Feinstein and Cruz on the 2nd Amendment (Video)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) really is fearless when it comes to taking on the old-guard senators on the left. Although Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) never really answers the question posed by Cruz, she did mention Heller a couple of times.
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the video, but some analysis first. Feinstein references the three limits as stated in the majority opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller. On page 54 they certainly do note the right is not unlimited.
…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Those are the three conditions referenced by Feinstein in the video, she claims two of them apply here. Do you see anything in that Heller section referencing the type of weapons prohibited? Nope. Let me see if I can help Feinstein out a bit. Earlier in the majority decision on page 52, they reference the 1939 United States v Miller case, which is very specific fully automatic machine guns, which are not typically possessed by citizens for lawful purposes.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
A point that Feinstein and the gun-control crowd need to understand is that when they try to reference the United States Constitution or case law, they have no friggin’ clue what they are talking about. In short, the semi-automatic rifles Feinstein and company are trying to ban are certainly in common use at this time. There are millions of sporting rifles in the style of the AR, AK or other variant currently owned and used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Ten, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 30 round magazines are certainly in common use. Heller in no way supports Feinstein’s law.
Notice the condescending attitude from Feinstein, and the fact she never answers the question posed by Cruz. By the way … what are “imploding” bullets?
By saying she’s “not a sixth grader” I guess that implies she realizes “She’s not smarter than a fifth grader.”
Explains a lot of things about her.
Looks like Senator Ted Cruz tutored Senator Diane Feinstein on the 2nd Amendment.
A friend of mine sent this out and its about the first and 2nd amendment.? Its well thought out and logical.? I think it fits here.
I have been listening to some of the ridiculous debates regarding 2nd amendment rights. One of the favorite excuses is that we already limit every right expressed in the constitution. One common excuse is the idea that you can?t yell ?fire? in a crowed movie theater and claim 1st amendment rights as your justification. How is this a rational argument?
For some reason some folks can?t (or won?t) make the distinction between ?deliberately abusing or intending harm? and simply exercising a natural right without malice. Restrictions on…
on 1st amendment rights are undeniably connected to deliberate malice or intent. Same could be said for most of our rights. For example it is absolutely my right to yell ?fire? in a crowded movie theater provided there actually is a fire and my intent is not to cause harm but to save lives. I will admit and agree to similar restrictions on the 2nd amendment. If a person?s intent is to use their 2nd amendment right to deliberately cause harm then obviously we should restrict it. Common sense.
The problem I see with the proposed restrictions on the 2nd amendment is that the restrictions have nothing to do with intent. The restrictions are arbitrary limits imposed with the excuse that someone MIGHT abuse their right. The proposed restrictions infringe on the right regardless of intent or circumstances. The restrictions are imposed because of what ?might? be. This is not acceptable.
Great show this morning, Jim. Was driving to JFK and listened all the way down.
Have to ask you- when you have Murphy on the show does he make you write the questions down and have one of his “people” pick out the ones he’ll deign to answer?
So what will your grand daughter call you?
DiFi really has the gun banner rhetoric down.
What I hear her say is, “WE are letting you keep 270 types of firearms! WE are not being unreasonable here!” (Unsaid is that the imperial “WE” DiFi likes to use is going to try to ban all types of firearms. What is she, and all of the Democrats, afraid of?)
I applaud Sen. Cruz for facing the dragon and asking her the tough questions. That she has to resort to the trite position of not answering the question while attacking her questioner is telling.
Only the gun banners and the sycophants in the Democrat party can find her convincing.
The difference between real conservatives and real liberals is that the former realizes that the Bill of Rights were included by the founders in the Constitution to limit government; the latter thinks that the Bill of Rights is designed (or is being twisted) to exercise government control over the people.
[ADMIN says: Sorry, no blind links.]
This is why Obama wanted Kerry, he supports the arms trade treaty. Clinton maneuvered the US and the UN into the thing — Democrats are usually huge anti-gunners and want to control other people. Kerry is a useful tool, a willing idiot for Obama’s machinations.
Any gun guy will tell you that there is no ammunition around for sale. The store shelves are bare. Every morning, people hopeful of buying ammo wait for the UPS truck to deliver at their favorite sporting goods store. Ammo deliveries are a mere trickle of what they once were. (I am reminded of people waiting for bread rations.)
The ATT will further exacerbate the dearth of ammunition. That is what Obama wants and what the Democrat gun banners want. “You can keep your guns, but we’ll dry up the supplies of ammunition.” (Via the ATT and buying up 2 billion rounds for the feds.)
“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.” — Dianne Feinstein