Tag Archives: Feinstein

Thank you, Senator Feinstein

For making the pro-human/civil rights case for us, just this once. However inadvertently.

WATCH: Feinstein Tries To Nail Kavanaugh On Guns, Completely Fails
Feinstein continued by claiming that “assault weapons are not in common use.”

Kavanaugh responded by noting that “semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States” and that “there are millions and millions and millions of semiautomatic rifles that are possessed.”

“You’re saying the numbers determine common use?” Feinstein replied. “Common use is an activity. It’s not common storage or possession, it’s use. So what you said is that these weapons are commonly used. They’re not.”

“They’re widely possessed in the United States, senator,” Kavanaugh replied. “And they are, they are used and possessed.”

That’s mildly amusing, since Feinstein has spent decades insisting that “assault weapons” must be banned because they are so commonly used.

“And the numbers continue to grow. Between 1988 and 1997, 125 were killed in 18 mass shootings. The next decade, 1998 to 2007, 171 were killed in 21 mass shootings. And over the last 10 years, 2008 to 2017, 437 were killed in 50 mass shootings.

“That’s 89 mass shootings in the last 30 years that snuffed out the lives of more than 700 people. Additionally, many police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by assault weapons, including 1 in 5 officers killed in 2014.

But now she admits that semiautomatic firearms are not so commonly used in crime. And that’s true, looking at the firearms used in crime as a percentage of all guns, “crime guns” are perhaps just 0.0307%. The rest are used for lawful purposes like defense, hunting, target-shooting, or simply collecting.

Clearly there’s no need for a ban of devices so rarely used criminally. Thanks for noting that, Senator Feinstein.

For those unsure why “common use” is a big deal (none of my regular readers, I’m sure), it’s from the 1939 SCOTUS decision in MILLER.

“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Feinstein knows that and is trying to get around it. Too bad she didn’t read the 2008 HELLER decision

“(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. ”

“3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

And

“The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” “

Keep reading

Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, 27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.”

The Supreme Court made it rather clear that common possession for lawful purpose is common use, Constitutionally speaking, Senator.

So there we have it, by Feinstein’s admission, semiautomatic firearms are rarely used in crime (as a percentage of firearms), but they are protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted bt the Supreme Court. There’s no reason to ban them, and trying would violate the Constitution. Case closed.

But the reality is that firearms are commonly used: defensively. Even the anti-rights Violence Policy Center admits to 338,700 defensive gun ises per year. Other estimates go as high as 2.5 million. Perhaps those are the uses Feinstein wants to end.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Die-Anne Feinswine’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 is out. It’s worth a read. In some respects it’s much like its 1994 predecessor, only more so. Particularly in that it isn’t a ban. Hang on to that thought.

The first section sets up definitions. “Assault weapons” become pretty much any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and any 1 of several other features: pistol grip, pistol grip (specifically includes thumbhole stocks), forward grip, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, shoulder thing that goes up, threaded barrel, and so forth. Pistols specifically have their own characteristics, which you can guess from Feinstein’s previous ranting.

She got smart on one point. Back in the ’90s, manufacturers simply redesigned platforms to conform to the law (which she fein-whined was taking advantage of a “loophole”). This time she remembered to ban any variant of pages of specified firearms. So gun makers can’t take an AR-15 and saw off the pistol grip or weld the magazine in place and call it an AR-15PB (post-ban).

They’ll have to give it a new model number series. I suggest the UYDF-17. You can figure it out.

Then she gets to the ban-that-isn’t.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.

Yes, existing gear is grandfathered. As before, her “assault weapon ban” doesn’t ban a single firearm, and — gun owners having learned the lesson of her last attempt — have far more “assault weapons” on hand than they did in 1994.

Standard capacity magazines are next to not-go, with similar language merely banning future manufacture or importation of detachable magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, existing magazines grandfathered.

Government entities are all exempted, of course.

Up next, “safe storage.” Yeah, if you aren’t carrying it, or have it within arms reach, lock it up. Unloaded. Ammunition elsewhere. Feinstein really hates children.

“High capacity” magazines for government are going to get more expensive, but hey: taxpayers have deep pockets. New “assault weapons” and magazines must be serial-numbered and marked with date of manufacture.

She then inserts 90-some pages of specific firearms that are exempted from this law’s restrictions, which strikes me as stupid because the ones I recognize don’t fit her “assault weapon” definition anyway. She never was that bright.

Transfers of grandfathered “assault weapons” would have to go through an FFL. A private seller has to turn it over to the FFL, who has to enter it into his inventory records. The buyer will have to fill out a 4473, just as if the firearm were being purchased from the FFL, and be run through NICS. There is no exemption for gifts or loans, even between family members.

She’ll graciously allow you to let the buyer handle it for pre-purchase inspection without the FFL and NICS check. Oh, goody.

Now back to that thought I started with; why a ban that isn’t a ban? She did that before, and we know how that turned out.

  • Strictly by the numbers, crimes committed with firearms fitting the ’94 definition of “assault weapon” did go down. But it was statistically meaningless because those firearms were always rarely used by criminals. It’s like a town that saw one case of measles one year, then had 100% percent increase the next when two siblings get the measles. Statistically meaningless in a town of a couple hundred thousand or more.
  • Overall, firearms crime remained roughly the same. A few more hand gun crimes compensated for “assault weapons.”
  • A frickin’ huge number of evil, wicked “assault weapons” were transferred in panic-buying before the ’94 ban went into effect. So the imminent law had the effect of a subsidy for firearm manufacturers and dealers.If Feinstein — or her staffers/handlers — have a brain amongst them, they know this. They know every time someone makes serious banning noises (Obama election sound familiar?) sales skyrocket. “Gun Salesman of the Year.” Prices go through the roof.

    We know Feinstein isn’t bright. But is she crazy? Or is she taking brib campaign contributions from the evil gun industry?


    Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

    paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



    Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Zelman Partisans Statement on Proposed Legislation to Ban “Bump-Fire Stocks” and other accessories.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, long a foe of free and armed people, is introducing legislation (PDF) to ban “bump-fire stocks.”

“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,” the bill states.”

Since The Zelman Partisans do value free and armed people, having an understanding of history when wanna-be tyrants like Feinstein succeeded, we utterly oppose this legislation.

We oppose it for the usual RKBA philosophical reasons. It is yet another infringement on the very right to life, as expressed through self defense.

We oppose it for practical reasons as well.

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine its acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready position and is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

Old-timers know the trick of pushing your rifle forward with your grip on the stock or barrel shroud as you fire. Recoil pushes the rifle back, and your hand acts as a spring to pull it forward driving the trigger into your finger. The mechanicals have typically cycled already, so the rifle fires again. It’s a fun trick, but wasteful of ammunition, and very inaccurate.

Thus were born “bump-fire” stocks. They merely provide a way to hold the rifle a little steadier while you perform the same silly stunt. They absolutely in no way increase the theoretical rate of fire. They help folks with slower fingers get a little closer to the theoretical.

Should Feinstein’s bill pass, it would necessitate outlawing holding the rifle by the stock like we did in the old days. I suppose possession of an off hand would be a felony.

In fact, this bill is so broadly written that far more than “bump-fire” stocks would be banned. Light-weight after-market bolts can increase the rate of fire, as can different replacement buffer springs. Likewise nicely polished and sensitive trigger groups.

Polishing the parts in the stock trigger group would be illegal.

Basically this Constitution-shredding Senator wants to redefine “machine gun” by how fast you can make something fire, rather than being designed to fire automatically as long as the trigger is depressed. Apparently Jerry Miculek is going to be outlawed.

We understand that other people are reacting in shock and grief to the horrible incident in Las Vegas. But if we are to ban every fun or useful thing that has ever been misused, we will have to eliminate microwave ovens, sandpaper, fire extinguishers, doctors, and senators, among many other things.

The Zelman Partisans opposes this, and any other legislation with similar Bill of Rights violating intent, on the grounds that it is both wrong and stupid. We urge Senator Feinstein — clearly in her dotage — to withdraw it and to retire in ignominy.

We urge anyone with a lick of sense to also oppose it.

Please contact your Senators and House Representative to voice your opposition.

We also note that the National Rifle Association has issued a statement in support of further regulating or banning fun stuff, saying, “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” We disagree, and urge principled members of the NRA to consider quitting and joining a real pro-RKBA organization.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail