davjohns 1 #1 February 4, 2013 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons I didn't want to believe some of the stuff I came across, so I went to the source. This is Sen. Feinstein's site and the actual text link. Page 13 defines a pistol grip as, ‘‘(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." So, if it is semi-auto, can take a detachable magazine, and you can hold onto it....it is illegal to sell or transfer. Oh, and the .22 squirrel gun I had as a kid is now an assault weapon. Even if it doesn't have a detachable magazine, if it can hold over ten rounds, it counts. As written, this is far more broad than advertised.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #2 February 4, 2013 What about the actual grip of a handgun? Technically its a "characteristic that can function as a grip". A way to sneakily ban all guns? Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #3 February 4, 2013 No. The quote I gave was from the options of a rifle or shotgun. The pistol prohibited options included a second grip, but seemed to make allowance for the first one.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 February 4, 2013 QuoteAs written, this is far more broad than advertised. That's because people are naively viewing this as an absolute position. It's not; it's a proposal from which the team will negotiate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #5 February 4, 2013 No doubt. But as it is written, it has a definition that would make all detachable box magazine fed semi-auto long arms illegal. I can't imagine that was an error. This document is hardly a recent product.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #6 February 4, 2013 It's their wildest-wet-dreams wish list. Note that Feinstein is re-elected regularly, so that would indicate that she represents the thoughts of a majority of the voters in her district. It's a bullshit wish list and way too broad. But if they propose what they think they'll actually get, they'll get far less. Personally I hate dealing like that. But some people (and many politicians) love it; it's how they work. Think of all the bazaars where you're supposed to bargain; think of buying a car, or the offer-counter offer dance in buying a house. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #7 February 4, 2013 QuoteNote that Feinstein is re-elected regularly, so that would indicate that she represents the thoughts of a majority of the voters in her district. FWIW, being a Senator, she has a state-wide constituency. And CA, just like, say, NY, has quite a number of pretty consrevative counties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #8 February 4, 2013 D'oh. Wasn't thinking real hard there, was I? I was thinking congresswoman -- yeah, California definitely has a lot of polarized districts, who think that the "other half" of the state is full of crap. Be nice to see some of those folks beginning to see that it's only on some things that they're full of crap, and that in most things, most people agree. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #9 February 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteNote that Feinstein is re-elected regularly, so that would indicate that she represents the thoughts of a majority of the voters in her district. FWIW, being a Senator, she has a state-wide constituency. And CA, just like, say, NY, has quite a number of pretty consrevative counties. She wasn't elected by the conservative counties. She will pander to her base, even though she is supposed to represent all of the voters in her state."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #10 February 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteNote that Feinstein is re-elected regularly, so that would indicate that she represents the thoughts of a majority of the voters in her district. FWIW, being a Senator, she has a state-wide constituency. And CA, just like, say, NY, has quite a number of pretty consrevative counties. She wasn't elected by the conservative counties. She will pander to her base, even though she is supposed to represent all of the voters in her state. You just described virtually every sitting US Senator at any given point in history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #11 February 4, 2013 i cannot fathom that you actually believe that any elected official at that level represents the wishes of anyone, except their own reelection. having studied sociology, just a little, i can see how the elites want to keep things just like they are. when everyone is bickering, it's a lot easier to keep your power. and it is all about power, not about any kind of need for action. if you don't believe me, take for example the govt. refusing to re-draw the poverty line to more closely mirror reality. it just won't happen, because no politician wants the numbers of poor to dramatically increase on their watch. reference to check: essentials of sociology, james henslinhttp://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #12 February 4, 2013 As I wrote previously: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4434895;search_string=assault%20ban;#4434895... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #13 February 4, 2013 Quotei cannot fathom that you actually believe that any elected official at that level represents the wishes of anyone, except their own reelection. having studied sociology, just a little, i can see how the elites want to keep things just like they are. when everyone is bickering, it's a lot easier to keep your power. and it is all about power, not about any kind of need for action. if you don't believe me, take for example the govt. refusing to re-draw the poverty line to more closely mirror reality. it just won't happen, because no politician wants the numbers of poor to dramatically increase on their watch. reference to check: essentials of sociology, james henslin Never admit to being a rookie, kid. Just puff your chest out and project; the rest falls into place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #14 February 4, 2013 I think paragraphs 36 (b) and 37 (b) exempt your squirrel gun and note that the "Chipmunk Single Shot" is completely exempted - a glaring loophole. Serious question: What does the phrase "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" mean in this bill?You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #15 February 4, 2013 Quote What does the phrase "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" mean in this bill? It's standard legislative language to give the Federal government jurisdiction over the issue, by virtue of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. (Without specific federal jurisdiction (for one legal reason or another) over a given issue, only the states may legislate over said issue; Congress may not.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErleGardner 0 #16 February 5, 2013 Quote"in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" Yet for some reason, a gun made entirely in one state and sold to a resident of that same state, still has to comply with federal laws even though there hasn't been any interstate commerce. Go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #17 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuote"in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" Yet for some reason, a gun made entirely in one state and sold to a resident of that same state, still has to comply with federal laws even though there hasn't been any interstate commerce. Go figure. Ha. Was all of the metal smelted in the state? Was all of the iron ore and coal used in the smelting process mined in the state? Was all of the electricity powering the factory generated in the state? Did all of the fuel used to fuel the power plant come exclusively within the state? Hydroelectric power, you say? Were all of the headwaters of the river in the state? Were all of the shipping containers used to ship the product manufactured in-state? Were all of the raw material used in the shipping containers derived solely in-state? Did the gun manufacturer or vendors do their banking at banks with branches in other states? Are the banks insured by the FDIC? Are the gun mfgrs or vendors insured by insurance companies that operate in other states? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #18 February 5, 2013 wow, lawyers. and it's been over 20 years since i was a "kid".http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #19 February 5, 2013 QuoteHa. Was all of the metal smelted in the state? Was all of the iron ore and coal used in the smelting process mined in the state? Was all of the electricity powering the factory generated in the state? Did all of the fuel used to fuel the power plant come exclusively within the state? Hydroelectric power, you say? Were all of the headwaters of the river in the state? Were all of the shipping containers used to ship the product manufactured in-state? Were all of the raw material used in the shipping containers derived solely in-state? Did the gun manufacturer or vendors do their banking at banks with branches in other states? Are the banks insured by the FDIC? Are the gun mfgrs or vendors insured by insurance companies that operate in other states? The basics of everything we are made of and just about touch was created in the universe by a star going supernova.(which was out of "state") Figured you had not covered all your asinine examples so I would group them all up into one for you. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #20 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteHa. Was all of the metal smelted in the state? Was all of the iron ore and coal used in the smelting process mined in the state? Was all of the electricity powering the factory generated in the state? Did all of the fuel used to fuel the power plant come exclusively within the state? Hydroelectric power, you say? Were all of the headwaters of the river in the state? Were all of the shipping containers used to ship the product manufactured in-state? Were all of the raw material used in the shipping containers derived solely in-state? Did the gun manufacturer or vendors do their banking at banks with branches in other states? Are the banks insured by the FDIC? Are the gun mfgrs or vendors insured by insurance companies that operate in other states? The basics of everything we are made of and just about touch was created in the universe by a star going supernova.(which was out of "state") Figured you had not covered all your asinine examples so I would group them all up into one for you. You don't view this as recreation, do you? Your loss; I do. Oh, and D-minus for missing context and subtlety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #21 February 5, 2013 Wow kallend really is rubbing off on you. You started grading people on their posts awesome! Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #22 February 5, 2013 QuoteWow kallend really is rubbing off on you. You started grading people on their posts awesome! Missing 2 punctuations and 1 intital-cap. C-minus for mechanics. Extra demerit for KDS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #23 February 5, 2013 D0nT mAK3 mE.., sTar1 pOStIn lIek Thus!!,? Lal Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #24 February 5, 2013 Great answer. So what I was wondering; Does banning the transfer of an item between two private individuals within a state's borders stretch the interstate commerce clause too far, even tho that item may have come into the state from somewhere else?You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #25 February 5, 2013 QuoteGreat answer. So what I was wondering; Does banning the transfer of an item between two private individuals within a state's borders stretch the interstate commerce clause too far, even tho that item may have come into the state from somewhere else? Great question. Sounds like a law school question. Lemme think about it. In the meantime, maybe some of the other asshole lawyers in here will weigh in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites