US Senate Committee Approves AWB & Mag. Limits

I, for one, was intrigued by her statements: "I was there. I saw people shot." From my research, it appears that she saw: (1) her husband get shot; and (2) Harvey Milk get shot. Further, from what I can gather, both of them were shot with pistols. Now, I don't recall what kind of pistol was used in the murder of her husband (& I don't want to belittle that event in any way), but Harvey Milk was shot with a revolver as far as I can tell.

So what we're left with is a woman who saw two people shot with handguns, and uses that as an excuse to attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles. . .
 
So what we're left with is a woman who saw two people shot with handguns, and uses that as an excuse to attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's the same mindset that says, "the background check system is broken and unenforced, so we need to extend it to everyone."

It's worth mentioning that the big push until the late 1980's was the banning of handguns. Hence Handgun Control International (the Bradys' original name) and the Coalition to Ban Handguns (now the CSGV).

That movement ran out of steam and support, so inspired by the 1989 Stockton shooting, a new category of "assault weapons" was made up out of whole cloth, and the focus was deliberately switched to that.
 
The analogy between banning child pornography and so called Assault Weapons is flawed and not commensurate. In general pornography is mostly legal in this country, certainly at the federal level. Child pornography is illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor. Written depictions of child pornography are not illegal because they don't involve real children, just as pornographic movies portraying children or minors where there are adult actors and no children involved are not banned as child pornography.

The principle reason for bans on child pornography is the harm done to children.

So called Assault Weapons are functionally no different than many other rifles and pistols. Their existence or possession by an individual does not by itself injure anyone. They are tools that may be used for either good or bad purposes depending on the user.

A more apt analogy would be not to pornography but to books on chemistry or electronics that could be used for good or ill like making bombs and detonators.

I doubt baring another tragedy, that the Assault weapons and magazine bans can pass. I doubt the background check and ban on private sales with registration can pass. I think the bill on illegal trafficking might pass in a diluted form. I think money for making schools safer will pass.
 
so let's say I loan a friend, in my same state, a firearm for two weeks and the firearm never leaves my home state. How does the federal government claim the authority (power) to regulate that activity? It certainly shouldn't be under the authority within the interstate commerce clause. For one thing, no commerce is being conducted. For another thing, the action does not cross state lines. If they are talking about restricting a loan to a friend in another state, they would probably have more standing to invoke the authority under the commerce clause, however, no commerce is being conducted. They are good at twisting things to fit into the commerce clause. They'd probably claim that the loan means one party won't have to purchase a firearm and this then affects commercial firearm sales. Since firearms move in interstate commerce, the loan of a firearm affects interstate commerce.
 
The interstate commerce clause is practically a rubber stamp. And AFFECTING interstate commerce at some point past, present, or future is all that is required. If the firearm was assembled in whole or in part in another state.. if it means you or your friend bought some ammo manufactured in another state.. a cleaning kit, a bottle of CLP that was shipped by UPS, supporting a corporation that makes its money in interstate trade... Hell, they can say it makes interstate trade safer/more dangerous with more armed individuals out there on the road.

Interstate Trade is how a racist motel was forced into a non-segregation/discrimination policy during the 60's. I forget the name of the case, tho the lawyers in here probably remember it from school. Because the motel/hotel was right next to a freeway exit, it stands to reason they had a lot of out of state customers... ergo Congress could tell the guy how to run his business.
 
so let's say I loan a friend, in my same state, a firearm for two weeks and the firearm never leaves my home state. How does the federal government claim the authority (power) to regulate that activity? It's certainly shouldn't be under the authority within the interstate commerce clause. For one thing, no commerce is being conducted. For another thing, the action does not cross state lines.
Click to expand...

If the firearm has ever been involved in interstate commerce (i.e. was manufactured in another state or the initial retailer purchased it from a distributor in another state) then Congress claims the authority to regulate that firearm and all subsequent transactions involving that firearm regardless of the interstate status of those transactions. It seems that Congress further assumes that all firearms transactions involving parites engaged in interstate commerce, affect and/or are affected by interstate commerce and so are subject to regulation. So the burden falls upon the owner to prove that the firearm in question has never been involved in interstate commerce or bought or sold by anyone engaged in interstate commerce.
 
Yep, Feinstein will get her up or down vote. Pro-gun voters will have the opportunity to give a thumbs down to anti-gun senators running for re-election in 2014. :D
 
Yep, Feinstein will get her up or down vote.
Click to expand...

Actually, she might not. From what I've read in several sources, the AWB is likely to go to the floor as an amendment to a general bill. The Republicans will filibuster the amendment, if not the general bill, which will require a highly unlikely 60% majority for cloture.
 
If they do the amendment to a general bill thing, then this is all kabuki theater to help pro-gun Dems in 2014. By my rough count, it is questionable if they 50 votes, so 60 is a no-go.

Senator Reid did not get to where he is by not knowing how to count votes ahead of time. Offering up the AWB as an amendment subject to a cloture vote means many vulnerable 2014 Senators go on record for a bill that won't even make it out of the Senate, let alone the House. I can't imagine how that is going to help the Senate Dems; though it explains why even guys like Mark Pryor who supported the AWB renewal in 2004 are now voting no.
 
I think they are throwing up as much as they can at every level, federal state and local in hopes that the effort to oppose all of it will prove overwhelming and exhausting and they can get something critical to pass. Maybe we kill the AWB, and Schumer's "transaction ban", but they get UBC past the Senate. Then they try to get it past the House with an amendment to record transactions by dealing on budget and taxes. Then to a conference committee to work out final form while they create another distraction on another issue, maybe immigration.
 
When are these politicians going to understand that we the people are not going to be disarmed and abused like has happened in other countries.
It makes me want to puke that these elected officials are trying so desperately to rule us like a bunch of sheep. Why should we have to fight everyday for our Constitutional rights ? Why are they so hell bent on ruining our Constitution and our Country ?
These self serving career politicians need to be voted out !!!!!!
 
Why are they so hell bent on ruining our Constitution and our Country ?
Click to expand...

Because that is what they were elected to do? Not necessarily to ruin the country, but certainly to do the things that you think are ruining the country. Remember that the letters we write demanding our elected representatives represent our interests and oppose gun control are being countered by letters from others demanding that their interests be represented by supporting gun control.

There may be a large number of everyday Americans that refuse to be disarmed, but there is also a large number of everyday Americans that want guns to disappear. Congress hears from both sides, and heeds the ones most likely to reelect them.
 
Let's be real here. What is a right is a social construct. The interaction of the public and government officials decided what is a right.

Many types of people had quite restricted rights under past versions and interpretations of the Constitution.

The development of a right or disabling of a right is sometimes played out in the experimental labs of state government.
 
Let's be real here. What is a right is a social construct.
Click to expand...

Inalienable rights certainly are. In reality, rights do not exist on their own. Rights only exist when an individual claims them, exercises them and successfully defends that exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top