PDA

View Full Version : Feinstein Bill


Buddydog
09-25-2007, 9:11 AM
Here is a link to the story...

http://www.gunowners.org/a091707.htm


Here is a brief section from the GOA article,

Well, Feinstein's S. 456 is the latest vehicle for such underhandedness.

At issue is section 215 of the bill. In essence, your family, gun shop employees, or even church bowling league would be considered an organized "gang" and subjected to draconian prison sentences if you did any of a number of things, such as:

* having a gun (loaded OR unloaded) in your glovebox as you -- inevitably -- drive within 1,000 feet of a school, even if you didn't know the school was there;

* selling a gun out of your store while being entrapped in a Bloomberg-style "sting" operation;

* teaching your son to shoot without giving him a written letter of permission (which must be on his actual person), even if you are standing right behind him at the range the whole time; or,

* simply being one the 83,000 veterans whose names were illegally added to the Brady system by President Clinton (or, presumably, one of the thousands more who will be on the list if the current Veterans Disarmament bill passes), if you continued to possess a firearm.

Here is my letter to Feinstein:

"Dear Senator Feinstein,

I doubt you read these emails. In fact I doubt you have read the Constitution but I chose to send my message regardless.

I am a citizen of both California and the United States. I have become increasingly aware of a targeted campaign on your part to remove the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am a firm believer that the Second Amendment is at the forefront of these attacks. I do not truly care about gun ownership, but the Second Amendment serves to facilitate my argument.

The argument has been made by certain folks that the first step to controlling a population is to remove their only defense. While I do not group myself with these people, I am forced to wonder if they are correct.

Why is it that you would attempt to restrict gun owners so much that I would be at fault and face a prison sentence in the event I tried to protect myself, my wife or my four month old daughter? This is asinine behavior on your part.

It is common knowledge that our elected officials often travel with an armed escort, why can you do this and I as the person that helped put you there cannot? To me, a voting citizen in your district, this is a clear indication that you are in favor of a police state where citizens are afraid of "evil" lurking around every corner.

In the event of a threatening situation, I would no sooner depend on the Sheriff to arrive at my home after 20 minutes travel time, than I would depend on you to fly in from Washington to do the same. I never, ever want to inflict harm on another human being, but if a CRIMINAL were to attempt to threaten my family, there would be an immediate response on my part. If I didn't have a gun, I would use my bare hands...At least they haven't been taken away yet!

You are systematically disarming law abiding citizens and placing targets on our backs every time you try and pass legislation such as S. 456. Statistics throughout history provide evidence that a disarmed population is not only easily controllable, but also appears as no threat to criminals that are such because they obviously do not abide by the laws which you assert will save us all from violence.

Wake up Senator or risk being replaced in the next election. I will make it my primary goal to remove any anti-gun candidate, not because I believe in violence, nor because I am a gun lover, but simply because you are slowly destroying our liberties bit by bit and it has become intolerable!

I would gladly spend my own money to air television commercials and run radio and print ads that would shed a deeper light on your positions.

Gun ownership represents only one small aspect of how you would treat all of our liberties, I urge you to remember that in the future.

Just as a refresher I have included a link to the Bill of Rights:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Sincerely,"


Write her, tell her what you think!

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/bio/?id=347

chris
09-25-2007, 9:19 AM
i'm sure you'll get the "agree to disagree form letter" from that wench of senator.

JawBone
09-25-2007, 9:21 AM
At issue is section 215 of the bill. In essence, your family, gun shop employees, or even church bowling league would be considered an organized "gang" and subjected to draconian prison sentences if you did any of a number of things,

Dang, you belong to a pretty rough church bowling league. :rolleyes:
Rather than "in essence" here is the actual text:

(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-456&show-changes=0) -The term `criminal street gang' means a formal or informal group, organization, or association of 5 or more individuals--

`(A) each of whom has committed at least 1 gang crime; and

`(B) who collectively commit 3 or more gang crimes (not less than 1 of which is a serious violent felony), in separate criminal episodes (not less than 1 of which occurs after the date of enactment of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007, and the last of which occurs not later than 5 years after the commission of a prior gang crime (excluding any time of imprisonment for that individual)).

(2) GANG CRIME- The term `gang crime' means an offense under Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or a felony offense under State law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in any of the following categories...

Subvertz
09-25-2007, 9:36 AM
Does just one person in these gang have to commit these crimes, or any combination of people that were oat one time in the group?

dustoff31
09-25-2007, 9:41 AM
I would encourage everyone to click on the link JawBone provided and read the entire bill before forming an opinion.

I am certainly not a Feinstein supporter, but after reading the bill I can't say I have much problem with it.

JawBone
09-25-2007, 9:43 AM
Does just one person in these gang have to commit these crimes, or any combination of people that were oat one time in the group?

Good question - I was quoting from an old version and have updated the definition to the passed version above - one individual GC and 3 collective before this applies.

As I read it this applies only to enhanced sentences for convicted felons who don't have 2A rights anyway. Also, I cannot confirm the NRA opposes this bill?**

[**However, I could see opposing this on the grounds of waste of taxpayer money or not being a federal issue - but that is not the offered reason]