Feinstein Wants Obama to Pull a Clinton on Firearm Importation

[JohnC]

Feinstein Wants Obama to Pull a Clinton on Firearm Importation

http://nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2014/3/feinstein-wants-obama-to-pull-a-clinton-on-firearm-importation.aspx

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine "ban" of 1994-2004, is asking President Barack Obama to direct the BATFE to reinterpret a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the importation of various semi-automatic firearms and their parts.

In a letter to Obama, the text of which was included in an article published by the Daily Caller on Thursday, Feinstein said that, "at a minimum," the BATFE should:

prohibit importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds . . . . prohibit semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle . . . . prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts …. prohibit the use of a "thumbhole" stock . . . . and prohibit the importation of assault pistols.

Though Feinstein failed to gain approval of legislation she introduced in Congress last year, which would have imposed the biggest gun ban in American history, she has reason to believe that she could achieve some of her ends through the president's use of his executive authority. In the 1990s, Feinstein urged then-President Bill Clinton to direct the then-BATF to restrict the importation of semi-automatic rifles, and Clinton agreed. With the White House saying "we're taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns," the BATF prohibited the importation of semi-automatic rifles capable of using standard magazines holding over 10 rounds.

In its report on its 1998 action, the BATF attempted to justify its decision on the grounds that Feinstein's 1994 law had banned the importation of magazines that held more than 10 rounds.

There were many flaws with that argument, including:
•The 1994 law didn't define a rifle as an "assault weapon" on the basis of the size of its magazine. Rather, it did so on the basis of its action (semi-automatic), its ability to use a detachable magazine (regardless of the magazine's size), and its attachments, such as a pistol-type grip, and a folding or telescoping stock.
•The 10-round magazine limit applied to magazines for all types of firearms--rifles, pistols and shotguns. The BATF's decision applied only to rifles.
•The 1994 law didn't ban the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds made before the law took effect. It banned only the domestic manufacture and importation of such magazines made after the law took effect.
•Contrary to the BATF's claim that semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifles "may be used for organized competitive target shooting, [but] their suitability for these competitions is limited," American-made rifles of that type are the most commonly used rifles for organized marksmanship competitions.
•Feinstein's 1994 ban expired in 2004, but the BATFE has not rescinded its 1998 ban.

In her letter to Obama, Feinstein incorrectly stated that the relevant provision of the Gun Control Act, 18 USC 925(d)(3), "prohibits the importation of firearms that are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'" (Emphasis added.) Instead, it requires the Attorney General to approve the importation of firearms meeting either standard. While an important point, however, it may ultimately become moot, as the entire provision has become constitutionally suspect. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes, not merely for sports.

One might think it doesn't make sense for Feinstein to agitate for gun control in an election year, especially one in which a number of anti-gun senators are going to be facing the voters. However, she is religiously committed to gun control and has been for a long time.

In 1982, then-San Francisco mayor Feinstein said she was "deeply committed" to her proposal to ban the private possession of handguns in the city, even as she carried a handgun for her own protection. In 1993, she described semi-automatic firearms as "weapons of mass destruction," even as she admitted that the guns she wanted to ban were rarely used in crime.

The same year, Feinstein implied support for banning magazines holding four or more rounds, saying on the Senate floor "I intend to add an amendment that would exempt semiautomatic bolt action (sic) shotguns and bona fide hunting rifles whose clips don't exceed three rounds."

In 1995, Feinstein admitted "there is no question that I would have preferred to see an outright ban on the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons in America, including the 1.5 million to two million currently in circulation. But, simply stated, the votes were not there." Later, she said "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there."

In 1995, six months after Feinstein's 1994 ban took effect, CBS 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl, in a segment titled "What Assault Weapons Ban?" reported that "Assault weapons are still . . . . sold by the thousands." Calling 1994 "the best year for the sales of assault weapons ever," she dismissed as "a good applause line" President Clinton's claim that the ban reduced the number of "assault weapons." The Christian Science Monitor similarly noted, "gun manufacturers only had to make minor changes to weapons in order to comply with the ban," such as omitting a flash suppressor.

Violent crime had been decreasing and continued to decrease, as Feinstein's "ban" remained in effect. Nevertheless, in 1997, after the Los Angeles Times joined the chorus of news entities reporting the weakness of her ban, Feinstein said she wanted it tightened.

In 1998, Feinstein began introducing bills to expand her 1994 ban's ammunition magazine restriction. In 2004, knowing she didn't have enough votes to expand the ban, she introduced bills to extend it another 10 years, none of which passed.

With her plea for greater restriction on the importation of firearms, Feinstein continues to badger America for gun control in abject denial of relevant statistics. The nation's murder rate is now at nearly an all-time low, even as Americans have been buying hundreds of thousands of AR-15s annually, including over 800,000 in 2012 alone.

Edited March 22, 2014 by JohnC

[Guest semiautots]

A textbook case in the support of term limits.

[A.J. Holst]

When you look at her history, what is scary is her agenda is no guns for nobodyv for no reason

 

She understands the weapons she wants to ban aren't used in gun crime, so it is not an issue of keeping the public free from gun violence.

 

It seems to me it is to keep guv'mint free from gun violence.

[300winmag]

How about this senator gives up her US Marshal creds that allow her to carry a handgun anywhere in the country.  She should also give up any taxpayer funded protection she receives from Capitol Police and other feds.  What is good for others should be good for her.

[Links2k]

How about this senator gives up her US Marshal creds that allow her to carry a handgun anywhere in the country.  She should also give up any taxpayer funded protection she receives from Capitol Police and other feds.  What is good for others should be good for her.

That Works For Me.

[Oh Shoot]

How about this senator gives up her US Marshal creds that allow her to carry a handgun anywhere in the country.  ...

 

Pretty sure she has never had such a credential.  Had a Kali permit for a while back in the 80's.

 

- OS

[seez52]

she is the definition of "domestic enemy"

[Dane]

[quote name="semiautots" post="1128305" timestamp="1395493209"]A textbook case in the support of term limits.[/quote] The people of California like her stance. Otherwise they would have terminated her long ago. We have great term limits now, every few years we choose to use the limits or extend them. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

What the people who support her (and any other slanted politician left or right) fail to realize is that the constitution exists for a REASON and that is to protect the minority from the majority and to limit government. We are slipping further and further away from a republic into a pure democracy and too many people are supporting that idea. 

   

Without doing exhaustive research I'm not sure how to do this, but I think the US Military should have a "trigger" provision/responsibility attached to it that, if the legislative, judicial, of other portions of the executive do something or try to do something that is constitutionally illegal, and the justice department fails to act or is complicit, that the military will move in and stop that act/prevent it. By doing this, it removes the teeth from the government to conduct illegal activities.

 

Yeah, I know (and agree) that the military is to be kept in strict subordination to civilian authority, AS LONG AS, the civilian authority follows the rules.

[Guest semiautots]

The people of California like her stance. Otherwise they would have terminated her long ago. We have great term limits now, every few years we choose to use the limits or extend them. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

You don't seem to understand why term limits are needed.  It begins with the founders did not believe in a ruling "class", and wrote the Constitution with this in mind.  Reelection brings with it the forward promise of favoritism in exchange for support.  Reelection brings with it the lust for more power and more control.  It is difficult (Alcee Hastings and Charlie Rangel) to unseat incumbents, due to the massing of favors, money, and media.  Government should be a revolving door of good Americans.  It, currently, is not.

[Mariner]

What the people who support her (and any other slanted politician left or right) fail to realize is that the constitution exists for a REASON and that is to protect the minority from the majority and to limit government. We are slipping further and further away from a republic into a pure democracy and too many people are supporting that idea. 
   
Without doing exhaustive research I'm not sure how to do this, but I think the US Military should have a "trigger" provision/responsibility attached to it that, if the legislative, judicial, of other portions of the executive do something or try to do something that is constitutionally illegal, and the justice department fails to act or is complicit, that the military will move in and stop that act/prevent it. By doing this, it removes the teeth from the government to conduct illegal activities.
 
Yeah, I know (and agree) that the military is to be kept in strict subordination to civilian authority, AS LONG AS, the civilian authority follows the rules.

The problem is that the courts uphold many of the laws that the politicians come up with, and that makes them, in their eyes constitutional. What we don't need is a military leadership that then gets to decide what is constitutional and what is not. then you end up with a dictatorship. We need the laws changed so that the supreme court justices are elected by the people and not the president. That would at least give us some of the power back to have the laws decided by justices who are put in place by the people.

[ChiefSailer]

[quote name="semiautots" post="1128305" timestamp="1395493209"]A textbook case in the support of term limits.[/quote] AMEN!!!!

[JohnC]

We need the laws changed so that the supreme court justices are elected by the people and not the president. That would at least give us some of the power back to have the laws decided by justices who are put in place by the people.

Has any elections made things better? Was Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama an improvement just because of term limits?

It comes back to taking back to the education system and the youth from this left-wing social engineering.

If you want a government, judicial, media, education system, etc., to represent your idea of what America should be, you have to start from the bottom.

You start with the education system, teach kids on the truth, the constitution as originally intended by our founders, etc., and get the Socialist/Communist party lines out of the textbooks, etc., and you will start to see the change you're looking for.

If we let the education system and everything else continue on this path, soon all you'll be to the kids is old racist right wing wanna let everyone die and no care for the old, poor and disabled, and you will be out-voted by that up and coming new generation graduating out in the world every year.

They're rearing a left-wing army that thinks like them, votes like them, agrees with them and wants what the lefties want.

Every time I see a pro-gun aka pro-2a rally, conservative rally, tea party, or any other conservative groups (except some of the libertarian groups), it's all old white folks and hardly any young folks (any age up to about 30). Only time I seen a teen or 20-something at rallies in D.C., they were the Christian church kids with their kinfolk (and very few of them). The rest avoid it like the plague. Edited March 24, 2014 by JohnC

[Guest Lowbuster]

How about this senator gives up her US Marshal creds that allow her to carry a handgun anywhere in the country. She should also give up any taxpayer funded protection she receives from Capitol Police and other feds. What is good for others should be good for her.

I would guess even if her protection were restricted to ten round mags, she wouldn't feel as safe.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

The problem is that the courts uphold many of the laws that the politicians come up with, and that makes them, in their eyes constitutional. What we don't need is a military leadership that then gets to decide what is constitutional and what is not. then you end up with a dictatorship. We need the laws changed so that the supreme court justices are elected by the people and not the president. That would at least give us some of the power back to have the laws decided by justices who are put in place by the people.

Yeah, I can work with that...as long as those judges that are elected remain non-biased, something which most of them now are NOT

[sigmtnman]

Has any elections made things better? Was Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama an improvement just because of term limits?

It comes back to taking back to the education system and the youth from this left-wing social engineering.

If you want a government, judicial, media, education system, etc., to represent your idea of what America should be, you have to start from the bottom.

You start with the education system, teach kids on the truth, the constitution as originally intended by our founders, etc., and get the Socialist/Communist party lines out of the textbooks, etc., and you will start to see the change you're looking for.

If we let the education system and everything else continue on this path, soon all you'll be to the kids is old racist right wing wanna let everyone die and no care for the old, poor and disabled, and you will be out-voted by that up and coming new generation graduation out in the world every year.

They're rearing a left-wing army that thinks like them, votes like them, agrees with them and wants what the lefties want.

Every time I see a pro-gun aka pro-2a rally, conservative rally, tea party, or any other conservative groups (except some of the libertarian groups), it's all old white folks and hardly any young folks (any age up to about 30). Only time I seen a teen or 20-something at rallies in D.C., they were the Christian church kids with their kinfolk (and very few of them). The rest avoid it like the plague.

 

"They" absolutely understand this.

[sigmtnman]

How many federal judges are elected? How many
judges have life terms?

There are too many appointments to the bench
which are probably all political in nature.

Term limits apply when enough people vote with
their brains intact.

 

Well, now we are back to JohnC's point.  We are doomed.

[Dane]

[quote name="semiautots" post="1128736" timestamp="1395579420"]You don't seem to understand why term limits are needed. It begins with the founders did not believe in a ruling "class", and wrote the Constitution with this in mind. Reelection brings with it the forward promise of favoritism in exchange for support. Reelection brings with it the lust for more power and more control. It is difficult (Alcee Hastings and Charlie Rangel) to unseat incumbents, due to the massing of favors, money, and media. Government should be a revolving door of good Americans. It, currently, is not.[/quote] So show me where our founders supported term limits. I agree that the gov should not be a career. It is a position of servitude that most fail to understand. However, term limits are not the answer. If a particular constituency believes that the person they have elected deserves to be re-elected then that should also be the people's choice. As someone else has said, education and participation are the keys. Of course it would be nice of this country wasn't so complacent as well. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Oh Shoot]

So show me where our founders supported term limits. ...

 

Well, if they had written it in there, would have been overturned by the people eventually, just as Senators chosen by state legislatures was.

 

Why? Because long history of the process shows that people hate politicians, except their own, and they want their own guy to stay on.

 

- OS

[RC3]

What the people who support her (and any other slanted politician left or right) fail to realize is that the constitution exists for a REASON and that is to protect the minority from the majority and to limit government. We are slipping further and further away from a republic into a pure democracy and too many people are supporting that idea. 

   

Without doing exhaustive research I'm not sure how to do this, but I think the US Military should have a "trigger" provision/responsibility attached to it that, if the legislative, judicial, of other portions of the executive do something or try to do something that is constitutionally illegal, and the justice department fails to act or is complicit, that the military will move in and stop that act/prevent it. By doing this, it removes the teeth from the government to conduct illegal activities.

 

Yeah, I know (and agree) that the military is to be kept in strict subordination to civilian authority, AS LONG AS, the civilian authority follows the rules.

Isnt that what a coup d'etat? And then you go from one thing to another when instead of them threatening to use violence, they are cramming a abrams down your throat.