Sen. Feinstein’s gun control bill  exempts government officials

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Gun control for thee but not for me?

The draconic gun control bill introduced last week by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., specifically exempts “government officials.” As a sitting U.S. senator, Feinstein is a government official.

“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reported.

Discounting the exceptions to her bill, one would assume her to be a gun control absolutist, and indeed her words generally bear this out.

“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in — I would’ve done it. I could not do that, the votes weren’t here,” she told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Feb. 5, 1995.

Two months later, on April 27, Feinstein spoke at the U.S. Senate hearing on a totally different issue — terrorism — requiring her to switch gears with respect to firearms. This occurred shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. At that hearing, she made the following remarks, according to CNSNews:

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. I made the determination that if someone was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.

Gun control for thee but not for me?

Recent posts:
GOP backstabber Al Zucaro joins board of Republican club

Sheriff’s PSA calling residents to protect themselves

Rubio wins first straw poll of 2016 presidential race

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
About Michael Dorstewitz

Mike has been with BizPac Review almost from the beginning. Email Mike at michael@bizpacreview and follow him on Twitter at @MikeBPR.

  • Cherryl Press

    It just seems very unconstitutional that "They in the White House" seem to think its fine for them to have CCW, carry arms, and have armed guards for them and their children, "Which by the way, "We the People" pay for, but yet they expect the population to go unarmed and unprotected… I live way out in the Forest, if someone comes to my home with a weapon of any sort to do harm, there is no way calling 911 or a local sheriff will help my family… Therefore, I WILL BE ARMED!!

  • cs

    Typical big government criminals,putting themselves first by exempting themselves from the laws they pass on their constituents.Like the health care law,,insider trading,and a myrid of others,and now this! Time to flush these turds!

  • BG

    I am not for gun control, but I tried to fact check your claims as to the "government official" exemption and I don't see it anywhere in the text of Feinstein's proposed 2013 Assault weapons ban bill. The only exemption listed is for active military, law enforcement and honorably retired law enforcement. Maybe I missed it, but I am attempting to fact check so that I can pass this on to others as an example of legislative hypocrisy…I can't do that if the facts aren't right. Please direct me to where you found that exemption in the bill.

  • Abe

    BG,

    A bunch of these organizations are doing these types or articles. I am glad you are fact checking too. I cannot run around telling people things that aren't true. If I do, they will automatically dismiss what I tell them. I am trying to research the text of the bill. Do you have the text of the most current version? Here is the one on her own webpage.. .http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

    These writers need to understand that the things they are putting out are misinformation and people who want to be legitimately informed will not stand for a misrepresentation of the facts. We frankly get enough of that with the leftist media. I do not need conservative sites doing the same thing.

    Kudos to you BG for checking the facts. I am doing the same.

  • Abe

    BG,

    I read through the bill. There is no mention of exempting those other than retired law enforcement, law enforcement and other certain "definied" officials. Nowhere in the bill does it mention that legislators are exempted.

    Frothing up people with innacurate headlines to get them to read your article is the practice of grocery checkout lane rags. Fix your article dude (Michael Dorstewitz) or remove it from the site. Quit misinforming people and then sending them out to debate loudly.

    Abe

  • B G

    Abe,

    Thanks for the double check…it is nice to know that there are other people out there who check the facts too.

    I did just notice that the author is a lawyer…we know how subjective the truth can be in their hands

    Thanks again and stay safe.

    BG

  • M

    So once they do away with the second and first and 14th amendments how long before we are officially a Military Dictatorship with drones taking out who ever she feels like? After her trauma of the SF Mayor shooting isn't she obviously suffering from PTSD herself yet she sheems to think she is more quaifiyed that those of us who have trained almost weekly and have for years? She makes one inaccurate statment after another to the point it becomes very apparent there's deception and alternative motive her agenda, Who does she really work for? It's not us!

    Facts don't seem to matter and why is all the focus on law bidding citizens and 0zero focus on criminals that they have opened the flood gates to?