1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Feinstein to introduce AWB renewal tomorrow

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Telperion, May 7, 2003.

  1. Telperion

    Telperion Well-Known Member

    Various news agencies are carrying this story; here's a link to the SF Chronicle:


    If she actually follows through this time (how many times has she postponed this now?), it should be interesting to see what we're up against.
  2. AZTOY

    AZTOY Well-Known Member

    :cuss::banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:
  3. PATH

    PATH Well-Known Member

    I would like to post what I think of Feinstein and her cabal of fellow travelers but I am too much of a gentleman and Oleg has turned the filter off.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Feinswine is one of the reasons I left the People's Republic of California to return to the United States last year.

    This site is too slow for me.
  5. Carnitas

    Carnitas Well-Known Member

    That would be great if they modeled it after the California ban. You know, the one that's high centered in the california "courts" and headed for the Supreme Court, where its likely to get thrashed. Two birds with one stone.
  6. Pendragon

    Pendragon Well-Known Member

    Guys, the CA law is pretty horrific.

    It will be interesting to see what happens if she tries to introduce the CA law to the nation.

    Bush has said he would renew the AWB, but if this is what she does, then it is not hard to say that it is a whole new law, not just a renewal.
  7. Airwolf

    Airwolf Well-Known Member

    The line is drawn with this one.

    For anyone who doesn't know (or suffer under) the PRK's "Assault Weapon" ban the only semi-auto rifles permitted to be purchased here over .22 cal are:

    SKS-fixed mag with the grenade launcher removed.
    M1A-with a "California approved" muzzle brake.

    There's a fixed mag version of the AR-15 that's permitted. You have to break the weapon open to load it :barf:

    Kel-Tec's new SU rifle meets the standard on the face of it.

    Oh and there's a CETME that you can get without the pistol grip too. :barf: :barf:

    Anyone else think of anything else that's allowed here?

    This better wake the rest of the country up, real fast.
  8. UnknownSailor

    UnknownSailor Well-Known Member

    That is affermative. The Olympic style pistols with the mag in front of the trigger are banned, as well as the semi-auto Remington hunting rifles.
    I remember Turner's Outdoorsman having a big problem with this. They wern't sure what semi-auto rifles they could sell, so they pulled them all off the shelves.
  9. cpileri

    cpileri Well-Known Member

    this idea would work!

    Fred (of www.fredsm14stocks.com fame, surname unknown to me) should really get credit for this idea:

    I read his story about he and his buddies sending Kofi Annan a shot-up blue helmet to provide a visual for his dissapproval of the UN global disarmament aims. Well, it got me thinking:

    The reason corrupt politicians want to ban guns is of course fear; fear that they will face the business end of them causing an abrupt end to their corrupt carreers. Honest leaders have no reason to fear honest men with firearms.

    Now, if its fear maybe that can be played upon. I don't have photoshop, nor the skills to do this, but someone might.

    Just make 100 pictures, 2 for each senator (or 2 for each whatever);
    the first shows them raising their hand taking the oath of office- use the original pic as its more personal. The caption shall read: "I support the right to keep and bear arms, and I will vote to abolish the p atriot Act" or something like that. The possibilities are endless.

    The second is their portrait, riddles with bulletholes, perhaps even outlined by a scope reticle (you know, as if looking at it through a scope). the caption reads, "I support gun control and the patrio t act" or whatever.

    They both arrive in an envelope together at the pols office; all 50 of them at once. No other note or communication is necessary. They will all get the message real quick.

    wether or not that makes any difference is another topic.

    Just don't put YOUR return address on it.

    Me, well... I am not much a violent guy. Don't want to send the wrong message. Fred just has more b@!!s than i do.


    p.s. seriously, I know its frustrating. But working within the system for non-violent change while that is still an option is morally defensible. Violence when non-violence is still an option is not.
  10. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

    Persistent little cuss, ain't she.

    Does anyone know if the good senator turned in her other concealed handgun?
  11. Master Blaster

    Master Blaster Well-Known Member

    I am wiriting and calling all three of my congress critter NOW!!! I suggest you do the same. My letter which I previously sent last month, and which I will be resending today:


    Thank you for your conscientious efforts to serve my Fellow Delaware Citizens and me by upholding the Constitution of the United States, and preserving the God given rights laid out in the bill of rights from encroachment by those who seek to confer despotic power upon our elected government.

    It has come to my attention that an odious piece of legislation has once again reared its ugly head. That piece of unconstitutional nonsense is known as the Assault Weapons Ban. Six years ago this legislation was passed with the intent of reducing crime by banning certain firearms based upon their cosmetic features. The Justice department recently completed a study of the effect of the AWB and found that it was not an effective or significant deterrent to criminal activity. What it does is demonize certain firearms based upon cosmetic features such as pistol grips and flash hiders. Make no mistake this legislation restricts the right of Honest Law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms of their choosing. It turns law-abiding citizens into potential felons based upon their ownership of an inanimate object. Criminals will still obtain and misuse weapons, even those that are banned by this legislation. If there is any doubt about that fact one merely needs to evaluate the effect of prohibition, or the now 20 year old war on some drugs for confirmation that these types of restrictions do nothing more than create a lucrative black market, for the ever expanding criminal population.

    Thank You for your time.

    Andrew Cohen
  12. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Well-Known Member

    Senetor Feinstein and Boxer

    I write each of my senetors EVERY WEEK, just to let them know what I have done to try to stop them from getting re-elected. I list the number of people I have had converstaions with, usually about 10, so far this week it is only 2 :(. I also list the other efforts I goto, like giving money to other political parties and pamphleteering. She hasn't written me back in awhile. I think I will write up a letter and ask her why.
  13. cordex

    cordex Well-Known Member

    Snail mail going out tonight to both Senators (especially the one up for reelection in 2005) and my Rep.
  14. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Master Blaster wrote, in his letter to Congress...
    "Six years ago this legislation was passed "

    Wasn't this law enacted in 1994? If it's 2003, 1994 wasn't six years ago.
  15. Carlos Cabeza

    Carlos Cabeza Well-Known Member

    Shumer and Feinstein should leave my country and go where they are needed, like Columbia, South America. I'm sure they would be received with "open" arms.................................... :D :D
  16. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Here's the short version:

    Bush has said he supports reauthorization of the current law and would sign it.

    As a result, Feinstein scratched her original bill which would have used California as a basis for the ban and proposed just a reauthorization of the current law in the Senate.

    In the House however, McCarthy has proposed a really heinous "take-em all" kind of bill modeled on California law.

    This actually works out well for us since we now have an extra chance to kill the bill in a House-Senate conference committee - although if it gets that far we will already be behind the power curve.

    If you can only write one letter, write your Representative and kill that thing in the House.

    Don't get despondent or despair either, things are looking pretty good - we are already swinging the debate from "Renew current or pass even harsher ban" to "Renew or let it die" early in the game. That is a good sign.


    Mailed my letters May 5th... nice timing eh?
  17. Kaylee

    Kaylee Moderator

    so... is this being introduced on the floor, where it will be referred to Commitee? Or is that stage over, and we're down to the actual debate on the Senate floor?

    It'd help to know where to focus our efforts right now.

  18. WonderNine

    WonderNine member

    You guys are talking about Frankenstein like she's something other than just a senator. Remember, she's not the queen, just a senator. (thank god)
  19. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    The Senate bill was just introduced today and will go to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the appropriate subcommittee there.

    The House bill has not yet been introduced but should be introduced in a few days. It will go to the House Judiciary committee where the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security will get first crack at it.
  20. DadOfThree

    DadOfThree Well-Known Member

    I agree with Bartholomew Roberts, the more restrictive the bill they submit, the less likely it will pass. If they had turned in an exact duplicate of the original, we would have a much harder time stopping it and Bush has already said he would sign it.

Share This Page