Feinstein's Letter to the President

T

Tom Servo

Staff
Dianne Feinstein has been pressuring the President to make gun control a top-tier issue this year. She hasn't been successful. This week, she sent him a letter asking him to expand the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) (the "sporting purposes" clause) to ban the import of all "military-style" firearms.

She singles out the Romanian WASR-10 (a cheap AKM clone) for whole heap of ire:

An analysis by the Violence Policy Center found that more than 700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries. (…) For example, one imported Romanian AK firearm, the WASR-10, was carefully designed to exploit the sporting purposes test and has become a favorite of the gun traffickers that profit by arming Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
Click to expand...

Of course, who facilitated the smuggling of those guns? Our government. While she's done her best to avoid discussing that angle, she has the nerve to close her letter with a plea that, "we have endured too many funerals and mourned the loss of too many innocent lives to accept less than full enforcement."

The irony is ludicrous, but the danger is real. The ATF can do most of what she asks through rulemaking, and the President can exert pressure.

The budget for the ATF has to be approved by the House. If your Representative is even the least gun-friendly, it would be a good idea to contact him with this and ask him to consider withholding that money next year if they do any of this.

ETA: what the heck are "assault features?"
 
Last edited:
Feinstein is good for that. Pulling facts out of her backside that bare no resemblance to the real world. I fail to understand how she ever got in office.

Gary
 
There are two words that stand out to me, "illegal smuggling." Wouldn't that mean that this has nothing to do with your law abiding citizen?

"Do you really think we want those laws observed? We want them to be beoken. You'd better get it strait that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced our objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law breakers and you cash in on the guilt." (Atlas Shrugged)
 
I'm not sure about that. She's politically untouchable. What she is doing is making it harder for colleagues in her party to live down their votes on S. 649.
 
28th amendment?

The professor predicted:
Thank you, Senator Feinstein for contributing to your mid term election disaster.
Click to expand...

I expect she will still get re-elected in 2018 IF she runs. The majority of her constituency that vote apparently buy into her well oiled KOOLAID-propaganda machine, here http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hot-topics and at *many* proxy sites.

Too bad there isn't a "you spy, you lie, you die" constitutional amendment for elected and appointed federalies, where lying to the public or spying on them is a capital offense. That would likely clear out the fringe politicos who have hidden agendas.
 
My wife and I traveled to California only last fall to visit relatives of hers. They live in the San Francisco area. The state is beautiful and I would love to spend a year only sightseeing, but after a few days of talking with many people there, I am not at all surprised that she, along with Pelosi and Boxer are re-elected over and over again.

Also...you are all spelling Frankenstein wrong. ;)
 
I meant that such statements in general fuel opposition to her party's candidates across the country. I do think that she is untouchable in her niche.

But in low term out elections, an issue that mobilizes folks to elect legislators to counter her and Schumer isn't really good for her party.

Getting a touch political - my fault.

Each party has niche nuts that act against their general interests.
 
The wise prof noted:
Each party has niche nuts that act against their general interests.
Click to expand...
We've lived in 3 countries, including a 'severe monarchy' / dictatorship. The politicians play the same games everywhere, be they left, right, center north or south. The difference is the latitude of promises made.
 
I saw something she wrote, might even be in the letter referenced, about an Assault Pistol. Thank goodness we have her and her ilk to protect us.
 
Tom, having worked in DC for a few decades I think inferring Feinstein is "pressuring" Obama is a little off the mark. I bet her letter was in fact vetted by the White House before it she sent it to them.

This is more about public posturing. The President just lost his SG nominee (that nomination actually died a week ago) and this is good public cover, ie a narrative he is responding to pressure for more work on gun control and doing as much as he can, but being "obstructed."

I don't think feinstein is doing or saying a thing without coordinating it with the white house.
 
The coordination between Feinstein and the White House makes perfect sense to me, whoever initiated it. In fact, I don't think it really matters who initiated it.
 
This is more about public posturing. The President just lost his SG nominee (that nomination actually died a week ago) and this is good public cover, ie a narrative he is responding to pressure for more work on gun control and doing as much as he can, but being "obstructed."
Click to expand...
I agree. The media is attributing Murthy's loss directly to the NRA, and that's gotta sting. The President gets to throw up his hands and cry, "I tried, but the gun lobby won't play nice!"

Problem is, blocking imports can be done without legislation. In fact, it doesn't even take an executive order (or "action"). He can give an informal nod to the BATFE to make a rules change, as they're trying to do with 41P. Bush 41 did the same thing in 1989.
 
Without getting too political don’t you guys think we’ll see sort of an unofficial moratorium on any significant Federal gun control actions until after the mid-term elections?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top