[jediagh]

First if this belongs in the "political section" then moderator I am sorry and feel free to move it. My intend here is NOT to start a political war but merly pass information on what I have recieved in terms of a letter from US Senator Dianne Feinstein (DEM) of California.

This is the letter I wrote after Huricanne Katrina hit.

United States Senator Dianne Feinstein September 17, 2005
Washington DC Office
331 Hart St. Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing about the recent events that have occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, LA. I was appalled that the basic rights granted by our Constitution were violated. In particular our right to bear arms, per 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" was tossed to the wind.

After Hurricane Katrina left, New Orleans and the surrounding area were in total devastation and law and order cease to exist. It became the "Wild West" all over again as looting and other crimes took hold of the land. With no local, state, or federal protection, law-abiding citizens did what their forefathers did before them; protect their family and possessions by arming themselves. However this ceased to be the case when law enforcement and the military took the firearms of law-abiding United States of American citizens that were supposedly protected by our Constitution!

I am not completely surprised by the fact that the rights of our citizens were tossed to the wind. The current climate in our capital and the White House has lead to the slow erosion of our rights. However this has been the last straw for me. I have stayed quiet for too long on things I have felt our government has done wrong and is doing wrong.

I would like to know what your stance is on our rights to bear arms? What, if anything, you personally plan on doing to ensure that this never occurs again. Our forefathers knew very well that no government could ever be prepared to protect everyone all the time and thus ensured that regular law-abiding citizens could bear arms and protect their family and possessions at any time.

Sincerely a very concerned American,

Ahui G. Herrera

Today I got this reply which leaves me with a bad feeling about my senator.

November 3, 2005

Ahul G. Herrera (Note the Senator spelling my name wrong)

Dear Ahul:

Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment. I have spend a great deal of time working with this issue and would like to share my thoughts and analyses.

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, and that the government has no right to regulate in this area. However, the record is clear: the Super 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 go through some facts 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 (NRA) rarely mentions the words "well-regulated militia". In fact, most of their literature shortens the clause so that the amendment simple read "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half of 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 - in other words, today's National Guards.

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 Stated v/ Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. 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 Seconded Amendment was not applicable to the 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 not a 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/" Then, 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 constitutional suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutional 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."

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to address this issue, but simple ruled to leave the established precedent in place, rather than take up the Second Amendment argument. Furthermore, at least twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court had held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

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. In 1999, in the case of Gillespie V/ City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal held that there Is no individual right to bear arms.

Also in 1999, the Ninth Circuit even more specifically address the "militia" question, clarifying that only a Sate militia, not a private militia, is covered by the Second Amendment.

I the 1998 case of People Rights Organization v. Columbus, the Sixth Circuit refused to overturn an ordinate banning assault weapons in Second Amendment groups.

In U.S. v. Scanion, also in 1998, the Second Circuit held that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to bear arms for State in organizing militia, and not an individual right.

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 furnishes no absolute right to firearms.

The list of cases goes on and one - dozen of instance in Federal Courts of Appeal around the country, and countless others in the lower Federal District courts.

Perhaps this 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 piece 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) mislead 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 of any kind of weapon … 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. This is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state government are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms…"

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 control measures. In fat, 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.

Nonetheless, many of the other side of this issue 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 restarting 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 reached that level, would uphold this decision. Since that 1999 decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, had ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Once again, thank you for writing me with your concerns. I have given a great deal of though on this issue and so I hope this letter servers to clear up my position on this issue.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Now I am sure the NRA have a counter-attack to this as there is always two or more sides to every store and it always depends on who's' point of view you are looking at the issue from. However, if what the Senator says is true that the Constitution does NOT protect us (individuals). Then the only other course of action we have left is to ensure that legislation does protect us! I for one can NOT vote for this Senator during her re-election for she does NOT represent what I believe in!

DISCLOUSE:
I became a member of the NRA in 2005 but has never held any position in the NRA.
I moved to the state of CA in Aug 2005.

 

[urbanredneck]

 

[paradox]

She has the nickname Slimestein for a reason. Boxer is a sell out, but at least she isn't evil.

Slimestein has a long history of trying to take away guns from the peons. Even worse, all that time she has been one of the two people in SF county to have a CCW. Guns are bad if you have them, but I need them to protect myself. That isn't even getting into all the questionable elections she has been involved in since she ran for SF mayor. Ballot stuffing, ballot box lids floating in the bay, the whole nine yards. In today's Diebold age, we won't get that kind of evidence: she'll probably win again this year regardless of what the voters say.

I'm still going to vote against her. I hope someone runs against her in the primaries......

 

[Bobshouse]

I can't stand that biatch! She is two faced. She carries concealed, but doesnt want anyone else to have the same privilege. She can have her guns, but doesnt want anyone else to beable to shoot back. Need to vote her out...NOW!

Bob

 

[jediagh]

Thanks all for the info.
I should add a few more disclaimers.
1. Just moved to CA from IL/IN less than 90- days ago. (BIG MISTAKE more on this later)
2. Prior to katrina I was of the mentality that guns are for the police, military and those citizens that know what they are doing with them. (AKA not me as I was AFRAID of guns very bad expereince growning up).

Thus until I started writing I had/have no idea who is with us and who is not. I sort of figured that she was aginst guns but wanted to make sure. I send the same letter I sent her to all my reps (county, state, and US) she has been the only one to officaly reply. I figured I would wait until 31 Jan 06 before I marked them all as anti-gun if they did not reply. =)

 

[remster]

no matter how powerful or deadly

Um... Guns are made to be deadly.

unregistered sawed-off shotgun

Well, a sawed-off shotgun does not have to be registered unless the barrel is less than 18". The term "sawed-off" is very vague.

Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia

Does this mean that the way are firearms are manufactured has leagal impact? (Sawed off as opposed to purchased at desired length.) Also, our military uses shotguns with short barrels.

banning assault weapons

assult weapons? :roll:

one last thought, if he was transporting an illegal firearm, it has nothing to do with the second amendment. Similar to arguing that you should not be prosecuted for possesing prescription drugs illegaly because the government is infringing on your right to the "pursiute of happiness"

 

[jediagh]

I made a cross post to this in the POLITICAL channel and they gave me this link sith some good stuff.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

 

[Casual Shooter]

If I were to continue this debate with Feinstein, I'd center it around what her thoughts are on how to make society safer. Her opinion is that we should ban all guns in an attempt to cut down on murder and violent crime. Unfortunately, statistics from around the world don't support this conclusion. So how can she think the outcome would be any different in this country if it hasn't worked to reduce crime anywhere else? In the end you'll realize that she is fighting her own little war based on her emotions, and not based on the desires of the people she has been elected to represent. If she truly wanted to serve her people, she's push for enforcement of existing laws and stiffer penalties, longer sentences, etc.

I think you could have this debate without ever bringing up the second amendment.

 

[paradox]

Here are a couple of good papers I've just stumbled upon. They are long and are written by lawers, but worth the read. Everyone of Slimestein's choice of legal arguments are brought down hard....

http://guncite.com/journals/rk-exp.html

we will undertake what physicists term a "thought experiment." We will take as a given that the Second Amendment does what states' rights advocates say it does, protecting only the right of states to maintain organized military forces such as the militia and the National Guard, without creating any rights enforceable by ordinary individuals. We will then explore an issue that has been ignored even by proponents of the "states' rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment: If the Second Amendment grants rights to states, rather than individuals, what exactly are those rights, and what are the consequences for the Constitution and other aspects of state and federal relations? The answers to these questions turn out to be rather startling and likely will displease gun control advocates every bit as much as their opponents. From this conclusion we draw a few lessons on the contemporary state of popular constitutional scholarship and make a modest proposal for improving matters.

http://guncite.com/journals/heath.html

The analysis which follows shows that federal power over the militia is not limited by the Second Amendment. Federal regulation, even if deficient or onerous to the states, can preempt state militia regulation. More unexpectedly, the following analysis also reveals that the Supreme Court has long considered militia jurisprudence to be an archetype for federal preemption. Landmark decisions on commerce regulation and other subjects have been patterned after explanations of federalism propounded in Houston v. Moore, a militia case. Two centuries of Supreme Court pronouncements on the militia contradict the modern lower-court gun-case assertions about the Second Amendment. The "states' right" alleged to reside in the amendment vanishes when exposed to the light of actual militia jurisprudence. Those who argue that Second Amendment protection belongs to the people, as expressly stated in the amendment itself, are being answered with a shadow-doctrine having no existence outside gun case dicta.

 

[mike100]

The prepared script was aimed to drum up support from the anti's and is all a string of legal precidents. nothing i wanted to read.

common sense and real world examples in the UK and Australia, or the Katrina situation, etc, etc. seem like better arguments to me.

Feinstein has pissed me off on the greenie issues by helping to close public lands and the gun related stuff. otherwise, she has done some good things for CA, but someone else in her place could do some good without being so bad at the same time.

women tend to live a very long time. I wonder how long 'till she retires?

 

[Fuelburns1]

women tend to live a very long time. I wonder how long 'till she retires?

Crooked hypocritical women seem to live even longer. :roll:

Feinstein not only wants to ban all guns but also "militaria" as well. It isn't bad enough that she doesn't want the law abiding people of our country to own guns, but we shouldn't be allowed camoflage clothes or military related collectables either. She is among the worst of all anti's and her track record proves it. I would also like to point out that she bought her son a gun as well as having a CCW.

 

[uzitiger]

FeinSwine isn't a hipocryte nor is Schmuck Schumer, they are elitist scum who feel they are better than we are. This is why they are licensed to carry concealed weapons while they want us the 'peasants' to go disarmed. That goes for the other anti gun Nazis, Levin, Kerry, 'Killer' Kennedy and Hitlery Clinton. The scums feel they are better than we are. What arrogance!

 

[wb]

Senator Dianne Feinstein is Anti-Guns???

:w Your just finding this out? :roll:
The Senator as been this since day one of her being elected to office! both she and her good friend Boxer are anti-gun! {F*

 

[Mayhem]

First of what the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is just the 2nd at it's simplest truth.

What Diane likes to do is to interpret the 2nd amendment into twisted lie, to further her own agenda which is probably something the 2nd amendment was intended to stop.

The best way to interpret the 2nd amendment is to read the writings and articles of the people who wrote and signed it.

if you do you tend to interpret it as.....

"A well-regulated militia,"

This is the part every one has a problem with and the one Diane and her flunkies try to twist the most. for all intents and purposes militia is you, it is every able bodied freeperson able to be organised. It's not the national guard and not the active military or reserves. the national guard is close but its not a militia.

this is wikipedia's defenition.

A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings:

An official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers
The national police forces in Russia, and other CIS countries, and the Soviet Union: Militsiya
The entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government

In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a national regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.

"being necessary to the security of a free State,"

this has only two interpretations but the same end meaning.

1) free state as in California and its people being free.

3) A state of freedom

either way it literally means your freedom

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note the word PEOPLE not army, soldier, or militiaman, just plain people ... you and me.

there's also a slight language problem ... people don't talk the way the did back in the late 1700's any one that's a Mason can tell you how archaic that language was.

So from everything I've read and learned, leads me to interpret the 2nd amendment as

In able for ever law abiding citizen to organize and defend their freedom from tyranny (Both foreign and domestic) they have the right to have and carry a weapon and the government can not take that right away.

There really are militias out there and they make the liberal government scared. Specially people like Feinstein. They actually consider them "far right extremist". I guess they should considering Feinstein and her crowd are the "Far left extremist".

Any way Feinstein actually owns a gun, if I'm not mistaken she owns a few of them. She even has a California Concealed weapons permit issued in the city of San Francisco. The city she was mayor of at one time. And If I'm not mistaken she actually lives in San Francisco or Marin.

At one point in time when Feinstein was mayor she "Turned in" her gun to the police chief. Funny thing was it wasn't her gun she handed the chief …. It was his own duty pistol.

It would really be funny to see San Francisco enforce its new ban and actually take her gun for real.

Feinstein belongs to an elitist group of politicians like Kerry Kennedy Boxer and Schumer, Who believe there the next best thing to nobility. In all honesty Feinstein shouldn't have her own interpretation of the 2nd amendment. She isn't paid to. She is paid to represent you, and the rest of the people of California, not San Francisco and not her own agenda But all the people of California. So regardless of what she thinks her view is, she is wrong, her view should be what the majority of the people of California thinks her view should be and the majority of the people of California believe the 2nd amendment gives them the right to keep and bear arms.

Feinstein is not doing her job she thinks she is here to tell you what to do and believe. You can tell that in her script generated letter. She is trying to educate you … and tell you. But that isn't her job. Her job is to listen and represent. She thinks she's a noble a member of the ruling class. And the rest of us Joes are just surfs to her. If she gets her way we will be surfs in her new modern liberal feudal society.

I think this alone is one of the worse failings of our government. Our representitives see them self's as our leaders. They always refer to themselves as our leaders. The rarely ever refer to themselves as representatives.

So my response to her letter would be ….

"No the 2nd amendment is whatever I tell you is .. that's your job, you're a public servant and my representative to the senate. If you fail to represent me I will attempt to fire you for insubordination by not voting for you in the next election. Remember you represent the people of California you do not rule them or the people of the United States of America and we are the same people of California that recalled and fired our last governor for not doing his job. Keep screwing up and you may be representing yourself in an unemployment line in 07"

Any way sorry for the rant guys. This is a shotgun Forum so I'm probably preaching to the chior. Man politics give me heartburn.

 

[big4x42u]

You would think that a senator of the USA would have some sort of grammar check when they write someone...
Diane Feinstein and Jim Kerry are good friends..... And they are both VERY Anti gun....

 

[JWC 78]

I can't wait till Feinstein and Boxer are voted out of office.