GOA: Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon


Harry Tuttle
June 2, 2004, 04:40 PM
Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to oppose this effort

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Wednesday, June 2, 2004

Well, we knew this day would eventually come.

GOA has been warning gun owners that Democrat Senator Dianne
Feinstein of California would be looking for an avenue to attach her
gun ban to unrelated legislation sometime this year.

According to Senate sources, Feinstein will be making her move quite

While she reportedly has her eyes on a number of different bills as
possible vehicles for her amendment, it seems certain that she will
try to piggy-back her anti-gun language onto a legal reform bill
(such as S. 2062) within the next few weeks.

You will remember that when Feinstein offered her gun ban amendment
in March, it passed 52-47.

While a switch of only three Senators would be enough to kill the
amendment, it seems that the easiest way to defeat Feinstein will be
through a filibuster. Our side only needs 41 Senators to kill her
amendment through the art of filibuster, and it would appear that we
definitely have that many votes... BUT ONLY IF THE 47 SENATORS WHO

That’s why we need another barrage of phone calls and e-mails going
into Senate offices.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose any
Feinstein amendment to reinstate the semi-auto ban. Tell them to
also support any effort to filibuster this unconstitutional

You can send the letter as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative
Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone
and fax numbers are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I have been alerted to the fact that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is
planning to offer the renewal of Clinton’s semi-auto ban as an
amendment to legislation in upcoming weeks.

I would join the voices of many other Americans who would urge you
to support our call for a filibuster against the reauthorization.

Please know that the Clinton semi-auto ban is one of the most hated
pieces of legislation ever enacted, and those who support its
reauthorization will find no friends or votes within the pro-gun



Pratt To Speak

Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America’s Executive Director, will be
speaking at the Freedom Roast in Sioux Falls, SD on Saturday, June

This is a family event with attractions for the kids while the
parents are taking in the speeches or filling up on the free eats at
this gala hog roast.

Pratt will be available at the GOA tent when he is not at the
podium. His book and GOA membership applications will be available.

See http://www.freedomroast.us for more information.


If you enjoyed reading about "GOA: Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 2, 2004, 04:44 PM
The Senate can do whatever it likes but if the House does not pass it then it is not a happpening thing. The filibuster is an ace in the hole!

June 2, 2004, 04:50 PM
Yes! Please, PLEASE write your senators to oppose this move. I would write to mine, but every time I do, they tell me to go **** myself. I apologize for my state.


Foreign Devil
June 2, 2004, 04:55 PM
What is this woman's obsession with harassing us?

She obviously doesn't even understand the issues that much, since she offered to let the magazine limit slide if the ban on features could be renewed.

Anyway I can't see this even getting out of committee with all the other stuff going on.

Our other "ace in the hole" should be a bill THEY consider atrocious to attach as a rider. That's what these people did to us isn't it.

June 2, 2004, 05:40 PM
In my latest letter I approach my argument from this angle...


Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Is it possible for bad domestic law to be a detriment to our fighting forces overseas – even to the point of getting some soldiers killed? Absolutely, say veterans, who want lawmakers to fix the problem ASAP.
According to a report in the July issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine, many of the ammunition magazines for the M-16/M-4 family of rifles used by troopers, along with 9 mm magazines for sidearms, are increasingly failing because they are either old or of poor quality.

The result, say troopers, is that ammunition fails to feed properly – a situation which can turn deadly in a hurry during a firefight.

'Varmint' Rifle Needs to Go

Add to the problem the fact that the M-16 family of weapons utilizes .223 caliber (5.56 mm) ammunition, which has proven too small and light for war.

"Sometime, before we get into a big war, the U.S. military needs to get rid of our current generation of 'varmint rifles' and start issuing real rifles," one small arms expert told John Farnam, author of SOF's "Combat Weaponcraft" column, a firearms instructor and a Vietnam vet who saw a lot of combat as a U.S. Marine.

Firearms maker Barrett has developed a 6.8 caliber rifle for civilian and police use, Farnam said, in anticipation of a military need. But so far, procurement of the weapon – or a similar, larger caliber rifle for troops – hasn't been publicly discussed by the Pentagon.

The M-16, which first appeared during the Vietnam War, replaced the M-14, a heavier rifle that was also a larger caliber (.308). Currently the Pentagon is testing a weapon called the XM8 Lightweight Modular Weapon System, "a new, lightweight assault rifle that employs many of the technologies already developed for the planned objective individual combat weapon, which would combine an infantry rifle with a grenade launcher," says National Defense Magazine.

Army Lt. Col. Mathew T. Clarke, who is in charge of testing the rifle, has so far been impressed with its performance. "I'm very excited about how the weapon has performed," he told the magazine.

The problem some critics see, however, is that the new rifle is chambered for the exact same lightweight .223 (5.56 mm) round.

Another rifle being examined is the XM29. But it fires a kinetic energy 5.56 mm round, and also comes with a 20 mm launcher that fires air-bursting grenades (to reach enemies behind defensive positions).

Another problem with the XM29 – it's weight. At 18 pounds, it was deemed too heavy for infantry. So Clarke has decided to speed development and cast the rifle and air-burst grenade launcher as two separate weapons for the time being. "Quite frankly, we have to wait for technology to catch up," he told the magazine.

But will it? Some weapons developers aren't so sure.

The small arms expert told Farnam few domestic weapons manufacturers want to make a new, larger-caliber rifle for the military alone. "With no prospect of civilian sales, there is zero interest in this undertaking among American manufacturers. . . " the weapons expert said.

The small arms maker and expert said a government official recently met with a group of manufacturers. The official said the Pentagon wanted to build some M-4 carbines chambered for a Russian caliber – 7.62 X 39 mm – noting that the smaller .223 caliber "has never met our [military] requirements."

The government official then produced a 30-round magazine, which held the Russian caliber ammunition but would fit an M-4 carbine. He then asked if any of the manufacturers present could make such a magazine, as the "magazine ban" of the early 1990s had driven the original maker out of business.

Said the small arms expert: "We all expressed our opinions about the magazine ban and the politicians who supported it and, to a man, assured [the government official] that none of us were interested, in the least, under present laws. He nodded his head in reluctant acknowledgement."

The small arms expert continued: "We thus see how the 'magazine ban' is significantly harming our troops and the nation's ability to successfully prosecute a war."

Bad Magazines

Existing magazines being used by U.S. troops are also faulty.

"A police officer and friend, just deployed to Iraq, is serving there now as a Marine officer," Jeff Chudwin, an associate of Farnam's, wrote.

"He is in the thick of the fighting. He has only two Beretta M9 magazines, and both have weak springs. Pistol magazines are in short supply there. Ones that actually work are in even shorter supply," Chudwin said.

In an attempt to get better magazines, the police officer/Marine attempted to procure some from his home department, but was unable to do so "due to the ban on purchasing high capacity (normal capacity) magazines," said Chudwin.

He said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF] was asked to intervene, to approve the sale, but "they arrogantly told us, 'The military must take care of their own.'"

The result, Chudwin told Farnam, is that "the Marine officer cannot obtain additional magazines through the military, and we cannot support him from our end unless we send him 'Clinton clips'" – 10-round magazines (instead of the normal capacity 15-16 round magazines originally made for the M9) or magazines that were manufactured before the law banning them was signed by President Clinton.

In his column, Farnam also included comments from a U.S. soldier, currently on assignment in Iraq. The trooper related some of his experiences with the magazines, as well as a recommendation of how to overcome problems:

"If you are carrying an M9 when you go over [to Iraq], purchase some good magazines," the soldier writes. He recommended OEM or Beretta magazines.

"'Checkmate' magazines that the Marine Corps is currently issuing with your weapons are crap," the soldier continued. "During our first run in the desert, if I did not clean the magazines at least twice a day, it was a guaranteed failure to feed.

"It was rare to get off more than two shots without a feeding issue," the soldier continued. "Unacceptable. I personally don't want to find myself with a non-functioning pistol with the shooting starts."

'Stupid Gun Laws'

Writes Farnam: "Stupid gun laws, designed from the beginning for harassment and little else, are now interfering with our war effort, and no one at BATF, indeed the whole federal system, seems to care. While our Marines die, bureaucrats and politicians dither."

He recommends a course of action.

"When the 'magazine ban,' 'assault rifle' law was enacted, it had a built-in sunset clause so it could be allowed to die a natural death after it did not perform as promised," he wrote. "Not only has it failed to perform as promised as any sort of deterrent to criminal activity, we see where it is having ill effect on national defense issues. Contact your senators and congressmen today and tell them to let it sunset."

Unless Congress reauthorizes the ban, it will expire in September 2004. Republicans in both Houses have expressed an interest in allowing the law to die, while most Democrats have pushed for a renewal of the ban.

During his 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush has said he would sign a reauthorization of the bill if it reached his desk. Gun rights advocates – as well as a number of U.S. soldiers – are hoping it doesn't get that far.

Standing Wolf
June 2, 2004, 07:08 PM
I'm so surprised!

Safety First
June 2, 2004, 07:31 PM
Is it true that Fineswine has a CCW? Anyone else heard this?

Ben Shepherd
June 2, 2004, 08:15 PM
Foreign Devil and others that wonder why:

She does it because in her mind she is right, period. She is one of a rare breed that will never be converted, no matter the evidence, the Constitutions' plain language on the matter be damned.

After watching her debate, following her voting records, and reading her press statements for years, I honestly believe she would die for her cause if it came to it.

We can only hope that our side has more people that are that dedicated then her side does.

The Constitution has been under constant attack for over 100 years now, and if it is to survive another generation, it is up to us!! Not our neighbors, not our friends, not our family, but us.

It is self-evident to most members of this board that your average American is no longer a Patriot. So, just as it was some 200+ years ago, the great responsibility of mankind rests on the shoulders of a few.

The question is: Will you stand and be counted?? The time is now!! Not when I have the time, not tomorrow, not next election, but NOW.

June 2, 2004, 09:42 PM
I gonna write & call Hillary & Chucky Shumer :barf: I sure they'll put a stop to this insanity :rolleyes:

June 2, 2004, 09:51 PM
Emails sent...

To Murray and Cantwell of Washington, where I legally reside, who will politely tell me to get stuffed.

To Hollings of SC, where I actually live, who won't say anything at all.

To Lindsay Graham of SC (not to be confused with Bob Graham of FL) who might actually do something.

June 2, 2004, 09:52 PM
So what kind of bills can she attach this too?

Doesn't it have to be gun/crime related??

June 2, 2004, 11:08 PM
We should all get together and start mailing Larry Craig or Ron Paul to sponsor a bill that makes it illegal to be diane feinstein. Make the penalty for violating this law deportation.


Standing Wolf
June 2, 2004, 11:52 PM
Is it true that Fineswine has a CCW? Anyone else heard this?

It's true. She got her permit after Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco and she was promoted to mayor. She carried a Smith & Wesson .38 special for some years. She has since claimed she no longer owns the gun; even if that were true, however—her statement didn't sound at all credible—she employs armed bodyguards.

Like many another leftist extremist, she's a big believer in the principle of "Guns for me, but not for thee."

Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites.

June 3, 2004, 01:10 AM
Unfortunately, writing my Senator will to no good whatsoever since Feinstein is that Senator. The other one is Boxer who will vote with Feinstein. I can't remember any legislation that came from either of my Senators, that represents my thoughts.

June 3, 2004, 01:38 AM
I can't remember any legislation that came from either of my Senators, that represents my thoughts.

Boxer is helping push for arming of pilots, which the TSA is dragging it's feet on to the point of being criminal.

For others in this thread, and THR in general, along with every other freedom loving gun nut out there: Dianne Feinstein is spelled with two n's in her first name. No, it's not normal. No, I have no idea why. Spelling it right at your keyboard will help you recognise it easier when you see it in print though. Makes us look better when we know how to properly spell the names of our opponents though.

While I'd love to comment further I would most cretainly violate the Art's Grandma rule. Actually I'd violate the "my mom" rule -- who is known to "have a mouth dirtier than a public outhouse" according to her own brothers. :D

June 3, 2004, 02:12 AM
heres my small contrib to my senator, Lisa Murkowski (up for reelction this year)

Dear Senator Murkowski:

It has come to my attention that one of your colleagues in the Senate, the Hon. Dianne Feinstein (D.Ca), will again attempt to impose her radical gun banning agenda on law abiding gun owners (including your constituents) by seeking to annex a renewal of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" to unrelated legislation (in all probablity S.2062).

You have indicated publically on more than one occasion that you do not support renewal of the "Assault Weapons Ban", as has your opponent, former Governor Knowles. However, since you are our Senator, and are seeking the support of law abiding Alaskan gun owners who also oppose the "Ban", I respectfully request that you step forward in this matter and unequivocally work to defeat, by any means possible, including fillibuster, any attempts by Senator Feinstein and her allies to impose their radical agenda on us.

Your actions in helping us in this matter will go a long way in assuring your constituents that you are in fact the best choice to represent Alaskans in the future.

Thank you for your consideration.



June 3, 2004, 05:54 AM
So what kind of bills can she attach this too?

Doesn't it have to be gun/crime related??

Any kind of bill whatsoever. Many pieces of terrible legislation have been snuck through by someone sneakily adding a rider onto a bill most everyone else wants, because you can't trust the Democrats or the Republicans to read the cursed things. Of course, people keep voting for them. *cough*

June 3, 2004, 06:09 AM
I will be like p$%%ing in the wind.....but I'll whip out some letters tonight to the "Honorable" Senators from Maryland, Mikulski and Sarbanes.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 3, 2004, 08:47 AM
In the Senate, the rules are much looser. From a committee, the amendment has to be somewhat germane to the bill; but even then there is some latitude. From the floor, any Senator can propose an amendment to any bill unless cloture is invoked - and even then they may have to agree to a non-germane amendment to get enough votes to kill a filibuster.

In the House, such bills have to come through the appropriate committee and be relevant to the legislation in question, so much less of a threat there.

This is why it is VERY important that gun owners in Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina get involved. All of these states have retiring Senators. Four of these states have retiring Senators who voted for the renewal of the Clinton gun ban (all but Georgia). If we win all five of these states in November, the Senate now has enough pro-gun votes to halt any renewal attempts or amendments by Dianne.

June 3, 2004, 08:49 AM
I call, I write, I e-mail, and I know none of it is read at all.

I live in MA, what else should I expect?

June 3, 2004, 09:07 AM
We sould get one of our allies in the Senate to attach an abortion ban to anything they attach a gun ban to!


La Pistoletta
June 3, 2004, 09:46 AM
For how long can they keep doing this? What's needed is an amendment - one that forbids the prohibitions of this kind. Otherwise they'll keep coming back, and every time it's going to be a fight for liberty. Sooner or later they'll win. Better knock'em down for good.

June 3, 2004, 09:46 AM
Wally has an excellent idea! After all, that's what the DemoRats did when they torpedoed the firearms litigation reform legislation by attaching various amendments such as an AWB renewal.

It bothers me to see that so many Republican senators and representatives don't seem to understand that accommodating liberals will not result in them liking you. That's not going to happen. The other side certainly doesn't have that belief. The Republcans all too often don't seem to understand that if you compromise on your most basic core principles, then is there ANYTHING left that will you stand FOR?



Tropical Z
June 3, 2004, 09:56 AM
FeinSWINE is the :evil:
I'd contact both of my senators,but unfortunately they are both Hitler lovers who care nothing about freedom regardless of their public appearance.Past attempts have ALWAYS got me a lecture as to why more useless-silly gun laws are needed.

Tropical Z
June 3, 2004, 09:58 AM
And by the way,the abortion ban attachment idea is GOLD!!!!!!!

June 3, 2004, 10:06 AM
What's needed is an amendment - one that forbids the prohibitions of this kind.

Like...maybe...the 2nd Amendment?

La Pistoletta
June 3, 2004, 10:15 AM
That one is nice, but I was thinking about one that specifically forbids the prohibition of firearms characteristics. The 2nd amendment says you can bear arms. Does it say what kind it has to be? Whether you can bear all arms or be content with bolt-actions? According to what I've seen of it, as long as you can bear some kind of firearm the 2nd amendment is in rule. And of course, that's not enough.

June 3, 2004, 02:00 PM
I don't know.....

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.


June 3, 2004, 10:46 PM
According to what I've seen of it, as long as you can bear some kind of firearm the 2nd amendment is in rule. And of course, that's not enough.

What do you mean "of course that's not enough"???
Why are you so adamant about limiting a right?

El Rojo
June 4, 2004, 12:50 AM
Sorry boys and girls, Dianne is my senator. The question I have is how many of you here constantly cap on California for being so horrible and how everyone should move out of California? Yes my personal pet peeve. However, a thread about how bad you hate my senator brings me some evil satisfaction. Your encouraging good people to leave my state is the reason you have Dianne FeinStein. Congratulations. You get what you wish for.

La Pistoletta
June 4, 2004, 04:13 AM
Ctdonath, what do you mean?
By not enough, I'm saying that the right to bear arms is not enough. It has to be extended so that you can bear any small arm. Otherwise you may very well be standing there with a .22 pistol as your only legal option and still have the right to bear arm(s). Hey, you can always have two of them, right? No, the right needs more protection.

June 4, 2004, 10:49 AM
Why do prople in CA keep electing this Witch :confused:

June 4, 2004, 07:01 PM
First off, the House is not dead set against the ban.

DeLay is opposed, but he's only the majority leader. Hastert controls what gets voted on & he's left the door open to a vote on an AWB renewal.

Going by GOA's ratings (which I find more objective than the NRA's) the F & D rated reps come within 10 votes or so of passing any gun control law. They have a pool of about 50 or so C rated reps (if I remember correctly) to try to win over. I'm thinking there'd be more than 10 C rated reps who'd vote for an AWB renewal or expansion.

So we're not out of the woods in the house. (damn if that don't seem like a mized metaphor)

The senate.. y'all know the deal there. They have eough votes to pass an AWB renewal. We might have enough senators to launch a filibuster but there are certain variables...

If the bill is attached to something everyone wants - say an appropriations bill, then there won't be a filibuster of the entire package. Course an appropriations bill would have originated in the House & thus have to go back to the house if any amendments were attached in the senate, but as I said the house is not our firned in this. There are other bills which might garner enough support to kill any attempts at a filibuster.

Course there could be a filibuster of the vote to amend another bill with an AWB renewal but this is risky. There simply might not be enough senators with the conviction to maintain a filibuster.

& of course there's the cloture thing. It's basically a deal where a filibuster is avoided by dealing on what will be voted on for a particular bill. It was cloture that allowed the AWB renewal to be voted on in March. I don't have faith that a deal wouldn't be cut to allow & vote in the hopes it will be voted down or it will be cleaned up in the house (assuming the bill in question originated in the house.

So there is a chance that it won't come out of the senate, & there's a chance that the house will kill any AWB renewal, but the chance is slim. It's more likely that if it gets voted on by both houses it'll be law.

That being said it's important to call your congresscritters even if they're die hard anti gun & let them know you're opposed to any gun control. It may not change their mind but if they hear from their pro-gun constitutents then word may get out & shake up some of their not so ideological friends in congress.

When it comes to a vote of any kind I & other will let you know. That'll be when you need to start speed dialing all your congrees critters & ayone else who might listen & make a difference.

The NRA will most likely be on our side if it's about a straight renewal, but be prepared to call them too if any sort of deal is offered (say an AWB renewal minus the mag cap restrictions).

It ain't over yet & the hard part is still ahead of us. So get ready for a more intense repeat of what happened last March.

La Pistoletta,

If you can define "arms" as meaning only a subest of what's generally defined as "arms" then you might have a point. But "arms" means any weapon used for offensive or defensive purposes.

There are some that do argue that as long as some arms are available then the 2nd amendment has not been violated, but this centers more around what constitutues infringement than what defines "arms".

But for strict constructionists the explanatory clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) would indicate that martial arms are the object of protection. Further, U.S. v. Miller set up an idea that only arms suitable for militia use are protected. these both have their flaws, but there's no way anyone can reason that only 5 shot .22 revolvers are protected & as long as people have them then anything else can be banned. It's quite the reverse: the 5 shot revolver could possibly be banned while the M16 (yes, a full auto M16) & a .45 semi auto pistol could not be.

The way the argument has been going you could argue that arms doesn't include sporting guns (i.e. the 5 shot revolver in .22LR) but it does include machine guns & real assault rifle as well as large caliber pistols. You couldn't argue the reverse (although it's been done through legislation) so most anti gunners argue that it's either not an indivdual right or that it's an outdated amendment cuase we'd have no chance against a standing army.

There doesn't need to eb an amendmentr to clear up what the 2nd amendment means, although I would listen to a proposed amendment that deals out a harsh & strict enforcement against those who violate it.

Unfortunately there is no amendment that could be worded so as to prevent people form trying to get around it. That's just the nature of government.

From what I've heard the GOP has failed to put up any candidate that could effectively oppose her. I'm not hip to the details but chances are they think her seat is undisputable so they don't push for candidates that have a good chance against her &/or they don't sink a lot of money into that race. It's still no excuse but from what I understand those are the reasons behind her being elected & re-elected.

June 5, 2004, 01:48 AM

According to my NRA email this evening:

"Yesterday, vehemently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 2498, legislation that would reauthorize the Clinton gun ban. The bill is being held on the Senate floor and could come up at any time."

It's not available in http://thomas.loc.gov/ yet, nor is it on Feinstein's web site http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/press_office.html#pressreleases

Odd. It's not at new York Times, Washington Post, SFGate, AP via NYT, LA Times or Yahoo news. Feinstein not grabbing headlines? Something's wrong here...

June 5, 2004, 03:49 AM

would you mind posting the NRA letter here or e-mailing it to me at publicola_mu ATSIGN yahoo.com?

June 5, 2004, 04:02 AM
Here it is, without the graphics:

June 4, 2004

Home | Current Legislation | Get Involved Locally | Register To Vote
Contribute | Update your profile/unsubscribe.

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 11, No. 22

Please forward this information to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners!
If you would like to receive this in a text only format, go to Update Profile/Unsubscribe and change your Email type to "Text".

Not In Town On Election Day?
Want To Vote Early?
NRA Can Help!

History is replete with examples where a single vote, or a small percentage of votes, spelled the difference between victory and defeat in an election or on piece of legislation. Consider the following:
*In 1778, ONE VOTE gave America the English language instead of German;
*In 1845, ONE VOTE brought Texas into the Union;
*In 1878, ONE VOTE gave Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency of the United States;
*In 1941, ONE VOTE saved Selective Service just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked;
*In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was originally decided by FOUR VOTES;
*In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 VOTES out of 400,000 cast;
*In 2002, an anti-gun candidate in a state primary race in Arizona won by FIVE VOTES;
*In February 2004, Wisconsin Governor Doyle`s (D) veto of Right-to-Carry was sustained by only ONE VOTE; And of course...
*In the 2000 presidential election, 537 VOTES in Florida ensured the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore!

These examples clearly prove that every vote matters. And once again, as this year`s elections are expected to be extremely close, it is critical that every NRA member and pro-Second Amendment supporter exercises his right to vote in order to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Even if you can`t vote in person on November 2, your voice can still be heard!

Most states allow voters to cast their ballot early (either in-person or by mail). And every state allows absentee voting if you plan to be away on Election Day--November 2. To make sure the vote of every Second Amendment supporter is counted this year, NRA is providing a free service that will make voting easier in the 2004 general election. Working with HelpingAmericansVote.Org?, a non-partisan service, we are providing you with information about early voting and absentee voting options that will make your participation easier.

In addition to the information you will need to vote early or via absentee ballot, you can also use this service to register to vote, or to update your voter registration to reflect a recent change in residence. To access this site, go to http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and select your state.

Please forward this link to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and encourage them to take advantage of this service to ensure that the voices of America`s 65 million gun owners are heard loudly and clearly in this year`s critically-important elections!

With so many examples of elections and issues being decided by ONE VOTE, we can`t take even a single pro-gun vote for granted this year. Please visit http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and make sure your vote is cast to support your gun rights.


Yesterday, vehemently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 2498, legislation that would reauthorize the Clinton gun ban. The bill is being held on the Senate floor and could come up at any time.

This is the start of a sustained political battle we`ll be waging over the next few months. Our opponents will continue to work at every turn to try and accomplish their anti-gun goals, and we need to be prepared. Please visit NRA-ILA`s informative website-- www.ClintonGunBan.com --and learn the facts about this debate, which has too long been driven and dominated by falsehoods and emotion. And please forward this website to others who need to know both the history and the truth about this issue. Then, please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose S. 2498 or any other legislation seeking to extend the so-called "assault weapons" ban. You can find contact information for your elected officials by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.


Apparently, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is determined to maintain its paradigm of dispensing political activism under the guise of unbiased legal judgement.

Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.

Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."

This case dramatically underscores the urgent need for passage of a comprehensive federal lawsuit protection bill. Allowing these types of suits to continue unabated will be disastrous for the American firearm industry, and for your right to lawfully own firearms. That is why NRA-ILA remains committed to enacting a federal lawsuit preemption law that does not in any way compromise our Second Amendment rights.


A June 3 AP article appearing on Newsday.com reported that New York state`s much-lauded ballistic "fingerprinting" database, designed to match handguns in New York to crime scene evidence, has not solved a single crime in the more than three years since its debut.

These results are consistent with the findings of several studies that have already determined that existing ballistic imaging systems are flawed and have not been effective law enforcement tools. Despite these findings, anti-gun extremists continue to promote these ballistic "fingerprinting" schemes--which are little more than an attempt to impose a nationwide registration system for all law-abiding gun owners.


Last week, the Illinois Senate voted to concur with the House on SB 2165, which seeks to provide an affirmative defense for a gun owner if he uses a firearm prohibited by local ordinance in defense of himself or others. The bill`s fate is now in the hands of Governor Rod Blagojevich (D), who has threatened to veto this common sense measure. Also awaiting a threatened veto is another common sense bill, SB 2386, which seeks to prohibit civil suits against a gun owner who uses a firearm to defend himself or others. Both SB 2165 and SB 2386 passed with enough votes to override the governor`s threatened veto, but you should still call Governor Blagojevich at (217) 782-6830 and urge him to sign SB 2165 and SB 2386, and remind him that both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. And while Illinois families spent this past Memorial Day Weekend honoring the ultimate sacrifice made by those who have served in our nation`s service to protect our rights, anti-gun extremists schemed to mount another assault on one of those very rights--our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Anti-gun State Senator John Cullerton (D-6) chose the traditional date for the observance of Memorial Day, May 30, to introduce SB 3383, a bill that seeks to establish a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms at the state level. This legislation could be taken up during the time it takes to resolve the current impasse over the budget, although it may not see any action until the veto session in November. We will keep you posted as to any developments on this front, but please be sure to keep in touch with your state lawmakers and urge them to oppose this gun ban if it is brought up for consideration. The Senate can be reached by calling (217) 782-4517, and the House can be reached at (217) 782-8223. For additional contact information, please use the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org.

Senator Stan Clark (R-40), passed away over Memorial weekend. As a strong Second Amendment supporter, Senator Clark carried HB 2798, the "Personal and Family Protection Act," on the Senate floor. His death is a great loss to all NRA members. Memorial contributions may be made in Clark`s name to The Gideons International.

Although the State Senate has rejected Governor George Pataki`s plan for renewable pistol licenses and new state fees contained in budget bills S. 6056/A. 9556, the budget process won`t be over until it`s finally adopted by the Legislature. It is, important to encourage lawmakers to continue standing firm in opposing the Governor`s plan, as these bills will be considered soon. For contact information for your lawmakers, please use the "Write Your Representatives" feature located at www.NRAILA.org.

HB 1185 and HB 1410, both containing Right-to-Carry (RTC) reforms, passed final concurrence votes. HB 1185, allows for commissioned law-enforcement officers (reserve or full-time), who have gone through the appropriate background checks and training prior to their employment, to be issued a concealed carry permit for their off-duty time without further requirements. The fee for active duty law-enforcement concealed carry permits will be $25, plus the cost of photographs, etc. HB 1410, requires that law-enforcement return legitimate RTC holder`s firearms, if taken, unless they have committed a disqualifying offense or are believed to be a danger. HB 1410 allows instructors licenses and permits to be automatically renewed without a fee. Permit holders will also be able to travel with loaded long guns in their vehicle without repercussions. And finally, those appealing denials will have 60 calendar days to do so. Both HB 1185 and HB 1410 are now headed to the Governor`s desk.

Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Home | Current Legislation | Get Involved Locally | Register To Vote
Contribute | Update your profile/unsubscribe.

June 5, 2004, 04:11 AM
Oh, yes - 2498 does appear in the Congressional Record for Thursday:
Congressional Record article 42 of 66 Printer Friendly Display - 306 bytes.[Help]
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME -- (Senate - June 03, 2004)

[Page: S6449] GPO's PDF


The following bill was read the first time:

S. 2498. A bill to provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:42:./temp/~r108KUIKby::

Pretty bare-bones, but number and subject match the NRA report.

June 5, 2004, 07:30 AM
Librarian - many thanks

Bartholomew Roberts
June 5, 2004, 09:38 AM
I believe the bill has to be read a second time before it can proceed to a vote under Senate rules - and if there is any objection (which there will most surely be) the bill has to lay over at least three calendar days (out of the 30 calendar days remaining before September 14).

June 5, 2004, 11:04 AM
I sent my GOA postcards. My two CO Senators are good guys, but my representative is a left wing scum bag. GOA keeps misspelling his name on the postcards. It should not be Mark Udall, it should be Marx Udall! I keep correcting it with a big black pen.

Art Eatman
June 5, 2004, 11:11 AM
I'm a bit rusty on some details: Isn't it mandatory that a newly-introduced bill make its way through Committee and possibly sub-Committee?

I do know that it's common practice that such be referred to Committee.


June 5, 2004, 03:42 PM
BR & Art,

It got its second reading on friday. Now it's on the "legislative calender under general orders". I'm not up on my senate rules but I assume this means the bill is fair game as either a stand alone or an attachment.
If you'll recall in March none of the gun control amendments proposed to the Lawful Commerce in Arms act had to go through a committee. So I would assume that she can propose a vote on this bill by itself or as an amendment to another bill (the more likely scenario) at anytime she wishes.

In any case this bears serious watching.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2004, 09:50 AM
I'm still learning the legislative procedure and all the exceptions myself; but one thing I do know is the Senate is much more lenient than the House when it comes to surprises and non-germane amendments.

Yet another reason to replace the four retiring anti-gun Senators from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina with pro-gun Senators and toss Tom Daschle out on his ear. That will give us the kind of majority where we don't have to lie awake at night wondering what obscure Senate procedure might be used to shaft us.

I believe, "Placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders" means it has skipped the committee process for whatever reasons (possibly because any earlier committe report on previous bills still applies) and can be brought to a floor vote with little notice.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2004, 10:25 AM
OK, according to Riddick's Rules of Senate Procedure (http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/riddick/253-267.pdf)

The bill does not have to go through committee because it is substantially identical to an earlier bill that the committee has already reported on (the 2619 amendment to S.1815).

The bill having been read twice and placed on the general calendar can now come up for a vote at any time. If there is any objection though, the bill must lie over for at least one day.

At best then, we will have about 24hrs. notice when the bill comes up for a vote or is proposed as an amendment to something else.

Luckily, the Senate process relies heavily on unanimous consent agreements to get things moving. We need to encourage our Senators, especially the ones we know will fight for us, to stand up and fight that bill at every step and object every time an opportunity comes up. We need to let them know that we will support them and encourage them to filibuster.

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA: Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!