Feinstein To Attempt .50cal. Rifle Ban - Contact Your Senators Now!!!

P

progunner1957

Moderator
Feinstein Gun Ban Could Come up in the Senate Soon

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

Thursday, July 21, 2005

While the big news of the day is President Bush's pick for the
Supreme Court (more on this below), Gun Owners of America is hearing
rumblings that the Senate will soon be considering legislation to
slow down the number of frivolous lawsuits against gun makers.

Although GOA is supportive of this legislation, S. 397, we must
remember that anti-gun Senators used this legislation last year to
load it up with all kinds of anti-gun riders -- things like gun show
restrictions, semi-auto bans and more.

In the end, pro-gun supporters were forced to vote against (and kill)
the lawsuit protection bill in order to defeat the anti-gun
amendments.

GOA told Majority Leader Bill Frist that all of this could have been
avoided if he used certain parliamentary maneuvers to keep Senator
Dianne Feinstein from offering her gun ban amendment to the bill.
Later, when she tried to attach the semi-auto ban to another bill,
GOA asked you to contact Frist and urge him to use those
parliamentary procedures.

Well, he did. And it worked. Feinstein & Co. were furious that
Frist was acting in such an "undemocratic" fashion. They railed
against Frist and the Republican leadership. But we escaped without
getting ANY new gun restrictions. (You can read about this victory
by going to http://www.gunowners.org/a091404.htm on the GOA website.)

Fast forward one year. Some Republicans have seemingly forgotten
this key success from last year, and seem willing to allow Sen.
Feinstein to offer gun control legislation to the gun makers'
protection act.

The Washington Post reported last week that Sen. Feinstein is looking
to offer a gun ban when the lawsuit protection bill comes up for a
vote in the next couple of weeks. Feinstein said she "would try to
limit sales of powerful 50 caliber weapons so that they could only be
sold through federally licensed dealers, not at gun shows."
{Um, excuse me - but ONLY federally licensed dealers can sell guns - including .50cal. rifles - at gun shows, you lying, two-faced socialist scumbag b*tch !!} :D

Unfortunately, rather than repeating a proven strategy for success,
Senate Republicans are reportedly adopting a VERY DANGEROUS plan. In
fact, they would be going down the same road that gave us both the
semi-auto ban and the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act.

The Post quotes Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) as saying that the
"strategy this time would not be to dump the bill but remove anything
objectionable in conference with the House of Representatives."

OK, there are two problems with this strategy. First, they don't
need to "dump" the bill. Why not just use the parliamentary
procedures (described at http://www.gunowners.org/a030204a.htm on the
GOA website) which would prevent -- and have prevented in the past --
anti-gun amendments from even being offered in the first place?

Second, it's very dangerous to ask Senators to vote for gun control
legislation, on the promise that it will be killed later on. You
wouldn't try this approach out in the woods. When is the best time
to kill a poisonous snake? Answer: the first chance you get. The
longer you let it live, the better chance it has to bite you.

This is exactly what happened in 2002, when many senators voted for
the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech, based on the
assumption that the conference committee would clean up the bill
later and the Supreme Court would overturn it.

Gun owners are now well aware that the conference committee never
cleaned up the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection bill, and
draconian restrictions on the ability of Gun Owners to inform people
of their legislators' anti-gun records went to the President's desk.

President Bush then signed the bill, also relying on the presumption
that the Supreme Court would strike down unconstitutional provisions
that were in it.

Well, wrong again. The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions in
December, 2003.

This is also the SAME FAILED STRATEGY that gave us the semi-auto ban.
Pro-gun Senators refused to filibuster the semi-auto ban -- when
Senator Feinstein offered it as an amendment to the crime bill in
November of 1993 -- arguing that they would remove the language in
conference! Sound familiar?

The ban survived the conference committee and was happily signed into
law by President Clinton. Were it not for the sunset provision, the
semi-auto ban would still be the law of the land.

Remember, you always kill a poisonous snake the first chance you get.
One can only assume that a conference committee will "take care of
the problem" if one ignores the determination of Ted Kennedy, Dianne
Feinstein and Chuck Schumer.

ACTION: Please urge Senator Bill Frist to do whatever it takes to
keep anti-gun amendments off of the gun makers' protection act. Ask
him to use ANY and ALL of the parliamentary maneuvers that he has at
his disposal to keep Dianne Feinstein from attaching her gun ban to
S. 397. Urge him to use the power of the majority to stand for the
Bill of Rights.

You can call Senator Frist at (202) 224-3344, or go to
http://www.frist.senate.gov and select "Contact Senator
Frist" under
the "About Senator Frist" heading to send a message similar to the
one below.

Please note: Even if you do not live in Tennessee, Sen. Frist will
probably appreciate your opinion since he is looking to represent you
in the future as the next President of the United States.

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

Dear Senator Frist:

Gun Owners of America informs me that Senator Dianne Feinstein and
her cohorts are looking to offer gun control amendments to the gun
makers' protection act, S. 397. I want you to know that the minimal
gains this legislation will give us should NOT be accepted in
exchange for Feinstein-style gun control.

You should also know that I am very wary of promises that the
offending gun control language will be taken out of the bill in a
conference committee. Those are the same kinds of failed promises
that I have heard in years past when we got stuck with the
Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban in 1994 and the McCain-Feingold free
speech restrictions in 2002.

Instead, I would encourage you to use the SAME SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY
that you used last year to keep gun control off of the class action
lawsuit bill. I would urge you to use any and all parliamentary
tools at your disposal to prevent this amendment from being offered
to the gun makers' protection act.

Gun Owners of America has listed how this can be done, step by step,
at http://www.gunowners.org/a030204a.htm on its website. Thank you.

Sincerely,


****************************
 
Regarding contacting Senator Frist, or your own Senate Critters, which you should be doing anyhow,the following proport to be TOLL FREE phone numbers for Congressional/Capitol Switchboard.

1-877-762-8762
10800-839-5276
1-866-220-0044

I cannot vouch for the first two, but the last listed works, or it did this
A.M.
 
If it does manage to get tacked on, it is just time to start coming up with our own things to tack on. Things like repealing the 86 MG ban, lowering the handgun age to 18 or removing SBR's from the NFA registry.
 
If I understand correctly, Senator Larry Craig, who supposedly is pro Second amendment, pro gun and so forth has opted to go along with Feinstein Amendments, in the expectation of hope of "cleaning things up in conference committee".

The senator, based on the historical record of such foolish expectations, should know better. While he might still believe in The Tooth Fairy, I do not, and I hope that many many others don't either. One does not allow a rattle snake or copperhead to bite them, in the expectation that prompt medical attention will "straighten things out", for such might not be the case. One kills the snake, which is exactly what should happen with any anti gun amendments offered proposed to S. 397, or ANY other legislation.

As majority leader of The Senate, Bill Frist has the power to block such amendments, and that is exactly what he needs to do. He, and your senators absolutely have to get this message, and no other.
 
If I understand correctly, Senator Larry Craig, who supposedly is pro Second amendment, pro gun and so forth has opted to go along with Feinstein Amendments, in the expectation of hope of "cleaning things up in conference committee".
Click to expand...

WHY is he - of all people - going along with this?? What is in it for him? Or is he being blackmailed into compliane?
 
progunner1957 Quote:
If I understand correctly, Senator Larry Craig, who supposedly is pro Second amendment, pro gun and so forth has opted to go along with Feinstein Amendments, in the expectation of hope of "cleaning things up in conference committee".



WHY is he - of all people - going along with this?? What is in it for him? Or is he being blackmailed into compliane?

----------------

From what I've read at another site, The Armed citizen, Senator Craig was tryng to push funding for veterans care. Said funding, it is claimed, was held hostage by Democrats (Feinstein and Co??). His "acceptance" of some restrictions, allegedly minor, on 50 caliber rifles, supposedly freed up money he sought.

Problem as I see it is as follows. Who does what for the proverbial encore? Additionally, when dealing with the anti gunners, "compromise" seemingly has come to mean that the pro gun side gives, while the antis take.

And this, if the story is true, is how our elected things operate.
 
This was my post over on TAC:

I had quite a talk with my local phone rep at Craig's Twin Falls office.

Sen. Craig is the chairman for the Veterans Affairs committee. Earlier, the House approved a 1.5 billion supplemental appropriation for the DOV. This still would have left them a half a billion short for fiscal year 2005. On July 19, the Senate approved a supplemental appropriation for the full 2 billion. While the two bills will have to be finalized, the senate did confirm an appropriations bill that would give the DOV 70.7 billion for fiscal year 2006.

This was only possible because Craig assured leading democrats that he would not oppose the amendment by Feinstein on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397. Earlier, Craig opposed Feinstein's amendment until she changed it from an outright ban (the .50 BMG - by name - would have been placed on the NFA Destructive Device list), to what it is today.

While it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I also see the need of giving our vets the care they so richly deserve. Compromise. It's everywhere in Congress and encompasses more than we realize.

It's a hell of a thing to say we want a "pure" bill on S. 307, at the expense of the health of our veterans. So... You choose.

This is a classic, "What Would You Do?" scenario. So come on. Tell me how you would have handled this?

And yes, this is how things are done in DC. When did you ever think otherwise?

Oh, and your answer to my question over at TAC? It misses the mark entirely. Congress has been neglecting our vets for years. They change veterans benefits more often than I change my undies. So exposing the Dems to public scorn would do little, if any good at all. The public has never noticed or cared before, what is different about it now?
 
Antipitas:

For some seemingly dumb, translates to poor reason, I appear to have gotten you and Al Norris confused. I thought that the post you refered to was his, and I had responded to him. He might well be wondering what the hell I was talking about.

If you would take the trouble to look at my posts at TAC, you might discover that I have answered the question, though you might well not agree with my thinking.

In any event, I had offered that Senator Craig should have gone public with the entire shoddy business, playing games with veterans care, for two bit political advantage. That might have shamed Feinstein and Co, though possibly not. The problem, as I see it is as follows, and I believe I outlined it at TAC.

Compromise on this, compromise on something else, how much freeboard do you think remains before the boat is swamped. Possibly there is more than I believe, however I do not think that there is much left, it having been long since exhausted, for as I see the way the game is played, our side gives, and gives, while the antis take and take and take.

What is left for that proverbial encore, which there will most certainly be some of, encores that is. Precious little, or so it seems, and for myself, I've been looking at this business, and making my own small efforts since the mid 1960's, back when I lived in NYC, shortly before I removed myself therefrom, which was in 1967.
 
Anyone else ever wonder why Senators don't have term limits? Maybe if they were limited to say...only 3 terms (18 years, sheesh, better make it 2 terms!), all these BS 'compromises' would be less common?
 
Alan, I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock... But I am Al Norris. :eek:

I am he and he is me and we are all together! :D
 
Antipitas wrote:

Alan, I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock... But I am Al Norris.

I am he and he is me and we are all together!

____________

Al:

I had belatedly come to that realization. Be that as it may, regarding the fact that Al Norris and Antipitas are/is the same person, is something of a shock or surprise, I will somehow survive, at least I hope so. I have survived worse shocks.

Best

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top