Anti-gun California Senator Dianne Feinstein Is At It Again!

Status
Not open for further replies.

JLStorm

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
1,131
Click here to send a pre-written letter: http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

Anti-gun California Senator Dianne Feinstein Is At It Again!

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

Monday, September 17, 2007


You may recall that in recent years, GOA has enlisted your aid in
fighting so-called "gang" legislation, which typically includes
attempts to apply federal RICO anti-racketeering statutes to minor
gun infractions -- thus harassing and prosecuting otherwise
law-abiding gun owners as though they were Mafia bosses.

Well, Feinstein's S. 456 is the latest vehicle for such
underhandedness.

At issue is section 215 of the bill. In essence, your family, gun
shop employees, or even church bowling league would be considered an
organized "gang" and subjected to draconian prison sentences if you
did any of a number of things, such as:

* having a gun (loaded OR unloaded) in your glovebox as you --
inevitably -- drive within 1,000 feet of a school, even if you didn't
know the school was there;

* selling a gun out of your store while being entrapped in a
Bloomberg-style "sting" operation;

* teaching your son to shoot without giving him a written letter of
permission (which must be on his actual person), even if you are
standing right behind him at the range the whole time; or,

* simply being one the 83,000 veterans whose names were illegally
added to the Brady system by President Clinton (or, presumably, one
of the thousands more who will be on the list if the current Veterans
Disarmament bill passes), if you continued to possess a firearm.

Now, there's a lot of legal verbiage in S. 456, which is quite large
as bills go. Feinstein and her anti-gun cronies will counter that the
situations listed above aren't enough -- you also have to commit a
crime of violence while engaging in them.

Oh yeah? Consider how many people defending themselves from
carjackers or their businesses from hold-ups are indicted by anti-gun
prosecutors merely for exercising their right to self-defense. And
what judge is going to say that the "gun crimes" in those instances
aren't crimes of violence?

Further, any anti-gun prosecutor could simply state that family
members or gun shop employees are "co-conspirators" or are
"aiding
and abetting" actual criminals using guns.

And of course, we have had plenty of warning of what happens when
prosecutorial powers are enormously expanded. Take the original RICO
Act itself, for example. We were told that it was needed to shut down
the Mafia -- a tool to be used in the fight against organized crime.
But in the years since its passage, the RICO Act has become the
overzealous prosecutor's version of going nuclear... wrapping
everything up in one big package of conspiracy charges and twenty
years to life prison terms.

It just isn't right that you, your spouse, and your two teenage boys
could be treated like the Gambino family just because you brandished
your firearm to scare away a carjacker... without firing a shot! And
prison terms of 10, 20, or even all of your remaining years aren't
right in such instances, either!

In short, section 215 of S. 456 is unacceptable. It must be deleted,
period. To our knowledge, the entire Second Amendment community --
spearheaded by GOA and the NRA -- is adamantly opposed to Feinstein's
scheme.

It should be noted that there is lots of talk on Capitol Hill about
how to "handle" the problems of S. 456 with a minimum of fuss. The
most likely scenario is that there would only be two amendments
allowed -- one Republican and one Democratic. Once that is done, the
Senate would immediately proceed to a vote on the bill... which may
or may not be a recorded vote. Gun owners should bear in mind that,
regardless of which politician is saying otherwise, there is NO
GUARANTEE that the Republican amendment would even attempt to totally
strike section 215. The amendment might not help matters that much,
and might not pass anyway.

So this attempt to placate gun owners with a "roll of the dice"
amendment vote is nothing more than the usual smoke-and-mirrors
designed to give politicians cover from the wrath of a known activist
constituency.

GOA doesn't believe in gambling with your rights. Our position is
firm and unalterable: section 215 must go away, now. The time to kill
a snake is before it strikes. And this snake could strike at any
time; a vote on final passage could occur as early as this week.

So here's what you can do to help kill the snake. Any individual
senator can place a "hold" on a particular piece of
legislation until
his or her concerns are addressed; if the Leadership ignores those
objections, it becomes extremely difficult to move the legislation
forward. The "hold" is a legislative tactic that we have used to
great advantage in the past. We need at least one Senator to take
that step and place a hold on S. 456.

ACTION:

Please contact your Senators right away and ask them to place a
"hold" on S. 456 until such time as section 215 is deleted from the
bill. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written message by e-mail requesting they do so.

SPECIAL NOTE TO ACTIVISTS IN KANSAS, LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND SOUTH
CAROLINA:

GOA has determined that the most likely senators to agree to place a
hold on S. 456 are Sens. Jim DeMint (SC), David Vitter (LA), Tom
Coburn (OK), and Sam Brownback (KS). PLEASE... activists in those
states, be sure respond to this alert and send your messages. Also,
it would be very helpful if you could contact any other pro-gun
people in your state and convince them to take action as well.
 
So, here's section 215 of the bill in question.

SEC. 215. PROHIBITION ON FIREARMS POSSESSION BASED ON VALID GANG INJUNCTION AND CONVICTION FOR GANG-RELATED MISDEMEANOR.

(a) In General- Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (8), by striking `or' at the end; (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following: `(10) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor gang-related offense; or `(11) who otherwise has, within the last 5 years, been found by any court to be in contempt of a gang injunction order, so long as the finding of contempt was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate and challenge the sufficiency of process and the constitutional validity of the underlying gang injunction order,'. (b) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(36)(A) The term `misdemeanor gang-related offense' means an offense that-- `(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and `(ii) has, as an element, the membership of the defendant in a criminal street gang, illegal association with a criminal street gang, or participation in a criminal street gang activity. `(B)(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless-- `(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and `(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried-- `(aa) the case was tried by a jury; or `(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise. `(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. `(37) The term `gang injunction order' means a court order that-- `(A) names the defendant as a member of a criminal street gang; and `(B) restrains the defendant from associating with other gang members.'.

Note that I don't support this bill as a whole, or any similar legislation, I consider most if not all new gun laws to be poor gun laws, and do what I can to facilitate their defeat.

Having said that, I often wonder if the GOA's ongoing blatant scaremongering isn't a detriment to our public cause.

Read the proposed laws, not the trash GOA sends you.
 
I've lost track. In another thread that was mostly anti-Feinstein politics, it was posted that her amendment was defeated, I believe. Same amendment?

If defeated, this thread is moot.

Art
 
what is so elitist and hyprocritical about her is that she has a much-coveted CCW in CA, yet doesn't want anyone else to even own a gun, much less have a carry permit?
 
Art,


I just got the email today from the GOA, so it must not be defeated.
 
I've lost track. In another thread that was mostly anti-Feinstein politics, it was posted that her amendment was defeated, I believe. Same amendment?
Nope, different. This isn't an amendment to another bill.

Currently has 44 cosponsors. Some Republicans are on that list.

From Thomas: Latest Major Action: 7/30/2007 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 290.

The house version (HR 1582) is still in comittee with only 15 cosponsors.
 
Having said that, I often wonder if the GOA's ongoing blatant scaremongering isn't a detriment to our public cause.

As opposed to the NRA working hand in hand with McCarthy ??? Then asking for money to fight the bill ??

Stand and FIGHT , give no ground !!!! Its the only way to win .............:cuss:
 
In essence, your family, gun shop employees, or even church bowling league would be considered an organized "gang"...
Given the above, I'll 2nd Noxx's analysis. It makes us appear hypocritical when we (quite rightly) lambaste anti-gun hyperbole and outright lies...and then turn around and condone stupid assertions like the above from GOA. Let's try to have more integrity than those we're opposing.
 
* teaching your son to shoot without giving him a written letter of
permission (which must be on his actual person), even if you are
standing right behind him at the range the whole time; or,

that's just comedy. tragic comedy.

well i voted against her, i'll try again in Nov (or whenever i get the option)
 
"what is so elitist and hyprocritical about her is that she has a much-coveted CCW in CA, yet doesn't want anyone else to even own a gun, much less have a carry permit?"

So does Rosie. So does Barbara Boxer. Makes me crazy.
 
Stand and FIGHT , give no ground !!!! Its the only way to win

I'm not advocating giving ground, I'm opposed to using the same disinformative, emotionally laden tactics our opponents are fond of.
 
That's the House version (which doesn't even contain Section 215, which is what is being discussed). The one before the Senate now is S. 456:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-456

* teaching your son to shoot without giving him a written letter of
permission (which must be on his actual person), even if you are
standing right behind him at the range the whole time; or,

that's just comedy. tragic comedy.
Just out of curiosity...can you or someone else point me to the verbiage in the bill that GOA is alluding to here?
 
That's the House version (which doesn't even contain Section 215, which is what is being discussed). The one before the Senate now is S. 456:

My bad. Sorry for any confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top