The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

alan · March 16, 2013, 10:57 AM

My understanding of S 150, possibly incorrect is that at present, it contains the following interesting exemption to the ban on "assault weapons", so-called in Senator Feinstein's proposal. Retired Police Officers would be exempted from the ban on firearms, I assume regarding the proposed limits on magazine capacity too.

Re this bit, I wonder as to what possible justification it might have, other than to perhaps obtain ''political cover" from one or another of the several police organizations one now and then hears of or from on the subject of gun control, lately gun safety, how come the change in terminology being another point of curiosity.

Additionally, in what one might refer to as a "discussion" between Senators Cruz of Texas, and Feinstein of California, the gentle lady seems to have bristled when Senator Cruz questioned her regarding the possibility of other restrictions on constitutional rights. He mentioned the possibility of Freedom Of Speech being limited with respect to opinions and or individuals who for some reason or other had fallen under executive or congressional "dislike". He also questioned the possibility of Fourth Amendment guarantees being limited in cases where the persons or papers of "unpopular" persons might be laid open to search and seizure, absent proper warrants.

From what I read of this discussion/argument in my local paper, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I believe that I have the sense, if not the exact wording of Senator Cruz's questions, which as above mentioned, caused Senator Feinstein to bristle. I believe she later apologized to Cruz. It strikes me however that "the lady doth to much protest her innocence", given the history of her firearms related proposals and comments, proposals and comments that go back quite a while.

Strikes me that the above points are worth raising in such communications readers might have with their own elected officials.

March 16, 2013, 10:57 AM	#65
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	My understanding of S 150, possibly incorrect is that at present, it contains the following interesting exemption to the ban on "assault weapons", so-called in Senator Feinstein's proposal. Retired Police Officers would be exempted from the ban on firearms, I assume regarding the proposed limits on magazine capacity too. Re this bit, I wonder as to what possible justification it might have, other than to perhaps obtain ''political cover" from one or another of the several police organizations one now and then hears of or from on the subject of gun control, lately gun safety, how come the change in terminology being another point of curiosity. Additionally, in what one might refer to as a "discussion" between Senators Cruz of Texas, and Feinstein of California, the gentle lady seems to have bristled when Senator Cruz questioned her regarding the possibility of other restrictions on constitutional rights. He mentioned the possibility of Freedom Of Speech being limited with respect to opinions and or individuals who for some reason or other had fallen under executive or congressional "dislike". He also questioned the possibility of Fourth Amendment guarantees being limited in cases where the persons or papers of "unpopular" persons might be laid open to search and seizure, absent proper warrants. From what I read of this discussion/argument in my local paper, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I believe that I have the sense, if not the exact wording of Senator Cruz's questions, which as above mentioned, caused Senator Feinstein to bristle. I believe she later apologized to Cruz. It strikes me however that "the lady doth to much protest her innocence", given the history of her firearms related proposals and comments, proposals and comments that go back quite a while. Strikes me that the above points are worth raising in such communications readers might have with their own elected officials. Last edited by Evan Thomas; March 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM. Reason: invective.