Of course: Feinstein’s assault weapons ban exempts government officials

posted at 5:31 pm on January 26, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

Hey, they’ve gotta have someone who can sell high-powered firearms to Mexican drug cartels, amirite? You’ve heard about the 158 weapons you’ll no longer be able to use. But what about the exemptions?

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.

More on exemptions, from the Huffington Post:

Finally, the bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.

I’m always confused by how liberals— the segment of the population most obsessed with constantly telling us of our country’s sins, its government’s brutal overreaches, its occasional tyranny, and its fundamental disregard for the justice it promises— suddenly decide the idea of governments becoming tyrannical is a paranoid delusion once the wary citizen is a gun owner. Presumably you’re only allowed to believe the government might become tyrannical and still be a respected political figure and college professor if your weapon of choice was a nail bomb meant for Ft. Dix.

Radley Balko has a new book out, which might help remind liberals why you might not want to be stuck with a 7-round pistol when, say, an armed drug raid mistakenly descends on your house and family— Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces

Jacob Sullum notes a more sinister thought process behind Feinstein’s very specific list-making and exempting:

Feinstein brags that her bill “protects the rights of law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, household defense or legitimate recreational purposes.” One way it supposedly does that is by excluding “2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.” If those guns are not on the list of specifically named “assault weapons” and do not meet the criteria Feinstein has laid out for that arbitrary category, why should they be mentioned at all? Feinstein seems to think anything not specifically allowed is prohibited, but that is not how laws are supposed to work in a free society.

Another way Feinstein “protects the rights of law-abiding citizens” is by graciously allowing current owners of newly defined “assault weapons” to keep them. She emphasizes that her bill includes “a grandfather clause that specifically exempts all assault weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment from the ban.” But Feinstein and her allies have been assuring us for two decades that “assault weapons” have no legitimate uses. It is hard to reconcile that claim, which is central to the argument for banning these guns, with Feinstein’s concession that they are used for “hunting, household defense or legitimate recreational purposes.” Her bill would require buyers of grandfathered “assault weapons” to undergo background checks, but there is no way to enforce that rule unless all those guns are registered, and in any event it is not a very effective way of stopping mass shooters, who typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.

Emily Miller of the Washington Times, who has written about her own laborious labyrinthine path to gun ownership in the District of Columbia, reminds us of how utterly useless all this is, considering the central pitch is a deliberate attempt to confuse people about guns:

The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein’s placing of the “Armalite M15 22LR Carbine” on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose “to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.” This particular weapon fires a .22 long rifle cartridge, which has one-tenth the power of the standard military round and is generally suited for plinking tin cans or hunting small varmints. It simply looks like a military rifle, which fits Mrs. Feinstein’s effort to eliminate items that look scary to her.

During the marathon news conference, politicians played on emotions rather than facts. We know the new “assault weapons” ban would be useless because crime didn’t decrease during the 10 years that the 1994 ban was in effect. In the eight years Americans have been free to buy any semi-automatic rifles, gun ownership has gone up while crime has steadily declined.

According to a survey conducted in 2010 for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 90 percent of the owners of modern sporting rifles use them for target shooting, 80 percent for home defense and 60 percent for hunting.

About 44 percent of owners are former military or law enforcement, who enjoy using a familiar rifle. The typical owner is over 35 years old, married and has some college education. These good Americans are the ones who will be affected by a ban, not the criminals who will continue to use whatever they want.

Before this ridiculous bill is sent to the trash heap by a bipartisan group of senators, at least we get to enjoy being lectured about gun safety by people brandishing rifles without opening the action or observing trigger discipline and lectured about saving lives from gun violence by the mayor of the city in which you’re most likely to die by gunfire.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Di-Fi, time to go put your legislation back in the dust bin from where it originated…this is going nowhere, but I am sure another tyrant will come along, so don’t toss it, and all you will need to do is change the date on it…

hillsoftx on January 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Di-Fi, time to go put your legislation back in the dust bin from where it originated…this is going nowhere, but I am sure another tyrant will come along, so don’t toss it, and all you will need to do is change the date on it…

hillsoftx on January 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM

I was thinking of somewhere else that she could stick it!

VegasRick on January 26, 2013 at 7:38 PM

(Congrats on the Draco, btw. I’m surpised you were able to score one in this market.)

WhatSlushfund on January 26, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I had been into Dragon Man a couple times last week to see if he had gotten anyg new AKs in, since he had sold out of everything in the last couple weeks. He said to keep checking as he had more AKs on order and might get them any day. He didn’t have anything new, but the second day I stopped in he told me the Draco was back on the market as someone’s background check failed. So he said I could have it for $795 if I wanted it. Jumped on it – background took a week, so I just got it today.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I think you and I ordered them on the same day actually. I got my email today saying they were on the way as well. That was without me contacting them, so they seem to be keeping their word on those. But I see now that they’ve had to push back the wait until 6 to 12 weeks. This is how crazy things are getting.

WhatSlushfund on January 26, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Actually – I think it might have been you who mentioned Mako in here – and I went to them right away to check them out. I ordered 5 mags that day, and 5 more a few days later.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Exemptions from totalitarian regulations make this a nation of Men and not a nation of laws (equally applied). This is tyranny, albeit a soft tyranny, just like her ‘we won’t take the guns you have, but we’ll make sure no one else can have them / your kids can’t have them. TYRANNY.
And Feinstein et al need to pay for it, in every way possible.

rayra on January 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Tell that dummy to take her finger off the trigger, point it up and away from people, and treat every gun or rifle like it was loaded!!

Amateurs……

itsspideyman on January 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Did you say “trigger discipline”? Look at the picture. Good to know that Feinstein is the one in charge of deciding what weapons should and shouldn’t be allowed.

My twelve-year-old nephew learned better trigger discipline–from video games.

Meryl Yourish on January 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Yep. And Feinstein, the idiot, has had a concealed carry permit in fascist Cali for something like 20 years, already. I guess Cali just gives them to anyone … anyone in government, at least.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 26, 2013 at 8:12 PM

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Dang, where are you? I’ve never heard of Sportsman Warehouse.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Sportsmans warehouse

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 8:22 PM

This gun control is just so much silly string. Just a miss direction to avoid the the appearance of gross incompetence on the real problems of spending. All this will do if passed would be to create new levels of bureaucracy to administer.

If an AK47 is banned then what happens if the Manufacture in Eastern Europe decides to call it an AK48? Is it now OK or do we have to have a Gun review board headed by the Big Shot Czar. I’m a retired Army Officer, last assignment was with the MP’s (also ran the weapons training at Ft Dix in the mid 1970′s), do I get an exception or do we have to establish an exception review board headed by the UPYOURS Czar.

I do have a gun. It’s a Colt .38 Police special 1934. It was my fathers service revolver. I do have fresh ammunition for it but have no intention of ever using it.

I have been trained with and my weapon of choice is my old friend, my 12 inch Khukuri I had custom made and designed in Nepal.

Have a nice day and knock first.

jpcpt03 on January 26, 2013 at 8:24 PM

On women in combat…

“Does It Really Have To Be That High?” – General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

M2RB: Pat Benatar

Hit me with your best shot…or maybe not…

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 8:26 PM

What amazes me is the real Pravda is more on our side than any news media in this country.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:33 PM

That’s because they’ve already been there, done this and have a good idea where it ends up.

I love being told what weapons I should be ‘allowed’ to own (of course with the ‘proper registration’ ((for future confiscation, er, allowances)) by a pasty, pickle faced heifer in a gangster suit who shows how absolutely ignorant she is about ANY gun every time she opens her mouth or touches a weapon while performing her ‘public service’. Or not. Mostly not. Odd how the people who seem to know the least about weapons know best which ones we should or should no be allowed to own.

ghostwalker1 on January 26, 2013 at 8:26 PM

This posturing has pretty much jumped the shark. All the significant action is going to happen in the courts defining the extent of rights under the 2nd.

As as stated in D.C. v. Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The standard for determining whether an arm is covered by the 2nd is whether it is “in common use at the time”.

You wouldn’t get far trying to argue that “All AR-15 types” or pretty much all the guns listed in the good Senator’s list are not in common use. I seem to recall even the highly esteemed Piers Morgan admitted that something like 5 million of them are in use in the U.S.

Where’s the eye roll smilie when you need one?

Ash on January 26, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Where’s the eye roll smilie when you need one?

Ash on January 26, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Close enough?

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 8:26 PM

If we could put a few DiFis or Hillarys on the front lines that would scare the bejesus out of our enemies. Perhaps DiFi could decide which weapons the Jihadis could have.

ghostwalker1 on January 26, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Where’s the eye roll smilie when you need one?

Ash on January 26, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Close enough?

lol

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Thank you, Dear, I forwarded that link and The Mako Group link to the Husband.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 8:41 PM

If we could put a few DiFis or Hillarys on the front lines that would scare the bejesus out of our enemies. Perhaps DiFi could decide which weapons the Jihadis could have.

ghostwalker1 on January 26, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Fairly soon – after the DiFis, Hills, and Flukes are finished “transforming” the military – it will be the equivalent of the Luxembourg Navy.

What’s next? A new Geneva Convention that requires enemies, whether state actors or terrorist groups, to have weigh-ins prior to the “rumble in the jungle or cave or whatever” and equivalent poundage/strength requirements for their combatants?

US military to AQIM: You must field your female jihadis on X day in Y place because we will be fielding women, who could NOT meet the strength requirements.

A return to the Marquess of Queensberry rules would make more sense.

The military – and especially with regard to ground combat – is no place for affirmative action.

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Fairly soon – after the DiFis, Hills, and Flukes are finished “transforming” the military – it will be the equivalent of the Luxembourg Navy.

Bwhahahahahahha!!!!!!

Perhaps a merging of the Rules of Engagement and Terms of Endearment for a kinder, gentler type of warfare. I love this high minded approach to dragging the battlefield into this century. I’m sure it will be popular if our enemies and allies alike just give it a chance.

ghostwalker1 on January 26, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Well, I have found out that I can’t use the “B” woud in telling Feinstein to get her finger off the trigger. I guess at Hot air, it is far worse to refer a female dog as a female dog than to talk about blowing people away, killing people, and beating them to death. My God. What has happened to the sanity at Hot Air and the country in general?

Old Country Boy on January 26, 2013 at 9:06 PM

“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles;

How stupid is this woman DiFi…really. The M1 Garand is not on that list, thankfully. It’s a 30-06, and the clip (not a magazine like her younger sibling, the .308 M14/M1A, also not on the list) holds only 8 rounds. With practice, you can replace the clip in a couple of seconds. With a couple of bandoliers that contain 80 rounds each…

TulsAmerican on January 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM

With a couple of bandoliers that contain 80 rounds each…

TulsAmerican on January 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM

You can conquer a continent in under two years.

tom daschle concerned on January 26, 2013 at 10:35 PM

One almost has to admire the brazenness.

bmmg39 on January 26, 2013 at 10:49 PM

The authors of our Constitution should have specified that lawmakers cannot exempt themselves from any law applicable to the general public. They probably never thought that lawmakers would be so conspicuously low life as to do that.

Chessplayer on January 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Four hours later and that leftist woman still has her stinking leftest finger in the trigger guard. Yeah, I’ll be taking advice on guns from her straight away. Sure thing./

Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 11:10 PM

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

~~ George Orwell, in Animal Farm (1945)

RedPepper on January 26, 2013 at 11:14 PM

Is Feinstein supposed to be channeling a gangster in that photo?

disa on January 27, 2013 at 12:30 AM

The authors of our Constitution should have specified that lawmakers cannot exempt themselves from any law applicable to the general public. They probably never thought that lawmakers would be so conspicuously low life as to do that.

Chessplayer on January 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM

The authors of the Constitution would be sick if they saw what Congress has become. And George Washington would likewise be nauseated by Barack “King George” Obama as prez.

disa on January 27, 2013 at 12:32 AM

Need to ban DiFi’s hair off her lousy head.

Sherman1864 on January 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM

I say California for Californians and no thank you to the leftist skew you put on our Republic.

We would be a much happier country WITHOUT you!!

Sherman1864 on January 27, 2013 at 1:25 AM

Looks like her finger is in the trigger well. Love to hear her tell me about gun safety.

Steven McGregor on January 27, 2013 at 3:27 AM

These liberals can stick their gun bans up their butt cracks.

Even NEW YORK is not going to obey their illegal gun registery, Gun ban, and magazine ban.

DO NOT SUBMIT NY!

DO NOT SUBMIT AMERICAN!

Tell them to go to HELL!

TX-96 on January 27, 2013 at 6:05 AM

What amazes me is the real Pravda is more on our side than any news media in this country.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:33 PM

That is so true.

JellyToast on January 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM

Feinstein’s bill will be going nowhere fast, but any laws should apply to everyone. Tired of waivers and exemptions for the “special and elite”.

Amazingoly on January 27, 2013 at 9:11 AM

“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt

Frankly, any time you see the word “exempt” in a description of legislation, you know something stinks.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM

DO NOT SUBMIT NY!

DO NOT SUBMIT AMERICAN!

Tell them to go to HELL!

TX-96 on January 27, 2013 at 6:05 AM

.
Roger, wilco ….. Actually, I think we started a while back.

But don’t STOP.

I will NOT comply … period.

listens2glenn on January 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM

With the suit and the gun, she looks like a 50′s Chicago mobster… oh, wait!

Great picture, that should go well with those of tank commander Dukakis and hunstsman Kerry in the catalog of “Great Democrats and their Weapons”

virgo on January 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I personally think it would be hilarious if she accidently shot somebody in that room….herself.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:35 PM

S. D. on January 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Say, didn’t Dianne Feinstein have, at one time, a concealed carry permit?

Why, yes. Yes, she did. A

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32591-busted-gun-control-legislator-dianne-feinstein-discusses-why-she-concealed-carry-firearms/

Paul_in_NJ on January 27, 2013 at 2:41 PM

You can conquer a continent in under two years.

tom daschle concerned on January 26, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Actually, that was less than a year.

TulsAmerican on January 27, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I personally think it would be hilarious if she accidently shot somebody in that room….herself.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:35 PM

S. D. on January 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Nice fix – I like it.

dentarthurdent on January 27, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2