Replies

Man the Gun Grabbers have been screaming, crying, and lying about this bill. And a lot more than usual. Why is that? Because this effectively cuts the head of their last best hope for bypassing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their jihad to disarm the American People.
The trigger locks requirement: Ok, it's unconstitutional, and a further infringement on legal commerce in arms, but given what the gun grabbers wanted to tack onto this bill, it could have been worse. Most of the guns I've bought in the past five years have had some sort of trigger or action lock, and most of the trigger locks were cheap and flimsy enough to be useless, but they probably meet the new requirement. In fact, a S&W pistol came with a trigger lock that couldn't be made to fit the gun; I called them up, and their own armorer could't get it to fit either around the trigger guard either. Does the ammendment specify what qualifies as a "trigger lock"? Will the BATF be able to "interpret" this into a requirement for a mukti-thousand-dollar gun vault, or can we get away with just including a cheap one dollar luggage padlock?
What is the deal with the Craig Ammendment (not 1645)? It looks bad from the description. However, given who voted for it and who voted against it, it sure looks like it's a good deal.
And speaking of Craig Ammendment 1645, again what's the deal? Isn't this just keeping the whole "Armor Piercing" mythology alive? Do we really need yet another "study" on so called armor piercing bullets? Boxer and Wyden voted against it, so it might be good, but I'm unconvinced.
So tell me again how Hitlery is a "moderate"? Any guesses as to what she'll be hunting (and hunting with) in the inevitable photo-op in 2007?
Where the hell was Smith? On some votes, he's absent, on others he votes correctly, but on others he votes wrong. I guess it doesn't matter. He permanently lost my vote when he voted to extend the Ugly-Gun-Ban the last time this bill came around. And this sort of spineless whiffle-whaffling isn't helping him one bit.

I probably should wait till tomorrow answering since I just got back from the bar, but I'll give it my best shot and hope I don't embarrass myself in the morning. :)

1. Why is that?
If you can't win the right way through the legislature, all that's left is judicial activism, and there it only takes one activist judge like Weinsten of NYC or Reinhardt of the 9th circuit.

2. As for trigger locks, that's easy to answer
Kohl Amendment(trigger locks) - Look up s9114 and s9115 for the exact text

3 and 4. - Unfortunatly, I don't know exactly what either Craig amendment entails as Thomas hasn't given me the text of the bills. If I don't know by Monday, I'll call his office and ask for the specifics.

5. Hitlery is only moderate by the NY Slimes Standards.

6. I beleve Smith had a family committment. Knowing Smith, that could be a good thing. When I turned on CSPAN today, Pat Roberts was on the floor chastising the senate for wasting time with debates that would not change anyone's mind. He then said that he, Feinstein, and one other senator (Smith I think) were leaving later because of family committments. Pat Roberts then stated how he'd vote, but didn't mention Smith and Feinstein's votes. DiFI is obvious. As for Gordon Smith, I remember SAF's Chair a few years back saying he's the best we can get in Oregon and that he's personally pro-gun. This was back in 2001 before that AWB vote, so I don't know what his opinion of him is today.