Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

OC for ME · Jan 25, 2013

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...-bill-exempt-government-officials_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.

randian · Jan 25, 2013

Is an "official" different from an "employee"? Seems like just another way for Obama to reward his buddies (government employees).

davidmcbeth · Jan 25, 2013

Aren't we all gov't officials? hehehe

eye95 · Jan 25, 2013

"[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.

OC for ME · Jan 25, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

eye95 · Jan 25, 2013

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.

77zach · Jan 25, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

eye95 · Jan 25, 2013

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.

motoxmann · Jan 26, 2013

OC for ME said:
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

carolina guy · Jan 26, 2013

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?

eye95 · Jan 26, 2013

carolina guy said:
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.

carolina guy · Jan 26, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

georg jetson · Jan 26, 2013

OC for ME said:
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.

OC for ME said:
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.

eye95 · Jan 26, 2013

carolina guy said:
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>

carolina guy · Jan 26, 2013

eye95 said:
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/pub...?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

Looks like they are exempting police and retired police.

77zach · Jan 28, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

carolina guy · Jan 28, 2013

77zach said:
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

eye95 · Jan 28, 2013

77zach said:
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.

77zach · Jan 29, 2013

eye95 said:
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?

georg jetson · Jan 29, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member