Advertisements
Home

Breaking Federal Gun Laws is OK as Long as Your Heart’s in the Right Place

1 Comment

This is from The Truth About Guns.

With Liberals it is “Do as We say,Not As we Do.

With laws passed by Liberals they say You must obey them but We are exempt

from these laws passed by us.

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. In the same vein, sometimes you have to break a few laws make a political point. Fortunately for California Senator Diane Feinstein, the doyenne of civilian disarmament, you don’t have to worry about breaking laws – even if they’re felonies – when you’re a member of the ruling class. If you want to put on a dog and pony show for the press – parading the scariest of black guns before the cameras in a never-ending campaign to abrogate Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – all you need to do in D.C. is enlist the help of the Chief of Police. As Emily Miller reports atwashingtontimes.com . . .

A week after a lobbyist emailed D.C. top cop Cathy Lanier asking for, “examples of assault weapons used in the worst incidents over the past few years,” DiFi’s press flack hit up the head of the D.C. Metro’s “Crime Scene Investigation Division, Keith Williams, for 10 specific firearm models used in high-profile mass shootings, including a Bushmaster XM-15, Tec-9 handgun, Smith & Wesson M&P15 and a Glock 19 with a ‘high-capacity magazine.’”

Since Cmdr. Williams did not have all the firearms the senator sought, (lobbyist Chuck) DeWitt asked Philadelphia police to provide the missing ones, which meant bringing “the P15 and the Glock extended magazine” to Washington.

All of these firearms are illegal in the city — even on federal property — owing to the District’s law banning rifles with a detachable magazine and such features as a pistol grip or folding stock and all firearms with a magazines capacity of more than 10 rounds.

And don’t think they didn’t know they were breaking the law, either. Feinstein’s spox, Tom Mentzer was very much aware:

Cmdr. Williams emailed Mr. Mentzer to put a “bug” in his ear that the police would “prefer that no mention of the fact that the weapons came from D.C. or were recovered by MPDC in the official language or speeches.” Mr. Mentzer replied, “By not mentioning where the weapons came from, we open ourselves up to the same charge against David Gregory.

Wouldn’t want that, would we? Wait, why would that have given him pause? Gregory, the NBCMeet the Press host who waived a D.C.-illegal 30-round magazine in Wayne LaPierre’s face,wasn’t prosecuted. Why would a sitting United States senator face a worse fate? Hell, she even got plenty help getting the guns onto Capitol Hill and into the Senate for her post-Newtown bloody shirt waving event.

The office of Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer coordinated bringing the illegal weapons onto Capitol Hill for Mrs. Feinstein’s dramatic Jan. 24 news conference introducing her new “assault weapons” ban.

Funny thing, though. The same kind of access was later denied Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham when they wanted to bring rifles to a judiciary committee hearing to demonstrate how arbitrary DiFi’s gun grab was. Probably just an unfortunate bureaucratic snafu.

Despite Chief Lanier’s best efforts, though, intrepid reporter Miller, through a Freedom of Information Act request, uncovered the uncomfortable provenance of the illegal firearms. Not to mention the help the Senior California Senator got in breaking the law from the District’s chief law enforcement officer, enabling DiFi’s ostentatious gun display for the unveiling of her doomed assault weapons ban.

The police stonewalling and cover-up are so that the public doesn’t find out that Chief Lanier enforces laws differently in the District, depending on whether you are a powerful liberal who opposes Second Amendment rights, like Mr. Gregory and Mrs. Feinstein, or an average American.

Equal justice under law” is engraved on the frieze of the Supreme Court building in D.C. There probably wasn’t room up there to include the footnote excepting members of the ruling class and their friendly enablers in the media.

Advertisements

Supercuts

Leave a comment

This is from The Weekly Standard.

Congress Critters think they are better than us.

Their barbershop runs a defecate just like the House Post Office,

used to be for the news broke.

I am glad to see the move to privatize the shop.

More of the government needs to be privatized.

 

The Senate barbershop gets a trim.

The barbershop of the U.S. Senate has run deficits of approximately $350,000 a year for each of the last 15 years. So Senate sergeant at arms Terry Gainer has decided to try out a new model, one that has looked rather unfashionable during the Obama era: privatization.

The Senate BarbershopTHE SENATE BARBERSHOP

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Gainer has tried to trim Senate Hair Care Services for the past few years. Now the political climate troubling everyone else on Capitol Hill is allowing him to move faster than he anticipated towards privatizing it completely.

“I’ve accelerated my goal to get there through leveraging sequestration,” Gainer explains. “The only real way we’re going to change this thing around without pricing ourselves out of the market is by reducing the number of fulltime employees.”

The sequestration’s required spending cuts provide convenient cover. Gainer is offering early retirement to all eligible employees, hoping to replace them with independent contractors. Four employees have already accepted the offer, and they plan to retire in the next 60 days. Gainer likens these “buyouts” to those that corporations often make. He has no timeline for complete privatization, but is determined to see it through.

If previous efforts to end taxpayer funding of the Senate barbershop are any guide, it will take much longer than one might expect. According to a report from the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, Senator Paul Douglas (D-Ill.) spoke out against the federally funded barbershop back in 1951, suggesting that taxpayers need not pick up the tab for their legislators’ haircuts. Arizona senator Carl Hayden quickly rejected Douglas’s efforts, gaining support by arguing that the barbershop was an important institution passed down from the great statesmen who came before them.

A Senate barbershop that provides government-subsidized cuts, shaves, and shines is a tradition that predates the Civil War. Over the years, its legend has grown. The barbershop was thought to be more private than the cloakrooms: a place that sometimes shaped the course of human events. In 1937, the debate about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Judiciary Reorganization Bill—the effort to pack the Supreme Court with justices favorable to the New Deal—may have forever shifted after one encounter there. According to the report from the sergeant at arms’s office,

Republican Senator Styles Bridges, an opponent of the bill, visited the barbershop to receive a shave. The barber placed a warm towel over Bridges’ face to soften his whiskers. A few minutes later, Democratic Senator Henry Ashurst, one of the bill’s defenders, bustled into the shop in search of Senator Prentiss Brown, who had remained undecided during the debate. Ashurst mistook the shrouded Bridges for Brown and, hoping to sway him, bent down close to his ear and began to whisper secrets about White House policy related to the bill. Bridges lay completely still, absorbing the information, and Ashurst left the shop deceived about Bridges’ identity. The bill suffered a 70-20 defeat in the Senate.

Rick Santorum’s proposal suffered an even greater defeat when he took on the barbershop in 1997. Senators and barbers alike were quick to object. “If you start to privatize,” intoned Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Republican senator from Pennsylvania, “[y]ou put a lot of people out of a job, and you have a lot of disruptions.” Specter and his colleagues were also concerned about finding a barbershop that would cater to lawmakers’ irregular timetables. “I don’t know when you could get a haircut with our schedule around here. You can slip in and out of the barbershop in 20 minutes. If you have to go downtown, it will take an hour and a half,” Specter complained. Like Douglas’s effort before him, Santorum’s plan failed to survive a Rules Committee vote, but then-sergeant at arms Greg Casey decided to consolidate the Senate barbershop and beauty parlor anyway.

Santorum lamented the hopelessness of his attempt to battle the barbers’ influence among his comrades: “When your barber has you in the chair, and he says, ‘You’re not going to cut my job, are you?’ what are you going to say?”

Gainer has taken away the burden of persuading senators to agree. He points to the House of Representatives’ success in contracting out its barbershop’s services. House Republicans successfully privatized their taxpayer-subsidized barbershop in 1995, when they passed a resolution from then-speaker Newt Gingrich’s privatization task force. The operation had been losing $50,000 annually, according to Roll Call.

Senate Hair Care Services has cost taxpayers about $5.25 million over 15 years. They foot the bill of more than $40,000 for the shoeshine attendant last fiscal year. Six barbers took in more than $40,000 each, including nearly $80,000 for the head barber.

Gainer, who is entering his seventh year as sergeant at arms, accepts the blame, saying “shame on me” for not moving to privatize it sooner. But he adds, “I’ve tried to be more of a humanitarian than some people would like, and not just wallop everyone’s heads off at once.”

As press and politicians continue to play Chicken Little over sequestration, it’s comforting to know that at least someone in the Senate recognizes that the institution could use a trim.

 

%d bloggers like this: