I'm not really into flashy firearms such as this one and am quite happy with mine being the standard scary evil black. I agree that it's terribly unfair that politicians are allowed such exceptions. I think that Rep. Buck should sign on as a co-sponsor of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 in order to allow all citizens the rights that he enjoys.
It does appear that he actually went to some effort to ensure that he wasn't breaking the law by bringing the firearm there. The lack of a bolt in the rifle is immaterial since the part of the firearm that bears the serial number, namely the lower receiver, is the part that is legally considered the weapon. I think he should put the bolt back in it and keep some loaded thirty round magazines in his office. After all, I would hope that there would be no risk of theft in such a secure facility, though you can never tell with politicians.
"Though illegal for the general public to bring a gun into the U.S. Capitol, it’s not for Buck because he is a member of Congress, authorities say. Lt. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, said members of Congress “may maintain firearms within the confines of their office.” Not only that, Schneider said, members “and any employee or agent of any Member of Congress may transport” weapons within the Capitol grounds as long as the “firearms are unloaded and securely wrapped.” In an interview Tuesday, Buck, a House freshman, said he sought approval from numerous authorities: “I went to the Ethics Committee; I got permission to accept the gift” from a business. “I went to Capitol Hill police; I got permission to bring it into my office. They went to the D.C. police; they got permission for me to transport it into the District. I went to TSA, and followed all of the regulations in getting it onto the plane and getting it here.” "David Benowitz, a defense attorney in D.C. who handles gun cases, said federal law allows people to transport secured weapons from one place where they’re allowed to another place they’re allowed, even if going through an area where they’re restricted."
That refers to the pretend outrage over the David Gregory issue. I know you like to play dumb, but you do remember that many gun rights fanatics pretended that Gregory really needed to be criminally charged for what he did. Those same people are silent now when one of theirs does it. The point is not that they should be screaming about this "offense" too, but that neither one is worthy of charges and they were full of shit the first time around. Get it?
"Those same people are silent now when one of theirs does it. The point is not that they should be screaming about this "offense" too, but that neither one is worthy of charges and they were full of shit the first time around. Get it?"
There's a big difference between this event and the Gregory thing Mike. In the case of Gregory, someone made the decision to exercise discretion in enforcing the law and didn't charge him. A closer parallel would be the video released by Adam Kokesh which resulted in his prosecution on weapons charges among other things. In the case of the legislators in this article, no discretion is involved because they are explicitly allowed to possess firearms.
So pointing out the hypocrisy of a liberal journalist knowing and willingly commiting a felony on national television and not having the law be equally enforced but not being angry about having someone follow the law, make sure he was following the law and making sure what he was doing was legal from every angle that it could be effected is hypocrisy?
"I disagree. Kokash was prosecuted because what he did was far worse than either of the other two incidents."
The incident with the politicians isn't really an incident because they are explicitly permitted to possess firearms there. Kokesh and Gregory are more similar because they were both legally prohibited from doing what they did.
MikeB, would I be more correct in you reffering to a perceived hypocrisy on behalf of gun nuts or is it a percieved hypocrisy of myself individually? If I'm going to adress a point I need to know what I am addressing.
"David Benowitz, a defense attorney in D.C. who handles gun cases, said federal law allows people to transport secured weapons from one place where they’re allowed to another place they’re allowed, even if going through an area where they’re restricted."
This event is similar to the multiple times Sen Feinstein has enjoyed a photo op while in possession of a firearm while in the capitol or on capitol grounds.....quick Google search shows at least 3 sep instances....none of which did she choose to go with the extreme level of safety shown in this photo...ie trigger lock and BCG removed rendering the firearm completely inoperable
hypocrisy, ok for me but not for thee.....Are we to take this to mean you think everyone should be able to carry guns at the capitol Mike?....I certainly do it is time to start treating congress as what they are ...employees nothing more.. their need for security is no more than that of any man woman or child in this country
I guess you're right, George. Feinstein looked pretty goofy holding up a weapon in the Capitol Rotunda. What was she thinking? Channeling the inner Richard M. Daley?
Guns are for killing people. Of course, they have no place in the seat of government. If security really has broken down to the point that the Congress Critters are no longer safe, I don't think that we can count on the elderly career politicians to get the jump on the terrorists.
I'm not really into flashy firearms such as this one and am quite happy with mine being the standard scary evil black.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's terribly unfair that politicians are allowed such exceptions. I think that Rep. Buck should sign on as a co-sponsor of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 in order to allow all citizens the rights that he enjoys.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:H.R.1701:
It does appear that he actually went to some effort to ensure that he wasn't breaking the law by bringing the firearm there. The lack of a bolt in the rifle is immaterial since the part of the firearm that bears the serial number, namely the lower receiver, is the part that is legally considered the weapon. I think he should put the bolt back in it and keep some loaded thirty round magazines in his office. After all, I would hope that there would be no risk of theft in such a secure facility, though you can never tell with politicians.
"Though illegal for the general public to bring a gun into the U.S. Capitol, it’s not for Buck because he is a member of Congress, authorities say.
Lt. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, said members of Congress “may maintain firearms within the confines of their office.” Not only that, Schneider said, members “and any employee or agent of any Member of Congress may transport” weapons within the Capitol grounds as long as the “firearms are unloaded and securely wrapped.”
In an interview Tuesday, Buck, a House freshman, said he sought approval from numerous authorities: “I went to the Ethics Committee; I got permission to accept the gift” from a business. “I went to Capitol Hill police; I got permission to bring it into my office. They went to the D.C. police; they got permission for me to transport it into the District. I went to TSA, and followed all of the regulations in getting it onto the plane and getting it here.”
"David Benowitz, a defense attorney in D.C. who handles gun cases, said federal law allows people to transport secured weapons from one place where they’re allowed to another place they’re allowed, even if going through an area where they’re restricted."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/04/21/congressman-proudly-packs-a-patriotic-ar-15-in-his-capitol-hill-office/
Er, what does "biased but rights liars" even mean?
ReplyDeleteThat refers to the pretend outrage over the David Gregory issue. I know you like to play dumb, but you do remember that many gun rights fanatics pretended that Gregory really needed to be criminally charged for what he did. Those same people are silent now when one of theirs does it. The point is not that they should be screaming about this "offense" too, but that neither one is worthy of charges and they were full of shit the first time around. Get it?
Delete"Those same people are silent now when one of theirs does it. The point is not that they should be screaming about this "offense" too, but that neither one is worthy of charges and they were full of shit the first time around. Get it?"
DeleteThere's a big difference between this event and the Gregory thing Mike. In the case of Gregory, someone made the decision to exercise discretion in enforcing the law and didn't charge him. A closer parallel would be the video released by Adam Kokesh which resulted in his prosecution on weapons charges among other things.
In the case of the legislators in this article, no discretion is involved because they are explicitly allowed to possess firearms.
So pointing out the hypocrisy of a liberal journalist knowing and willingly commiting a felony on national television and not having the law be equally enforced but not being angry about having someone follow the law, make sure he was following the law and making sure what he was doing was legal from every angle that it could be effected is hypocrisy?
Delete"A closer parallel would be the video released by Adam Kokesh "
DeleteI disagree. Kokash was prosecuted because what he did was far worse than either of the other two incidents.
MikeZ, the hypocrisy I was talking about was yours, not Gregory's.
Delete"I disagree. Kokash was prosecuted because what he did was far worse than either of the other two incidents."
DeleteThe incident with the politicians isn't really an incident because they are explicitly permitted to possess firearms there. Kokesh and Gregory are more similar because they were both legally prohibited from doing what they did.
MikeB, would I be more correct in you reffering to a perceived hypocrisy on behalf of gun nuts or is it a percieved hypocrisy of myself individually? If I'm going to adress a point I need to know what I am addressing.
DeleteIf the shoe fits, wear it, Mike.
Delete"David Benowitz, a defense attorney in D.C. who handles gun cases, said federal law allows people to transport secured weapons from one place where they’re allowed to another place they’re allowed, even if going through an area where they’re restricted."
ReplyDeleteUnless you go through New Jersey right?
This event is similar to the multiple times Sen Feinstein has enjoyed a photo op while in possession of a firearm while in the capitol or on capitol grounds.....quick Google search shows at least 3 sep instances....none of which did she choose to go with the extreme level of safety shown in this photo...ie trigger lock and BCG removed rendering the firearm completely inoperable
ReplyDeletehypocrisy, ok for me but not for thee.....Are we to take this to mean you think everyone should be able to carry guns at the capitol Mike?....I certainly do it is time to start treating congress as what they are ...employees nothing more.. their need for security is no more than that of any man woman or child in this country
Those guys look so fucking stupid. What a couple of dildoheads!
ReplyDeleteI guess you're right, George. Feinstein looked pretty goofy holding up a weapon in the Capitol Rotunda. What was she thinking? Channeling the inner Richard M. Daley?
ReplyDeleteGuns are for killing people. Of course, they have no place in the seat of government. If security really has broken down to the point that the Congress Critters are no longer safe, I don't think that we can count on the elderly career politicians to get the jump on the terrorists.