How did Feinstein get a wal of "assault weapons" into the Senate? By breaking the law

[Justin]

MILLER: Smoking gun exposed: D.C. police chief bent rules to get Feinstein illegal ‘assault weapons’

Washington Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier seems to think that gun-control laws don’t apply to the liberal elite. The police chief helped Sen. Dianne Feinstein acquire “assault weapons,” which are illegal to possess in the District, for a news conference early this year to promote a ban on these firearms, then tried to cover up the police involvement.

Now, a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals Chief Lanier’s shocking willingness to bend the rules for partisan and ideological purposes.

Lobbyist Chuck DeWitt emailed Chief Lanier on Christmas Eve last year. “Sen. Feinstein has asked us to bring examples of assault weapons used in the worst incidents over the past few years.” The CEO of the Lafayette Group told the chief that the guns would be put on display at a media event and asked, “Could you put me in touch with your person who would have any of these weapons?” Chief Lanier’s response was not turned over.

The rest of the story, including how the police wouldn't allow Senate Republicans to bring a hunting rifle into the Senate is at the following link.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...senator-got-her-guns-for-a-dc-show-an/?page=1

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4

 

[chriscw81]

Unfortunately, not surprising at all.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Agreed Chris. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I can't. It's typical. Just like Michael Moore's bodyguard. Just like David Gregory's high capacity magazine on tv. The rules don't apply to them and they have no qualms breaking them.

 

[ATLDave]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

I'm certainly no fan of Feinstein, but I'm not sure where the violation of law is. Sounds like the police department, which IS allowed to possess those items, retained possession. Much as a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor can handle a piece of evidence in a courtroom that is contraban without taking possession or committing an offense.

Now, I think the question about whether it's appropriate for the chief of police to use their official departmental resources to participate in a purely and expressly political act is a legitimate one. But that seems to happen a lot around gun issues, and, to varying degrees, in both directions.

 

[yzguy87]

Here is another example where we see it's ok for some people to have access to "assault weapons" but not anyone else.

Kinda like when David Gregory from NBC showed a 30 rd mag in DC and nothing came of it.
Here's a link to the story that has a pic of him holding it:
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/bl...=lS_x_05cQevbJwS-JP_Ndg&bvm=bv.53760139,d.b2I

 

[alsaqr]

i'm not surprised that the anti-gun police chief of a major US city co-operated with an anti-gun congresswoman.

 

[improperlyaged]

Criminals don't care about the law. Feinstein is a perfect example.

 

[tyeo098]

And then Ted Cuz was denied the same request!

 

[jbrown50]

Back in January in DC a man saved a little boy from being mauled to death by three pit bulls. The man rushed into his house, grabbed his unregistered 9mm handgun, came back out and killed one of the attacking dogs. A police officer, upon hearing the gunfire, arrived on the scene and killed the other two dogs. The boy was taken to the hospital and is recovering from his wounds. No doubt the kid would have been killed or at least much more seriously injured had the man not intervened.

For his heroic efforts the man had to pay a $1000 fine for the unregistered guns that he had, was forced to move to Maryland, will have to register the guns that are now in police custody before they can be returned to him and will have to pay a lawyer to have the charge expunged from his record.......all this for saving the life of a child with an unregistered Ruger 9mm that was otherwise legal.

Contrastingly.......

A sitting US Senator and three police chiefs conspire to bring what are considered to be machine guns under DC law into DC. They didn't do it for self defense or defense of innocent life. They did it to put on a partisan political show. Absolutely nothing will be done to them due to their political power, connections and partisan sympathy for their misguided cause.

 

[Justin]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

I'm certainly no fan of Feinstein, but I'm not sure where the violation of law is. Sounds like the police department, which IS allowed to possess those items, retained possession. Much as a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor can handle a piece of evidence in a courtroom that is contraban without taking possession or committing an offense.

Sounds to me like we need to close the "guns zip-tied to a board" loophole.



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Cosmoline]

It's always been one law for me, another for thee with these people. Gun control means gun control FOR US. Not for them.

 

[ATLDave]

Sounds to me like we need to close the "guns zip-tied to a board" loophole.

LOL! Yeah, that part struck me as pretty silly.

 

[tyeo098]

Sounds like the police department, which IS allowed to possess those items, retained possession.

They don't think so.

A spokesman for Mrs. Feinstein, Brian Weiss, told me that his office ”coordinated” with the police and that “the weapons were under Washington MPD possession the entire time.”

But when I asked Chief Lanier’s spokesman, Gwendolyn Crump, about the guns, she refused to confirm they belonged to MPD. I followed up the next day with several more questions to Ms. Crump.

 

[jbrown50]

Contrary to popular belief the police aren't allowed to just carry illegal items around with them at their whim for show and tell.

The police can transport illegal or contraband items seized as the result of an arrest or investigation to secure them and for the purposes of using those items as evidence in a disciplinary or criminal proceeding.

Every police department has a process for the seizure and control of contraband and unauthorized items. Everyone on this forum who was ever a police officer knows that.

Obviously a police chief can circumvent that process but for what legitimate reason would they have for doing it?

 

[HOOfan_1]

Obviously a police chief can circumvent that process but for what legitimate reason would they have for doing it?

Police don't make the laws...they can't decide when it is ok to break them either. District Attorney should file charges against the chief.

 

[Schwing]

Agreed Chris. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I can't. It's typical. Just like Michael Moore's bodyguard. Just like David Gregory's high capacity magazine on tv. The rules don't apply to them and they have no qualms breaking them.

I just about peed my pants when I heard David Gregory all red faced and flustered saying "I was trying to prove a point... I wasn't doing anything dangerous or illegal with it!"

I wish he could see the hypocrisy in that statement. None of us do anything dangerous or illegal with our guns/accessories either.

 

[jaytex1969]

This show & tell type of thing has been going on for a long time.

I recall in 7th or 8th grade (early 80's) the police brought a shadow box display of real illegal drugs to our classroom to show us what stuff looked like and briefed us on the laws concerning drugs.

No one seemed to question back then, to my knowledge, whether toting around a display of illegal items was appropriate...

I wonder if the people over on the NORML forums (or whatever they have) are debating the politicizing nature of this type of thing.

What type of litmus test could be established to ensure that our publicly funded service agencies are not supporting a "pro-left" or "pro-right" position when they do these things? It's impossible to please everyone but striving for fair use of public resources ought to be achievable.

 

[ATLDave]

I recall in 7th or 8th grade (early 80's) the police brought a shadow box display of real illegal drugs to our classroom to show us what stuff looked like and briefed us on the laws concerning drugs.

No one seemed to question back then, to my knowledge, whether toting around a display of illegal items was appropriate...

Exactly.

 

[ATLDave]

Every police department has a process for the seizure and control of contraband and unauthorized items. Everyone on this forum who was ever a police officer knows that.

Obviously a police chief can circumvent that process but for what legitimate reason would they have for doing it?

You think that semi-automatic, detachable-mag weapons are contraband to the DC police force? They carry and use them all the time.

The question for the legitimacy of the exercise is valid. It does not appear to be a legal issue.

 

[ChaoSS]

What type of litmus test could be established to ensure that our publicly funded service agencies are not supporting a "pro-left" or "pro-right" position when they do these things? It's impossible to please everyone but striving for fair use of public resources ought to be achievable.

Simple. The job of the police department is to enforce the laws. In some areas they are given funding to do certain things which are supposed to help prevent criminal actions. It is not their job to attempt to influence the law making process, at all.


If those drugs had been legal, and they were trying to convince people that they should be illegal, then there's a problem. If they are working to keep kids from using illegal drugs, then they are fulfilling their mandate.


So, if the police department is using a display of guns to help educate a group of people on what is and what isn't illegal so that the people don't run afoul of the laws, good. If they are showing guns to try to demonstrate that the guns should be illegal, or should not be illegal, there's a problem.

 

[barnbwt]

What type of litmus test could be established to ensure that our publicly funded service agencies are not supporting a "pro-left" or "pro-right" position when they do these things?

Police don't make the laws...they can't decide when it is ok to break them either. District Attorney should file charges against the chief.

When police start exercising too much "discretion" in the execution of their duties (i.e. upholding the law and maintaining order), that is your litmus test. At present, the Natl Parks Service is using its discretion to strain the good will of the citizens that keep (kept ) them funded --especially in DC with it's high quantity of NPS properties. The DC attorney general declining to prosecute Gregory is another (wouldn't be surprised one iota if the AG is somehow wrapped up in this Feinstein nonsense, too*), as is the DC police department extending sympathetic politicians special access to illegal-firearms (wow, does that ever sound shady when you put it that way )

recall in 7th or 8th grade (early 80's) the police brought a shadow box display of real illegal drugs to our classroom to show us what stuff looked like and briefed us on the laws concerning drugs.

No one seemed to question back then, to my knowledge, whether toting around a display of illegal items was appropriate...

Ah, but neither Ms. Feinstein nor David Gregory were demonstrating items in the possession of police officers (or were random teachers trusted to be alone with the shadow boxes? ). Gregory, for certain, possessed that dang thing, and whether it was "on loan" or not changes not the legal violation. Zip-tieing guns to a board negates possession? I'd love to see an ATF opinion letter on that (that'd be a fun letter topic to ask the Tech Branch about, actually).

I'm still irritated that La Pierre or whoever it was on the air with Gregory (live, right?) didn't straight up ask him if he'd filled the magazine with heroine while he was at it , or at least jump up and start shouting "BUT, BUT, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT HERE! IT ISN'T POSSIBLE!" --comedy gold

TCB

*"I'm your side, don't screw this up"

 

[Rock185]

That is certainly some outrageous stuff,I had not seen that particular Feinstein media event. Police Chiefs serve at the pleasure of their political masters. They are not elected by the people they serve. Unless they desire to be unemployed, they are going to be very very careful about taking any position that might offend the politicians who appointed them, in any way, shape or form. That is just a fact of life. As far as firearms are concerned, I believe many Chiefs are very supportive of any and all current firearms restrictions and any further restrictions that their political masters seek to impose. I believe that even here in the Wild West of Arizona, we are seeing more and more evidence of some Chiefs having political attitudes consistent with those of Police Chiefs in the Northeast, such as Chief Lanier. Believe me, nobody is going to charge Chief Lanier, any Liberal/"Progressive" politician, their staff members, newspersons, etc. with any crime related to their anti gun efforts....

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Back in January in DC a man saved a little boy from being mauled to death by three pit bulls. The man rushed into his house, grabbed his unregistered 9mm handgun, came back out and killed one of the attacking dogs. A police officer, upon hearing the gunfire, arrived on the scene and killed the other two dogs. The boy was taken to the hospital and is recovering from his wounds. No doubt the kid would have been killed or at least much more seriously injured had the man not intervened.

For his heroic efforts the man had to pay a $1000 fine for the unregistered guns that he had, was forced to move to Maryland, will have to register the guns that are now in police custody before they can be returned to him and will have to pay a lawyer to have the charge expunged from his record.......all this for saving the life of a child with an unregistered Ruger 9mm that was otherwise legal.

Contrastingly.......

A sitting US Senator and three police chiefs conspire to bring what are considered to be machine guns under DC law into DC. They didn't do it for self defense or defense of innocent life. They did it to put on a partisan political show. Absolutely nothing will be done to them due to their political power, connections and partisan sympathy for their misguided cause.

A fine example of the dichotomy in gun ownership rules/laws.

If I were this guy, I'd hock up a great big one to spit in the eyes of the authorities by simply complying with the registration in order to get my gun(s) back.

Then I'd turn right around and sell/trade them off to buy exact replacements.

But that's just me.

 

[jbrown50]

You think that semi-automatic, detachable-mag weapons are contraband to the DC police force? They carry and use them all the time.

The question for the legitimacy of the exercise is valid. It does not appear to be a legal issue.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Of course DC police officers carry firearms and magazines that would be considered machine guns under DC law for the ordinary citizen. The point is that DC police officers can only carry, in DC, the weapons that they're issued. It is against regulations for a DC police officer to carry a firearm that hasn't been issued or authorized. A change can only be authorized by the Chief of Police. Period.

In the case with Sen. Feinstein, she was able to obtain weapons that not even the rank and file police, including her US Capitol Police, could rightfully possess. The only reason she was able to do this is because the three chiefs of police involved 'abused' their authority in facilitating her.

Of course it was 'legal', but was it ethical?

 

[Zoogster]

Republicans were prevented from brining in a gun to make a pro gun statement. Anti-gun Democrat was assisted in bringing multiple guns to make an anti-gun statement.

This in the legislative capitol, where who gets to make thier statements can influence and determine what laws the entire nation ends up subjected to.