights that already carry and exempt themselves. Just my personal beef.

    If you are talking about limiting law enforcement while on duty, then I agree, that is a ridiculous limitation and really isn't worthy of much discussion. When not on duty, they should be limited like the rest of us...which is to say, they shouldn't be limited at all, because we should not be limited.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Further down in the article.I may be wrong so please excuse me and enlighten me. AR type sporting rifles use, what I told back in my military days, a "charging handle" vs. a bolt such as a AK. Even though the bill specifies firearms by name/model number.
    Both rifle designs incorporate a bolt, bolt carrier and charging handle. In the case of the AR, the charging handle is not fixed to the bolt carrier. The AK's charging handle is fixed to the bolt carrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    So, if a AR sporting rifle has a charging handle it does not have a bolt bolt and would be banned. But, a AK has a manually operated bolt (used for the first round) and thus is a sporting rifle that uses a bolt action to make the firearm ready to fire. Technicality? Maybe.

    We need a syntax pretzel emoticon.
    This is incorrect. In the original article it says...

    "guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action;"

    This should be read as "guns manually operated by bolt ACTION, pump ACTION, lever ACTION or slide action."

    Both the AR and the AK operate similar to a bolt action for the first round but then operate as semi-auto action on subsequent rounds until the magazine is empty. Neither rifle fits the definition of bolt action as traditionally designed.

    A bit of a side note here, the only modification necessary to make AK and AR type rifles "bolt action" is to install a gas block with no hole for the gas to pass through.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Legislators came into this because it is the self same legislators that are proposing the Unconstitutional limitation on OUR rights that already carry and exempt themselves...
    You were responding to me. Legislators are not a concern to the question I posed, so again, how'd they get into the answer to a question I was raising that had nothing to do with them.

    Let me pose the question again so that folks who answer this post will have no question as to the question:

    What exactly does the bill say about government officials being exempt from its restrictions??? Some exemptions would make sense. Some would not. If we are going to bitch about the exemption, don't you think we ought to know what it says?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  15. #15
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You were responding to me. Legislators are not a concern to the question I posed, so again, how'd they get into the answer to a question I was raising that had nothing to do with them.

    Let me pose the question again so that folks who answer this post will have no question as to the question:

    What exactly does the bill say about government officials being exempt from its restrictions??? Some exemptions would make sense. Some would not. If we are going to bitch about the exemption, don't you think we ought to know what it says?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...f-69e69f517fb4

    Looks like they are exempting police and retired police.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Clearly it makes a difference whether they are required to carry on duty versus they choose to exercise the right off duty.

    Unless you are saying is that no level of government should require any official to carry ever. A valid opinion. Stupid and uninformed, but valid.

    K, I'll go slow. If the police or infantry get to carry it then I get to. That is one of the purposes of the right to keep and bear arms. They're not special just because "they're on duty". On duty? Tough shi t. Hope 6 shot revolvers are good enough because that's all they're leaving the single mom in a tough neighborhood.
    Last edited by 77zach; 01-28-2013 at 07:45 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  17. #17
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    K, I'll go slow. If the police or infantry get to carry it then I get to. That is one of the purposes of the right to keep and bear arms. They're not special just because "they're on duty". On duty? Tough shi t. Hope 6 shot revolvers are good enough because that's all they're leaving the single mom in a tough neighborhood.

    +1
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    K, I'll go slow. If the police or infantry get to carry it then I get to. That is one of the purposes of the right to keep and bear arms. They're not special just because "they're on duty". On duty? Tough shi t. Hope 6 shot revolvers are good enough because that's all they're leaving the single mom in a tough neighborhood.
    K, I'll go slow too. Track the history of the 2A. It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do.

    I've explained this a dozen times. So either you haven't been paying attention, or you are having trouble understanding. (I actually don't believe a whit of that last sentence. I just wanted to demonstrate that I could behave like an ass too and insult your intelligence. Play nice, or I'll just go elsewhere. And I don't care if you don't care.)

    The right actually started as a duty under English law centuries before the Republic was constituted. Englishmen were required to keep a sword and, later, a bow and arrow. Eventually that duty evolved into the Right and was adopted by the colonies, the States, and ultimately the Republic. The one thing that can be traced throughout the implementations of the duty and the right is that the arms were always individual personal arms with civilian uses that could be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military firearm.

    There would be little doubt that any semi-automatic rifle that an individual could handle would qualify, not because the military carries it, but because of the reason I outlined above.

  19. #19
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Re: Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    K, I'll go slow too. Track the history of the 2A. It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do.

    I've explained this a dozen times. So either you haven't been paying attention, or you are having trouble understanding. (I actually don't believe a whit of that last sentence. I just wanted to demonstrate that I could behave like an ass too and insult your intelligence. Play nice, or I'll just go elsewhere. And I don't care if you don't care.)

    The right actually started as a duty under English law centuries before the Republic was constituted. Englishmen were required to keep a sword and, later, a bow and arrow. Eventually that duty evolved into the Right and was adopted by the colonies, the States, and ultimately the Republic. The one thing that can be traced throughout the implementations of the duty and the right is that the arms were always individual personal arms with civilian uses that could be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military firearm.

    There would be little doubt that any semi-automatic rifle that an individual could handle would qualify, not because the military carries it, but because of the reason I outlined above.
    Do you believe the police should have weapons you are not allowed to possess?
    Last edited by 77zach; 01-29-2013 at 08:22 AM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    K, I'll go slow too. Track the history of the 2A. It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do.
    SNIP
    This is not entirely accurate. The 2A was meant as a means to ensure that a free people remain free from enemies foreign and domestic. Since there is no constitutional provision for a standing army, the citizens were the army and the citizen army privately owned the weapons necessary to protect the Republic.

    So to say "It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do." is true in the sense that there was no military separate from the folks. It is false in the sense that folks were the military so what they carried was by definition "the exact same weapons".

    We now have a standing army. In order for us to maintain our protection from enemies domestic, we have a right to possess whatever weapons we deem necessary to do so, and this would require a MINIMUM of the exact same weapons as our military possess AND the training to use them.

  21. #21
    Regular Member linerider69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Louisburg
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    This is not entirely accurate. The 2A was meant as a means to ensure that a free people remain free from enemies foreign and domestic. Since there is no constitutional provision for a standing army, the citizens were the army and the citizen army privately owned the weapons necessary to protect the Republic.

    So to say "It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do." is true in the sense that there was no military separate from the folks. It is false in the sense that folks were the military so what they carried was by definition "the exact same weapons".

    We now have a standing army. In order for us to maintain our protection from enemies domestic, we have a right to possess whatever weapons we deem necessary to do so, and this would require a MINIMUM of the exact same weapons as our military possess AND the training to use them.
    I must agree what the founding fathers wanted was for us as American citizens is to always be able to defend the nation and the constitution against tyranny and foreign entities and have the tools and arms to do so. If the government was to have the right to posses weapons superior to the people,or enact laws that forbid the people from having weapons that might facilitate the absence of freedom of said people then we as the people would be lost.What is the point all other arguments are invalid period.

  22. #22
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by linerider69 View Post
    I must agree what the founding fathers wanted was for us as American citizens is to always be able to defend the nation and the constitution against tyranny and foreign entities and have the tools and arms to do so. If the government was to have the right to posses weapons superior to the people,or enact laws that forbid the people from having weapons that might facilitate the absence of freedom of said people then we as the people would be lost.What is the point all other arguments are invalid period.
    I think it is sufficient to tell anti 2A people that the 2A is NOT about hunting, sport shooting and self defense. Period. End of Story.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Might as well update this thread too.

    IN HER OWN WORDS: See video from 20:50 - 20:58
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUfr...ayer_embedded#!

    Here is from the 20:30 second mark and on to get her whole sentence.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUfr...ilpage#t=1229s

    As for the spot in her bill I emailed the editor from the weekly standard he cited the same part in her bill as I have and he also had stated that on her own website it listed government officials as exempt. Since the news coverage of this has been released he said it has been removed from her summery. He said it was quite odd she has now edited it from her summery but the bill that she has posted on her site still has not been changed or noting any changes to her bills

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ns-ban-summary

    The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:


    This is what her website shows now.

    Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
    Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
    Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
    Antique weapons.
    Last edited by zack991; 01-29-2013 at 09:26 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    K, I'll go slow too. Track the history of the 2A. It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do.

    I've explained this a dozen times. So either you haven't been paying attention, or you are having trouble understanding.
    eye95 is hilarious. Once he "explains" something, it becomes incontrovertible fact. His assertions carry the weight of divine truth.

    He's parrotting the Supreme Court's counterfactual, illogical, and self-contradictory logic expressed within the statist, anti-second amendment Heller decision:

    Quote Originally Posted by Heller decision
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim- ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
    Needless to say, this has no basis in history, fact, or reason. It's simply the result of the intellectual struggling of a handful of neoconservative statists, desperate to throw us a bone of "pro-gun conservatism" while ultimately doing nothing to overturn the status quo of a second amendment in shambles, already infringed to the point of incompatibility with its intended purpose. (Of course, this means the decision fits eye95 to a tee.)

    I have but four words for those who "understand" eye95's illogical assertions, or who share the SCOTUS's statist conclusion:

    "...shall not be infringed."
    Last edited by marshaul; 01-29-2013 at 08:57 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I think it is sufficient to tell anti 2A people that the 2A is NOT about hunting, sport shooting and self defense. Period. End of Story.
    I disagree with this blanket statement. It underestimates the intelligence of the anti 2A people. We must be prepared for all of the arguments or we'll be caught unprepared.

    Example: Piers Morgan had some guests last night discussing gun control. He had a simple question. (Paraphrase)Since fully automatic weapons are illegal and semi automatic weapons have capabilities close to those weapons. Why not ban semi auto weapons which have the same magazine capacity as machine guns? Especially since nobody seems to have a problem banning fully automatic weapons.

    The lady on the side of the 2A began to explain the difference between semi and full auto. Piers interrupted that he understood the difference but still posed his question. She was woefully unprepared to answer. Indeed it appeared she'd bought into the idea we should not have full auto weapons and now has egg on her face if she stands on the phrase "shall not be infringed".

    We as gun owners have been bullied into having a "reasonable and common sense" idea of why we own firearms and we're allowing the bully to define "reasonable and common sense". We have no choice but to be firm, informed and honest in our defense of the 2A.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •