From latzko@ns1.rutgers.edu Thu Nov 18 12:46:49 1993
Received: from portal.unix.portal.com by jobe (4.1/1.34)
	id AA17181; Thu, 18 Nov 93 12:46:48 PST
Received: from demon  by portal.unix.portal.com (1.853) 
	id AA18898; Thu, 18 Nov 93 12:46:47 -0800
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by demon.corp.portal.com (4.1/ 1.20)
	id AA11653; Thu, 18 Nov 93 12:46:32 PST
Received: by nova.unix.portal.com (5.65b/4.1 1.556) 
	id AA16242; Thu, 18 Nov 93 12:46:45 -0800
Received: by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) 
	id AA24906; Thu, 18 Nov 93 15:36:14 EST
Received: from crl.com by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) 
	id AA24895; Thu, 18 Nov 93 15:36:09 EST
Received: by crl.crl.com id AA09336
  (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for firearms-politics <firearms-politics@ns1.rutgers.edu>); Thu, 18 Nov 1993 12:35:17 -0800
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 12:25:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Alan Kasler <tmi@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification
To: SHUEE@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Cc: firearms-politics <firearms-politics@ns1.rutgers.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9311171927.AA01798@ns1.rutgers.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9311181218.A10413-0100000@crl.crl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: R

On 17 Nov 1993 SHUEE@venus.iucf.indiana.edu wrote:

> Some one asked how can the the DiFi ammendment pass because it is clearly
> unconstitional. Here is the deal we have traitors in the senate who don't
> give a damn about the Constition ! More than one was elected by the people
> of there state to REPRESENT EXACTLY THAT VIEW.  It is too late to address
> all the hows and whys we have to move on to what is the next wolf at our door.

	Without commenting on the constitutionality or lack thereof of 
Ms. Feinstein's Amendment, perhaps folks who do not know her as well as 
some of us SF Bay Area types do would be interested in learning more 
about her. The following may help in that regard.

	In 1982, when she was mayor of SF, Feinstein wanted to enact an 
ordinance banning handguns in SF for anyone except police. She was told 
by her City Attorney that such an ordinance would violate the California 
Constitution. She then sought advice from numerous other sources, 
including the CA Attorney General and the Legislative Counsel; all 
sources informed her that such a ban would be illegal. 

	In typical Feinstein fashion, she ignored the advice and the fact 
that her ordinance would unquestionably be illegal, and pushed it through 
the Board of Supervisors. Almost immediately after it became law in SF, 
the then AG, Dukemejian, wrote an AG's Opinion stating that the ban was 
unconstitutional and illegal on several grounds. Feinstein didn't care, 
she had her gun ban and she was happy.

	Then, a few months after the ban was enacted, Don Kates, working 
for the Second Amendment Foundation, brought a lawsuit challenging the 
ordinance. Of course it succeeded; the ordinance was struck down.

	Feinstein truly believes that people (except herself and a few of 
her friends) who like guns are bad, and that no one of whom she doesn't 
approve should have them. She is a viscious, unprincipled individual who 
will continue to attack gun rights as long as she is capable of doing so.

     Threat Management Institute                  Vox: 707-939-0303
     Peter Alan Kasler, J.D.                      Fax: 707-939-8684
     800 West Napa Street                     TMI BBS: 707-935-1713
     Sonoma, CA  95476                        Internet: tmi@crl.com



