TexasCHLforum.com

mr surveyor wrote:

grumble wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

Retired police officers are at a greater risk of violence. All those BG's that get sent upriver have a long time to stew over those that they believe put them there (in reality, they put themselves their by their own accord).

so????

So stop expecting liberals to be logical. I thought that was self evident.

baldeagle wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

Enemies. Police can often be the targets of bad guys who've done a stretch and are looking for revenge. A copy can put away a bad guy his first day on the force and end up having to deal with him again after he's retired.

I absolutely agree. The thing is about exempting current or prior police from an AWB just goes to show exactly what they are trying to hide. The fact is that semi automatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines capable of holding as many rounds as mechanically possible or what ever the goons in DC are trying to ban this week is probably the most effective tool for self defense. Other wise if police wouldnt be using them. So who are these poloticians to say that a police officers life is more valuable than any other citizens?

Just because an individual makes a career choice and ends up with consequences in his life as a result does not make that person more deserving of the means to defend themselves. The second amendment says nothing about career choices or social standing.

Of course, those who FEEL differently will never read or understand the second amendment.

Anygunanywhere

SF18C wrote:

smtimelevi wrote:So according to all this legislation these geniuses are proposing I have to be a police officer to have any rights? Is SAPD hiring?

I was thinking along the same lines...we all just need to get govt jobs!


Oh and on the cops being "all in for me" types...remember the FoP is as liberal a union as the teamsters.

The FOP members are anything but liberal, but their leadership is far left.

It's another example of a formerly fine organization being taken over from within by leftist leaders and members who don't look carefully at candidate positions. The point is to use the membership numbers and former reputation of the organization for credibility.

Others in the same boat are the AARP and AMA.

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

I was wondering the same thing myself. DiFi would say they have to except retired LEOs because of all the folks they helped put into prison during their careers.....but what about the citizen witnesses whose testimony put those people behind bars? Don't they deserve EXACTLY the same protections as the retired cops? According to democrats, no they don't. And the ONLY possible explanation is that they perceive the retired cop's life to have more value than that of the citizen whose taxes paid the cop's salary (and retirement benefits).

I'm not against retired cops having any kind of gun they want, but I want the exact same free expression of my rights, because my life is worth at least the same as a retired LEO's.........or an active duty LEO's too, for that matter.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

I was wondering the same thing myself. DiFi would say they have to except retired LEOs because of all the folks they helped put into prison during their careers.....but what about the citizen witnesses whose testimony put those people behind bars? Don't they deserve EXACTLY the same protections as the retired cops? According to democrats, no they don't. And the ONLY possible explanation is that they perceive the retired cop's life to have more value than that of the citizen whose taxes paid the cop's salary (and retirement benefits).

I'm not against retired cops having any kind of gun they want, but I want the exact same free expression of my rights, because my life is worth at least the same as a retired LEO's.........or an active duty LEO's too, for that matter.

Of course, you're right, but what they'll tell you is that you don't have the proper training to use a gun safely, and so, you're more likely to shoot yourself. I enjoyed David Mamet's response to this, which is, that if the claim is true, then the government should issue guns to criminals.

grumble wrote:I've not looked at the text of the full bill, but it looks like some sites are making their own edits and paraphrasing. This is how I've seen it presented in a multitude of mainstream outlets:

"The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill's enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons."

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to read the full text of the bill first. The proposed legislation does not appear to make an exception for government officials such as senators, like Feinstein. The exceptions are generally, with additional requirements for each category: A qualified law enforcement officer; a licensee under Title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; an individual retired from a law enforcement agency; and a licensee for testing/experimentation authorized by the Attorney General. Maybe I'm missing something, but the germane languages is on pages 15 through 20.

Assault Weapon Ban of 2013

That's not to say that this proposed legislation isn't an abomination. It will also be important to track what amendments are made on the floor, which Feinstein herself today said was how she effectively introduced the AWB of 1994. I feel any bill could be hijacked by this Congress.

It was actually difficult to get over the first sentence of the abstract:

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Feinstein may as well come out and define "other purposes," since she's already proposing a right that Constitutionally cannot be infringed be limited. Of course that would be "to disarm all law abiding citizens and establsish a precedent to shred the Constitution of the US."

It looks to me like they are also expanding the definition of what constitutes a gun. In the past it was the frame, receiver or a completed gun. But this adds:

‘‘(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

From that it looks to me like uppers, foregrips and other parts would now be banned too.

Am I misreading this?

VMI77 wrote:Of course, you're right, but what they'll tell you is that you don't have the proper training to use a gun safely, and so, you're more likely to shoot yourself. I enjoyed David Mamet's response to this, which is, that if the claim is true, then the government should issue guns to criminals.

OMG, I am SO going to use that.....

I don't know if current elected officials would be covered by this text or not.

It proposes adding to USC Title 18 Section 921(a) Definitions.

ldavidson wrote:It proposes adding to USC Title 18 Section 921(a) Definitions:

"(36) Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon
[...]
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm."

It is possible that a ruling might stick that all Glock models are semiautomatic versions of a Glock 18. I doubt a change in caliber would be an issue.

I imagine there are other pistols that could run afoul of the same attack.

Or am I misunderstanding what it seems to say?

That came to mind when I read the bill too. That honestly would be a path to unconstitutionality after DC v. Heller though. Not to say that the rest of the bill is not entirely unconstitutional, because it really is.

ldavidson wrote:As far as exempting gov't officials, the relevant bill text says:

5 ‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
6 ‘‘(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale
7 to, transfer to, or possession by the United States
8 or a department or agency of the United States or
9 a State or a department, agency, or political subdivi
10 sion of a State, [...]

I don't know if current elected officials would be covered by this text or not.

I read this as the government (or its agents) can still import, manufacture, sell, transfer, and possess these items -- not the individuals. Granted it is a very fine line between Feinstein, sitting at home with her AK-47 on her lap, surrounded by her security team all carrying AR-15s, claiming that they're all the Senate's guns versus weapons she personally owns. Do you think under the current enforcement regime someone in her position fills out 4473s, or are they just gifts from Uncle Sam?

Where do you think all those "Confiscated" banned weapons are gonna go?