Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Feinstein Freezes Pro-Gun Legislation

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-01 22:30

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has frozen the pro-gun BATFE Modernization and Reform Act right in its tracks. 

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_4416089

Here is some information on the BATFE Modernization and Reform Act:  http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224

This legislation was approved in the House of Representatives overwhelmingly with a vote of 277-131 after a public outcry against the blatant BATFE abuses of private gun owners, yet Feinstein has arrogantly put it on hold, possibly to delay its vote, and to promote her anti-gun agenda.

Feinstein has said that she could not consent to allowing such a bill to run through the senate without allowing time to debate it, and to offer amendments.  I have little doubt of what slant the amendments Feinstein (D-CA) would like to add to this legislation come from, knowing that she was one of the authors of the dismal gun control failure also known as the Assault Weapons ban.

The BATFE has been known to commit serious wrong, such as closing down otherwise lawful gun dealers for, of all things, minor paperwork errors and infractions, as well as other atrocities and violations of individual liberty.
http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
http://www.jpfo.org/batfearticles.htm
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-66027.html
http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=22825

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-02 12:18

god damn democrats

Name: Xel 2006-10-02 14:40

The only thing I like more than ACLU complaining and atheists weeping over FOX Faith is gun owners running around crying bloody murder. I might be on your side, but I think you are pathetic nonetheless.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-02 15:26

""This legislation would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the ATF to penalize gun dealers who have broken the law, and to prevent rogue dealers from continuing to sell guns," said Feinstein, D-Calif., in announcing the Senate hold she placed on House Resolution 5092."

"Feinstein noted that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote to Congress on Sept. 25 urging them to oppose the bill, noting it "would have a devastating effect on the ability of law enforcement to stem the flow of firearms from lawbreaking gun dealers to violent criminals."  "

" "At a time when California cities are seeing a rapid increase in gun homicides, often committed by criminals who get guns through the illegal gun market, now is not the time to be curtailing ATF's power to enforce our gun laws," Berkeley's Griffin Dix, president of the California Million Mom March Chapters of the Brady Campaign, said recently of the bill."



Sounds sensible to me. And don't even try the fallacious "slippery slope" argument.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-02 18:18

The ATF Modernization and Reform legislation would actually make the BATFE more flexible... and it puts the burden of proof on the ATF to proove that the person is GUILTY, and actually INTENDED to break the law.. both good things.

The BATFE should be flexible.  For example, for minor paperwork errors, the BATFE shouldn't be able to revoke a person's license to sell guns, if they can't prove he intended to break the law in any serious way.. that's ridiculous.. and has happened in the past.

And of course, people are SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof SHOULD be on the ATF to proove the person is guilty, not on the person to proove him/herself innocent.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-02 20:31

>>3
Yeah, seriously, if they have a problem with their neighbors voting in Dems, they can always go to a Pro-Gun state, sheesh.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-02 23:18

>>6 If you have a problem with us conservatives voting in conservatives, you can move to a liberal country.  I like that idea better. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-03 0:05

>>3
What are you talking about? It is bloody murder, it has just been irrefutably proven right in front of your face.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-04 0:14

>>6 Not when we are talking about the Federal Government, and Federal Law. 

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List