XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.guns, alt.california   
   XPost: sac.general   
   From: gp@dont-email.me   
      
   This week the nation was subjected to an embarrassing and   
   undignified spectacle of obstructionist partisan politics   
   surrounding the confirmation hearings of Judge Brett M.   
   Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Democrat caucus,   
   understanding that Judge Kavanaugh is an eminently qualified   
   jurist with an upstanding reputation and that the votes likely   
   exist to confirm him, abandoned the norms of the Senate and of   
   civility and resorted to childish and temperamental theatrics.   
   This included talking out of order and over their colleagues,   
   including Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley;   
   encouraging disruptive and illegal protests in the gallery; and   
   holding up large posters to distract the Judge as he answered   
   committee members’ questions.   
      
   But while such demonstrations are merely obnoxious and juvenile,   
   the more serious affront arose from committee members who were   
   either too ignorant or too dishonest to accurately articulate   
   the law and the facts in their exchanges with Judge Kavanaugh.   
   Case in point: arch anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein, who   
   grossly exaggerated the criminal use of semi-automatic rifles   
   and mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment   
   precedent to attack the nominee for failing to embrace her   
   political position on gun control.   
      
   The exchange came on day two of the proceedings, with Democrats   
   becoming increasingly frustrated at their inability to ruffle   
   Judge Kavanaugh or mount any effective resistance to his   
   confirmation.   
      
   Senator Feinstein began by reminding the audience that her   
   office wrote the federal “assault weapon” ban that was in effect   
   from 1994 to 2004. It’s notable that her first misstatement of   
   law concerned her own legislation. According to her, the law   
   “essentially prohibited the transfer, sale, and manufacture of   
   assault weapons. It did not at the time affect possession.”   
      
   That is plainly untrue. The law did, in fact, ban possession of   
   the controlled firearms (see page 201 of this link). The law did   
   not apply to firearms that had been lawfully obtained before the   
   law’s effective date, but that clause operated as an   
   “affirmative defense” that put the burden on the accused of   
   raising the issue at trial. Simply put, anyone found in   
   possession of a firearm described in the Act was presumptively   
   in violation of the law and susceptible to federal felony   
   penalties.   
      
   To her credit. Senator Feinstein at least hedged her next false   
   statement by couching it as a “belief,” rather than outright   
   assertion of fact. “I happen to believe that [the federal   
   “assault weapon” ban] did work and that it was important,” she   
   said.   
      
   Unfortunately for her, there is no credible evidence to this   
   effect. Two government funded studies of the law’s effects in   
   fact found it had no measurable impact on violent crime. More   
   recently, a survey of gun control laws by the Rand Corporation   
   found that the only perceptible effect of assault weapons bans   
   generally is perhaps a short-term increase in the price of   
   assault weapons; that in itself does not establish any   
   beneficial crime reduction effect, however.   
      
   Feinstein next took issue with a dissent that Judge Kavanaugh   
   had written in a case that upheld a D.C. “assault weapon” ban   
   similar to the expired federal law. Specifically, she chided him   
   for finding the firearms were “in common use” and therefore   
   protected under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedent.   
   “Assault weapons are not in common use,” Feinstein said.   
      
   Not only is that assertion not true, it’s the opposite of the   
   truth. The types of firearms covered by both Feinstein’s now   
   expired legislation and the current D.C. ban include the most   
   popular rifles in modern America, including the iconic AR-15.   
   According to figures compiled by the National Shooting Sports   
   Foundation for litigation launched in 2013, nearly 4.8 million   
   AR platform rifles were manufactured in the U.S. between 1990   
   and 2012, and more than 3.4 million AR and AK platform rifles   
   were imported during that timeframe. The number of AR-15s   
   manufactured in 2012 was double the number of Ford F-150 pick-up   
   trucks sold– the most commonly sold vehicle in the U.S.   
   Approximately 5 million people in the U.S. own at least one   
   modern semiautomatic rifle that would be covered by the   
   Feinstein/D.C. bans and such rifles make up 20.3% of all retail   
   firearms sales and are sold by 92.5% of retail firearm dealers.   
   Even media outlets that support “assault weapon” bans   
   acknowledge that the firearm those bans most specifically target   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)