Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/17/2003 1:14:28 AM EDT
I just wrote a letter to Senator Feinstein and was wondering just how many people thought I'd be put on the "watch for terrorism list" for my views. My letter is as follows. Good morning mam, I would like to take this time to inform you of how displeased I am with your recent actions in regards to the extension of the assault weapons ban. Do you not realize that these weapons harness no more destructive power than many weapons not banned? Do you also realize that many hunting rifles themselves are much more powerful than the banned weapons? Not only that, but it is unconstitutional. Let me post what the second amendment to the bill of rights says. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The key phrase there is as follows: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I would also like to submit a couple of phrases from some of our founding fathers. "The great body of our citizens shoots less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come is to teach men to shoot!" Theodore Roosevelt What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson I'm sorry Senator, but I don't see how anyone can argue that our founding fathers thought that only government run militias should be the ones with guns of any power potential. I also don't see how anyone can reason that these guns should honestly be ban. I see this as the same as the 50 caliber ban here in California. We are trying to ban this weapon even though it has NEVER been used in a crime, it is exhorbantly expensive to buy and the cost of the rounds themselves are more than 2 boxes of smaller caliber rounds. Not only that, but the ammunition that it would have to use to "put a hole in an armored limousine at 4 miles" or to "shoot a plane out of the sky" is only available to the military. Not only that, but for someone, even with the right ammunition, to be able to shoot a shoulder fired weapon at a flying plane, and actually be able to hit it, would take an act of God since that the speed of the airplane and the speed of the bullet and the lead it would take would be impossible or unrealistic to determine. So instead of wasting California's time and money on useless, unconstitutional laws, why not try to fix the economy that has gone down the drain? Why not try to find a way to not raise taxes since we live in the most expensive state in the union? Thank you for your time and consideration, James J. Lumby II 20% Disabled Veteran USMC
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 1:21:19 AM EDT
Unfortunately, she doesn't care what you think.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 1:22:13 AM EDT
Unfortunately you're right.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 1:23:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 1:26:45 AM EDT
You terrorist, aren't you ashamed of yourself??? [:D] I can just see that bitch now, [b]Oh another pro-gunner, file 13.[/b]
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 1:33:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 9:03:50 AM EDT
Tell you what, I'll see your 2 communist California Senators with 2 communist New York Senators and raise you one communist ex-co-president. Beat that! Maybe we'll have to compare governors. Bilster
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 9:34:05 AM EDT
I pray for the day she gets stabbed.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 9:41:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2003 9:43:10 AM EDT by Ken226]
Shes a fascist traitor and should be shot.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:09:48 AM EDT
"I need my gun to protect myself from gun nuts like you." "If I had the votes, I would take everyone of them(assualt weapons)." Gosh, what part of fanatical, zealot anti-gunner don't you guys understand. What a waste of time writing her letters.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:10:08 AM EDT
Only twice I received the same form letter... the one that says we have to "agree to disagree" Cop-out statement.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:21:20 AM EDT
Here is her letter to me. Probably be the same to anyone. Because it was so long and irritating I sent a second letter with a really long answer courtesy of Dave Kopel, a well-known pro. Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you. I am aware that the National Rifle Association would like people to believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives every individual the right to own any kind of weapon, no matter how powerful or deadly from a Derringer to a Bazooka, from a revolver that holds 5 bullets to weapons of war with drums of 250 rounds. The record is clear. The Supreme Court has never struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. I feel strongly about correcting what I call "the Second Amendment Myth," so let me just go through some facts with regarding this debate. The Second Amendment says: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The National Rifle Association rarely mentions that the words "well-regulated militia" are contained within the text of the Amendment. In fact, most of their literature shortens the clause with ellipses instead, so the amendment simply reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half the story the story of a time when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal government by arming well-regulated State militias like today's National Guards. Contrary to the constant claims of the NRA, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years ever since the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on Second Amendment grounds, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court. All told, the Supreme Court has only chosen to address this issue two more times after the Miller case. And each time, the verdict was clear the Second Amendment is no bar to gun control laws. In 1969, in Burton v. Sills, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to New Jersey's strict gun control law, "for want of a substantial federal question." The New Jersey law provided for the licensing of manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers, and for the issuance of permits and identification cards to purchasers, as well as giving the Superintendent of Police broad powers to establish additional regulations on firearms. Yet still, the Supreme Court found no substantial federal question to address. Then, more than forty years after the 1939 Miller case, in the 1980 case of Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." And the Court continued that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Again, the Court pointed to the militia as the key to the right to keep and bear arms. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to address this issue, but simply refused to take up a Second Amendment challenge, leaving established precedent in place. In that case, the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). The town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, but the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but went further to say -- explicitly -- that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand. Furthermore, at least twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard (although those cases did not specifically address the constitutionality of gun control). And the history is clear through countless cases in the lower federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal as well. Let me just cite a few recent examples. Just last year, in the case of Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no individual right to bear arms. In that case, a defendant challenged the 1996 Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms. The court held, in keeping with Supreme Court precedent, that the Second Amendment only protects a right to bear arms where it might affect the maintenance of a state militia; it is a collective right, not an individual right. Also last year, the Ninth Circuit even more specifically addressed the "militia" question, clarifying that only a State militia, not a private militia, is covered by the Second Amendment. In that case, U.S. v. Kuehnoel, the defendants appealed their firearms convictions arising from their activities as members of private militia groups. The court held that the Second Amendment is a right held by the States, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen, and that neither an individual nor a member of a private militia can challenge the constitutionality of the statute on Second Amendment grounds. Technical membership in a state militia or membership in a non-governmental military organization is insufficient to show legal injury under the Second Amendment, said the court.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:22:11 AM EDT
In the 1998 case of Peoples Rights Organization v. Columbus, the Sixth Circuit refused to overturn an ordinance banning assault weapons on Second Amendment grounds. In U.S. v. Scanio, also in 1998, the Second Circuit held that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to bear arms for States in organizing militias, and not an individual right. In the 1997 Eleventh Circuit case United States v. Wright, the court rejected arguments that simply proving that a firearm has military uses satisfies the Second Amendment. The court instead held that a claimant must also prove that possession of the weapon is reasonably related to a well regulated militia. The Third Circuit held in the 1996 U.S. v. Rybar case that the defendant's possession of machine guns was not connected with militia-related activity and that the Second Amendment furnished no absolute right to firearms. The list of cases goes on and on dozens of instances in Federal Courts of Appeal around the country, and countless others in the lower Federal District courts. Perhaps this incontrovertible history is what led former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 to refer to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man." This was Warren Burger a Nixon appointee to the Court. Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a 'Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..." Erwin Griswold, former dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General in the Nixon Administration said in 1990 that "It is time for the NRA and its followers in Congress to stop trying to twist the Second Amendment from a reasoned (if antiquated) empowerment for a militia into a bulletproof personal right for anyone to wield deadly weaponry beyond legislative control." In every case, up until March of 1999, the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia in other words, the National Guard, not an individual. And the NRA is clearly aware of this history. Despite all of the NRA's rhetoric and posturing on this issue, they know that the Second Amendment does nothing whatsoever to limit reasonable gun control measures. In fact, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and my assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association has made no mention of the Second Amendment. When the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected a Second Amendment challenge to California's 1989 assault weapons ban, the NRA elected not to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, because they knew they would lose. In fact, even when part of the Brady law was struck down as unconstitutional, that decision was not based on the Second Amendment, but on a narrow States' rights issue. Another suit against the 1994 assault weapons ban was based on a "bill of attainder" argument, that Congress illegally targeted gun manufacturers -- again, the suit is not based on the Second Amendment. Elsewhere around the country, the NRA has argued that various gun control laws violate the First Amendment, or the privacy rights of gun owners, or even the equal protection clause because NRA members are treated differently than others. The Second Amendment is never even brought up. Nonetheless, many on the other side of the aisle may point to the one, single, lone exception to the long history of Second Amendment jurisprudence. On March 30, 1999, a United States District Judge in Texas struck down a federal law making it a felony to possess a firearm while under a domestic restraining order. In the Texas case, a man in the midst of a divorce proceeding was accused of threatening to kill his wife's lover. Although put under a restraining order and therefore barred from possessing a firearm under federal law, the man was subsequently caught with a gun and indicted for violating the ban. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the indictment, in part because the federal law, he said, had the effect of "criminalizing" a "law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights." This was the first time such a decision was made by a federal judge, but it is important to note that this decision has been appealed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if the case reaches that level, would uphold this decision. As Handgun Control has said, the Texas decision clearly flies in the face of 60 years of Second Amendment precedent, and "can only be viewed as a renegade decision." In fact, they point out, in his opinion Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedent supporting his decision, because no such precedent exists. Again, this ruling is being appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. Despite this recent aberration to the long history of Second Amendment jurisprudence, it is quite clear that the meaning of this Amendment has been well-established for years. Not one gun control law has ever been struck down by the Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds, and few people believe such a thing will ever happen. Once again, thank you for writing me with your concerns. I hope this letter serves to clear up my position on this issue. I have given a great deal of thought to this issue and so, and least, welcome the opportunity to share my views. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:35:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nightstalker: Here is her letter to me. Probably be the same to anyone. Because it was so long and irritating I sent a second letter with a really long answer courtesy of Dave Kopel, a well-known pro. Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you. I am aware that the National Rifle Association would like people to believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives every individual the right to own any kind of weapon, no matter how powerful or deadly from a Derringer to a Bazooka, from a revolver that holds 5 bullets to weapons of war with drums of 250 rounds. The record is clear. The Supreme Court has never struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. I feel strongly about correcting what I call "the Second Amendment Myth," so let me just go through some facts with regarding this debate. The Second Amendment says: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The National Rifle Association rarely mentions that the words "well-regulated militia" are contained within the text of the Amendment. In fact, most of their literature shortens the clause with ellipses instead, so the amendment simply reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half the story the story of a time when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal government by arming well-regulated State militias like today's National Guards. Contrary to the constant claims of the NRA, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years ever since the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on Second Amendment grounds, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court. All told, the Supreme Court has only chosen to address this issue two more times after the Miller case. And each time, the verdict was clear the Second Amendment is no bar to gun control laws. In 1969, in Burton v. Sills, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to New Jersey's strict gun control law, "for want of a substantial federal question." The New Jersey law provided for the licensing of manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers, and for the issuance of permits and identification cards to purchasers, as well as giving the Superintendent of Police broad powers to establish additional regulations on firearms. Yet still, the Supreme Court found no substantial federal question to address. Then, more than forty years after the 1939 Miller case, in the 1980 case of Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." And the Court continued that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Again, the Court pointed to the militia as the key to the right to keep and bear arms. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to address this issue, but simply refused to take up a Second Amendment challenge, leaving established precedent in place. In that case, the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). The town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, but the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but went further to say -- explicitly -- that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand. Furthermore, at least twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard (although those cases did not specifically address the constitutionality of gun control). And the history is clear through countless cases in the lower federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal as well. Let me just cite a few recent examples. Just last year, in the case of Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no individual right to bear arms. In that case, a defendant challenged the 1996 Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms. The court held, in keeping with Supreme Court precedent, that the Second Amendment only protects a right to bear arms where it might affect the maintenance of a state militia; it is a collective right, not an individual right. Also last year, the Ninth Circuit even more specifically addressed the "militia" question, clarifying that only a State militia, not a private militia, is covered by the Second Amendment. In that case, U.S. v. Kuehnoel, the defendants appealed their firearms convictions arising from their activities as members of private militia groups. The court held that the Second Amendment is a right held by the States, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen, and that neither an individual nor a member of a private militia can challenge the constitutionality of the statute on Second Amendment grounds. Technical membership in a state militia or membership in a non-governmental military organization is insufficient to show legal injury under the Second Amendment, said the court.
View Quote
OMFG- ouch gasket blown......gunna have to write letter to anit-gun queen witch, and she thank god does not rep. me! how dare she put words in the mouth of the SCOTUS, and say they said what they did not!
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:51:25 AM EDT
She's a Bitch, with a capital "C".
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 10:54:11 AM EDT
photoman In the first half of her letter, the next to the last paragraph mentions a case, Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis where she claims the case concluded there was no individual right, only a collective. Read this little section of the ruling and see if you agree. It seems the judge did not claim that but only that the restrictive law in question did not violate the 2nd as it was strrict and narrow in it's scope (domestic violence or something). Finally, Judge Barker concluded that section 922(g)(9) did not violate any rights that the Second Amendment might bestow upon Gillespie, either as an individual or in his capacity as a police officer. [b]She found it unnecessary to decide whether the Constitution preserved a collective or individual right to bear arms[/b] or what level of scrutiny a court must apply to a restriction on that right, for she was confident that the statute would survive even strict scrutiny. The underlying government interests that she had identified (again, disarming persons that Congress reasonably believed to be dangerous or irresponsible, and protecting the victims of domestic violence from being killed) were compelling. The law was also narrowly tailored to serve those interests in the sense that the firearms ban applied only to those already convicted of domestic violence offenses. Id. at 827. II.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 11:06:41 AM EDT
See the witch screwed that up too. Like the miller refeance, the court wrote so says she- "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court.-- the court actually said -THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW. --- The witch is infact guilty of doing the same thing she accuses the NRA of doing forgetting the allimportant qualifier, in this case a qualifier which makes no referance to STATE MILITAS. but i guess what has to be remembered is that the constitution was writen so the common man could understand it. the problem with that is that politicians can not and 99% of the lawyers out there can not understand it either, ok i take that back 90% of the lawyers, but still damn near every politician falls under that especially the damn dems, htou that Ron Paul guy from i think Texas he seems cool as shit.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 3:13:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DrFrige: Only twice I received the same form letter... the one that says we have to "agree to disagree" Cop-out statement.
View Quote
Don't you love that crap. Marge Roukema, that bloated asshole who used to congresscrud from my district, once said that to me in person at a town meeting. I told her that her way of disagreeing was to vote away my rights. I asked her if she would like it if I went to her home at (omitted because the cunt is retired)and did something with her rights. She about shit her pants. They don't like it when you know where they live. They like it even less if you give the address in front of a few hundres people.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 3:16:41 PM EDT
"Communist California Senators" A triple redundant statement!
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 3:17:31 PM EDT
I'll let my signature line speak
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 5:00:16 PM EDT
Why doesn't the NRA declare itself an organized militia?
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 11:50:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 12:34:55 AM EDT
Why not declare a Finswine/Shummer bash. I say we fill her email box everyday, I like the idea of ammo receipts and used gunshow tickets in her mail box too. Since when is it OK for a public servent to go against the will of the people?...and get away with it?
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 12:47:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 6172crew: Why not declare a Finswine/Shummer bash. I say we fill her email box everyday, I like the idea of ammo receipts and used gunshow tickets in her mail box too. Since when is it OK for a public servent to go against the will of the people?...and get away with it?
View Quote
Ever since so many people got the mindset that "my one vote won't make a difference" and the attitude of "others are working to take care of the problem ... I'll just sit here and see how it turns out, and hope for the best." Taking no action, IMO, makes you just as guilty as the assmuppets in power who are trying to strip us all of our freedoms.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 2:08:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Demordrah:
Originally Posted By 6172crew: Why not declare a Finswine/Shummer bash. I say we fill her email box everyday, I like the idea of ammo receipts and used gunshow tickets in her mail box too. Since when is it OK for a public servent to go against the will of the people?...and get away with it?
View Quote
Ever since so many people got the mindset that "my one vote won't make a difference" and the attitude of "others are working to take care of the problem ... I'll just sit here and see how it turns out, and hope for the best." Taking no action, IMO, makes you just as guilty as the assmuppets in power who are trying to strip us all of our freedoms.
View Quote
Indead
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 5:03:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2003 5:08:29 AM EDT by LWilde]
They don't give a crap what YOU say. They pander to the liberal masses. When Miz LWilde and I were living in Kalifornistan before our Exodus, I had occasion to call and write both of the senators about something that was bothering me at the time. In each case, I quickly got the brush off, and in one I got the, "...too bad, we don't agree...thanks for calling...CLICK from one of Boxer's little stafferettes!" They are lost causes...that state, my former home is a lost cause...and it ain't going to change any time soon, because of the HUGE liberal, "We Want Everything for Nothing" voting bloc in the major cities, the huge state and municipal unions that suck at the government teat and the majority of folks out there more interested in the height of the surf and their tan than what is going on in the world around them. And yes...you may very well be a marked man now. Only politicians and celebs can carry in that state...and it's getting harder all the time to even own a firearm there.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 5:50:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nightstalker: photoman In the first half of her letter, the next to the last paragraph mentions a case, Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis where she claims the case concluded there was no individual right, only a collective. Read this little section of the ruling and see if you agree. It seems the judge did not claim that but only that the restrictive law in question did not violate the 2nd as it was strrict and narrow in it's scope (domestic violence or something). Finally, Judge Barker concluded that section 922(g)(9) did not violate any rights that the Second Amendment might bestow upon Gillespie, either as an individual or in his capacity as a police officer. [b]She found it unnecessary to decide whether the Constitution preserved a collective or individual right to bear arms[/b] or what level of scrutiny a court must apply to a restriction on that right, for she was confident that the statute would survive even strict scrutiny. The underlying government interests that she had identified (again, disarming persons that Congress reasonably believed to be dangerous or irresponsible, and protecting the victims of domestic violence from being killed) were compelling. The law was also narrowly tailored to serve those interests in the sense that the firearms ban applied only to those already convicted of domestic violence offenses. Id. at 827. II.
View Quote
45ACP_Marine - You represent nothing to her. She completely igores any contradictions to her beliefs. I'm sure she forwards this and similar letters to her own organization keeping track of such contradications to her beliefs. nightstalker - You are right on the money, I believe she has twisted or left out wording for every case listed. Socialism
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 7:11:47 AM EDT
Didn't Feinswine get lung cancer?? Send her a pack of smokes and a letter, hah hah too bad you focused your whole dang life on gun control when tobacco kills far more people than guns!
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 7:31:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gator: Didn't Feinswine get lung cancer?? Send her a pack of smokes and a letter, hah hah too bad you focused your whole dang life on gun control when tobacco kills far more people than guns!
View Quote
Are you sure you're not thinking of Sarah Brady? As far as I know Feinstein's sister died of lung cancer and her first husband died of colon cancer but she herself is ok. BTW, She is very much against the tobacco companies and is affiliated with many oncology organizations.
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 10:19:32 AM EDT
Can you believe what she wrote back???? May 19, 2003 Mr. James Lumby II Dear Mr. Lumby II: Thank you for writing me regarding the future of Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Throughout the majority of Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein has been defeated and removed from power. Despite our success in freeing the Iraqi people, our military continues to encounter resistance throughout the country and must maintain a presence until an interim authority can be established to restore order and begin helping the Iraqi people reconstitute their basic social services. So, as the fighting stops and as the remnants of the regime are removed, we must take the lead in rebuilding the Iraqi nation, in stabilizing its new government, in providing interim security to prevent the emergence of tribal hostilities and to see that Iraq is no longer a producer of weapons of mass destruction. I am hopeful that all Iraqis of every ethnic and faith group, large and small, will be engaged in the process to establish a new Iraq. I firmly believe that the U.S. should work closely with the United Nations and our allies in the reconstruction of Iraq. It is essential to demonstrate to Muslims everywhere that the United States, while a powerful nation, is motivated by a sincere desire to one day see the entire world safe, prosperous, and free. Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep me informed of your views and concerns. If you should have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841. Best Regards. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator http://feinstein.senate.gov Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov . You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html . She doesn't even respond to the right letter!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 10:29:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 45ACP_Marine: She doesn't even respond to the right letter!!!!!
View Quote
[LOL]
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 1:42:05 PM EDT
I simply don't understand why any of you guys bother to write this whore. She doesn't give a damn about you, your rights, or your opinions. She has legions of butt-pounding, limp-wristed, ultra-rich constituents who can get around any law on the books, and still send her $$$. What I pray for is the day the SCOTUS stands up and says, "What part of '..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' are you fucksticks on the Left so confused about?" That's the day you'll be able to send that letter back to her with a little note telling her where to stick it, and would she please do it at a news conference?
Top Top