Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Feinstein At It Again

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by ZigZagZeke, Jun 6, 2014.

  1. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke Eugene Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    3,543
    590x471xDianne-Feinstein-and-friend-courtesy-humanevents.com_.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ZlWwcEjYNN.jpg

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...tein-introduces-federal-bill-confiscate-guns/

    For those interested in opposing this directly, here are the links to the PopVox pages for this bill:

    HR 4806: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr4806

    S 2445: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/s2445
     
  2. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    That old moonbat is nothing short of a traitor.
     
  3. Swedish K

    Swedish K SW Washington Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    So they are trying to make this fed? Bad enough that CA just did a "gut and stuff" with a supposed education bill(?) that had passed both sides in different bills - they did a "combine" hearing and replaced the guts of the bill with this same type of deal - anyone can claim you are a threat and you loose your rights on the word of that person... something very wrong with that. Also by doing the gut and stuff method the bill went through the education committee which was controlled by (surprise) the people who side with the bill sponsor.
     
  4. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    6,922
    I would think that could be the basis of a 4th amendment challenge and possibly 5th (due process).

    But the fact that a law flies in the face of the Constitution and your rights has never stopped the Congress from passing a law.
     
  5. Hawaiian

    Hawaiian Tigard Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    So someone could file this prohibition/confiscation order against every politician who supported the bill? That would be fun! Maybe file one on there armed bodyguards also! Bloomberg would get his panties in a wad if someone did that to his.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
    notazombie and The Heretic like this.
  6. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    6,922
    Good idea!

    File it against the pols, the bureaucrats, the police chief, every LEO that enforces it, the judge, the court clerks, the DA, any anti-gun activist, and so on.

    Have multiple people do it - sequentially.

    Fight fire with fire.

    That said, I really doubt the law would make it out of committee. This is just grandstanding.
     
    notazombie likes this.
  7. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    2,695
    If pro is the opposite of con . . . What is the opposite of progress???

    Sheldon
     
  8. Kid@Heart

    Kid@Heart Vancouver, USA Cynic Lifetime Supporter Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    839
    590x471xdianne-feinstein-and-friend-courtesy-humanevents-com_-jpg-pagespeed-ic-zlwwcejynn-jpg.89449

    Isn't that "Evil Black Assault Rifle" with a pistol grip, adjustable stock, flash hider and mass/ casualty inducing mega magaclip thingie illegal in Washington DC? I want to swear out a warrant for Feinstien's arrest for violating the laws she put in place and supports. Government Employees are not above the law.
     
    Frankenrifle and notazombie like this.
  9. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    With all the technology today I am sure she could find a ride to the Cheese Capitol of Outer Space.
     
  10. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    When Buzzards Fly!
     
  11. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    Then we could write in a clause, or amendment in her proposal to have a Pause moment in her flight to the Limburger Heaven.

    bubblegum that bubblegum
     
  12. robertg

    robertg Sandy Oregon Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    I'm sure Feinstein and the others will be exempt from this law, just wait and see.
     
  13. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,644
    Likes Received:
    2,032
    Regression.

    It'll be a sad day when DiFi passes away.







    :rolleyes:
     
  14. cookie

    cookie THE SOCIALIST STATE OF KALI - FORNIA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    533
    Again Californians are dumb enough to keep her in office for life.
     
    ZigZagZeke and Redcap like this.
  15. nwbobber

    nwbobber Longview, Wa. Active Member

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    93
    While it may appear to some that this is a ridiculous law, blatantly violating the constitution, and would not stand up to a challenge, the fact that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) has not been challenged constitutionally, and stands to this day, should give us pause.




    Possession of Firearm While Subject to Order of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)
    It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner. The protection order must have been issued following an evidentiary hearing in which the defendant had notice and an opportunity to appear. The protection order must also include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim, or must include an explicit prohibition against the use of force that would reasonably be expected to cause injury. The statutory language of Section 922(g)(8), in addition to the language of Section 2262, provides additional justification for review of a jurisdiction's protection order form to determine if they conform with the federal requirements. Again, refer any questions about the applicability of this statute to the United States Attorney's Office in that district.

    You don't even have to be charged with a crime.