10 votes

Gun Laws of America: CRITICAL Items MISSING in Feinstein's Gun Bill

Gun Laws of America: CRITICAL Items MISSING in Feinstein's Gun Bill

By Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America, GunLaws.com

I’ve just finished reading the 122 pages of Diane Feinstein’s latest “gun-control” bill, Senate Bill S.150, and was surprised to find some important things missing.

Even more surprising was one small item briefly mentioned on page 13 that has not been reported in any “news” coverage I have seen. It’s a whopper — it invalidates her entire list of guns, and I’ve written ten books on this topic, I know what I’m saying! — but first, here’s what’s missing.

1. Criminals

Nothing addresses criminals — everything is aimed at innocent people who haven’t done anything wrong. There is not even any “malum in se” (legalese for intent to do wrong) or criminal intention. It is all “malum prohibitum” (wrong because we say so), the worst kind of bureaucratic and government abuse — crime by decree. The critics appear to be right. This is not about gun control, it is purely about control. The bill simply removes the right to own property Americans currently own.

(That’s not completely accurate about criminals; there is one small requirement for anyone carrying a “grandfathered semi-auto ‘assault’ weapon” or having one in ‘such close proximity’ to yourself that you could retrieve it and use it as if you carried it, if a “prohibited possessor” came near, so that the prohibited individual has no ability to access the weapon, or else keep it protected with ‘a secure gun storage or safety device’. Yes, it’s complicated. It seems to mean you can machine gun (or otherwise shoot) criminals without being charged with having a gun near bad people. And of course, prohibited possessors are prohibited.) Licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers are exempt.

2. Crazy people

Please forgive my use of common English — nothing addresses people who are nuts, borderline nuts, formerly nuts or no longer nuts and still perpetually banned from their rights. The entire problem of psychology — screamed about in the media and by politicians — is nowhere to be found in Feinstein’s bill, despite claims and mountains of evidence that this is a root cause of the problem. Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, whose husband Mark Kelly testified before Congress today (Wed. Jan. 30, 2013) that she owns a gun, would not be hampered by Feinstein’s bill in any way, even though she is severely brain damaged due to a criminal assault.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/30/gun-laws-of-america-critic...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We dont want "crazy"

We dont want "crazy" addressed anyway. Its dangerous because then all they have to do is say you are crazy and voila...away goes your right to bear arms. People call the liberty movement crazy all the time....all they would have to do is hire a psychologist to back them up on it and they would have a legal way to disarm us. They are paying that doctors salary..what do you think that doctor is going to rule? Do you see the problem here...the 2nd ammendment says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, there are no qualifiers for crazy people or for former criminals...it means EVERYONE has a right to bear arms, no ands ifs or buts. If you want to feel safer...carry a firearm...plain and simple. I am no fan of crazy people carrying guns...but its very a very dangerous avenue to disarming the rest of us. I would like to think they knew what they were doing when they wrote the second ammendment.

Of course

It did not address crazy people. If it did then Feinstein would lose her right to bear arms.