The truth about Feinstein and Boa Constrictors

[LinuxUser]

Ok, if you have been following the "Five hunters" (up to six now actually) thread below, you'll see that there was a vigorous discussion about Sen. Feinstein and boa constrictors.

The "urban legend" is that someone menaced then-Mayor Feinstein with a boa constrictor, and she had them banned as a result.

The conclusion of that thread: Constritors are in fact banned in SF, and were banned since 1978. I found a reference in the San Francisco Bay Guardian saying that this was because Feinstein was menaced by a snake, but I couldn't find any other references to it anywhere, and it does sound like an urban legend.

I don't have access to Nexus or I would do a search of the SF Chronicle and Examiner. However, I have other sources.

Following is the text of a letter I have sent to Sen. Feinstein today:

----------------
Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am a participant in a liberal/Democratic on-line discussion group called Democratic Underground (www.democraticunderground.com). As is common with these on-line groups, vigorous discussions over minor points come up all the time. One such point has come up, and it revolves around you and something that may or may not have happened in San Francisco 25 years ago, during the time when you were prominent in the City government.

As you may be aware, there has been an “urban legend” going around that goes like this:

Boa constrictors are illegal in San Francisco because once someone threw a boa constrictor into Feinstein's car and she get them banned.

We did some fact checking. We saw this same “urban legend” repeated on the website of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, a liberal-leaning free weekly which you are no doubt aware of. The SF Bay Guardian should have journalistic fact checking for all their statements, but we couldn't find any other sources to confirm it, which makes us suspicious, to say the least. We did confirm that constrictor snakes are in fact illegal in SF, and they were banned in 1978, a time during which you had considerable power in City politics.

So, we would like to either dispel or confirm this story, once and for all. I am posing to you three very specific questions, which I hope you can address clearly and fully.

1.During the time in which you were active in SF politics, did anyone menace you with a snake? If so, please tell us when that happened, and what type of snake (if you know), and any other details you would like to share with us.
2.When the code banning constrictor snakes was added to the city codes, did you support it or oppose it? I'm not sure if you were mayor or just a supervisor at the time; if you were supervisor, did you vote for it or against it?
3.If, indeed, you were menaced by a snake as described in 1) above, and you did in fact support the ban as described in 2) above, was your support of the ban motivated by your experience of being menaced by the snake?

I have also submitted a letter to the San Francisco Bay Guardian asking them for their sources. I will be deeply appreciative of your candid answers to the questions above.

Sincerely,
----------------

And following is the text of a letter I sent to the SFBG "errors and corrections" dept:

-------------------
San Francisco Bay Guardian Editorial
135 Mississippi St
San Francisco CA 94107

Dear Sir:

I am writing to you to confirm a fact which was presented on your publications website. At this URL: http://www.sfbg.com/Guides/Pets/ the following statement appears:

(And actually, boas are banned in San Francisco. After someone put one on former mayor Dianne Feinstein's car seat, she promptly outlawed them.)

Whether this is true, or urban legend, has come up as a hot discussion topic on the Democratic Underground website, and we would like to get it confirmed, or dispelled. What's the truth? Was Feinstein menaced by a constrictor snake at some point in the 70s? Did she work to get them banned as a result? We can see that the code banning constrictors was passed in 1978, at a time when Feinstein was a supervisor and then a mayor, so the timing fits, but it has the sound of an urban legend and we can't verify it anywhere else.

Please let us know what are your sources on this. Was she ever menaced by a snake? Did she take actions to get them banned as a consequence of being menaced?

Please submit your answer as a letter. However, if you have questions during research or would like to clarify my questions with me, please don't hesitate to contact me at: _________, or ____@_____.___.

We await your answer.

Sincerely,
--------------------

It will take weeks or months to get responses, if I do indeed get any response at all. I promise you that I will post scans of any response I get (with my contact info blacked out, though).

The scientific method at work!

[Bucky]

1. Shoudn't this discussion be in the "Snake Rights & Snake Control" forum?

Right to bear arms doesn't apply to things without arms.

[Squatch]

2. So much for "I don't care"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x93611#93706

[TwilightZone]

3. I think this qualifies as the biggest

waste of time I've ever seen.

An item's appearance on one web site, in a seven-year-old article no less, does not make it true. Were this truly an "urban legend", I'd expect it to show up - debunked or otherwise - on urban legend websites, such as http://www.snopes.com.

It does not. My guess is that the author made it up. The fact that you cannot find it anywhere but that one article makes it rather suspect, don't you think?

[iverglas]

4. how cute

We did confirm that constrictor snakes are in fact illegal in SF, and they were banned in 1978, a time during which you had considerable power in City politics.

We can see that the code banning constrictors was passed in 1978, at a time when Feinstein was a supervisor and then a mayor, so the timing fits, ...

Except it doesn't. The timing. It doesn't fit. The timing doesn't fit the allegation that was made and that no shred of substantiation has ever been provided for.

The allegation made was that Feinstein banned boa constrictors when she was Mayor of San Francisco, a position she took up at the end of November 1978, and specifically that she did this because someone threw a snake at her. (I'll accept "put a snake on the seat of her car" as equivalent, if that can be established.)

The fact determined was that the city ordinance in question became effective in mid-February 1978. (What we actually don't know is whether there were any city ordinances that preceded the one in question, which might have been a replacement for a pre-existing rule.)

But them's some cute word games you've got going there. I'm sure that Feinstein's staff will be amused. Whether they'll want to play, I just dunno.

By the bye, "we" didn't see the urban legend in question (if such it is; even that may be too exalted a status for the tale) "repeated" at the website in question. That was the *only* source we could find for it. I'm just not willing to accept you as a source of the claim and your assertion of the facts in question as the first instance of it, and the article you cited as "repetition", I'm afraid.

With all the Feinstein bashing to be found in every nook and cranny of the net, I must say I'm amazed not to see more iterations of this story, despite its obvious implausibility. Implausibility has never been a bar to such wild and woolly allegations, in my experience. Hell, there are some who purport to quote Gandhi against firearms control, fer fuck's sake, eh? Talk about yer implausible ... or yer disingenuous ...

[LinuxUser]

5. Waste of time, yes...

Well, I was certainly taking some liberties with the word "we" in my letters. I represent only myself, and everyone knows that no one agrees with anyone on Internet dicussion forums (I'm sure you agree!), but I wanted to phrase it in a way to get some kind of response hopefully.

And I have seen this "urban legend" repeatedly in various gun forums over the years, so I'm curious if this is nonsense or if there is some basis.

And at this point, this minor issue has been so over-discussed that I really had no alternative but to go all the way with it. I'm mostly in it for the amusement and entertainment value. Ok, I have a strange sense of humor, what can I say. I find minute meaningless things very funny sometimes. It will be funny to me to see what response (if any) my letters get.

Curiosity! Entertainment! Waste of time! None of it matters; Feinstein is going to be a CA senator for a long time, she'll be a gun-banner for all of her life, and this minor fact/myth of Feinstein and the snake won't make any difference to anything. And the snake probably doesn't remember it either.

[Billy Ruffian]

6. Gandhi on firearms

Well, can anyone check out Gandhi's autobiography?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

Found this at http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/index.html

My county library website is not responding right now, so I don't know if we have it here.

[iverglas]

11. hook, line and sinker

Perhaps you thought I didn't know the quotation in question by heart.

Do read the book if you find it. And let us know where you find Gandhi advocating that there be no restrictions on individual possession of firearms.

Meanwhile, see whether maybe you can learn something about the little concept called COLLECTIVE RIGHTS. That was the one that kinda drove Gandhi's entire life work.

This may assist you:
http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi

That's the book in question, his autobiography.

http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi/part5.chapter27.html

This is the chapter in question, the one from which the quotation in question is commonly excerpted by people who wouldn't recognize anything else said by Gandhi if they fell over it.

The recruiting to which Gandhi refers was evidently for soldiers to fight for Britain in WWI.

So I attended the conference. The Viceroy was very keen on my supporting the resolution about recruiting. I asked for permission to speak in Hindi-Hindustani. The Viceroy acceded to my request, but suggested that I should speak also in English. I had no speech to make. I spoke but one sentence to this effect : "With a full sense of my responsibility I beg to support the resolution."

... The one sentence that I uttered at the conference had for me considerable significance. It was impossible for me to forget either the conference or the resolution I supported. There was one undertaking that I had to fulfil while yet in Delhi. I had to write a letter to the Viceroy. This was no easy thing for me. I felt it my duty both in the interests of the Government and of the people to explain therein how and why I attended the conference, and to state clearly what the people expected from Government.

... The other part of my obligation consisted in raising recruits.

Where could I make a beginning except in Kheda ? And whom could I invite to be the first recruits except my own co-workers ? So as soon as I reached Nadiad, I had a conference with Vallabhbhai and other friends. Some of them could not easily take to the proposal. Those who liked the proposal had misgivings about its success. There was no love lost between the Government and the classes to which I wanted to make my appeal. The bitter experience they had of the Government officials was still fresh in their memory.

... We had meetings wherever we went. People did attend, but hardly one or two would offer themselves as recruits. "You are votary of ahimsa, how can you ask us to take up arms ?" "What good has Government done for India to deserve our co-operation ?" These and similar questions used to be put to us.

The Commsioners in every division were holding conferences on the Delhi model. One such was held in Gujarat. My co-workers and I were invited to it. We attended, but I felt there was even less place for me here than at Delhi. In this atmosphere of servile submission I felt ill at ease. I spoke somewhat at length. I could say nothing to please the officials, and had certainly one or two hard things to say.

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had was distasteful to the Commissioner : "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. ...

... I recognize that in the hour of its danger we must give, as we have decided to give, ungrudging and unequivocal support to the Empire of which we aspire in the near future to be partners in the same sense as the Dominions overseas. But it is the simple truth that our response is due to the expectation that our goal will be reached all the more speedily. On that account, even as performance of duty automatically confers a corresponding right, people are entitled to believe that the imminent reforms alluded to in your speech will embody the main general principles of the Congress-League Scheme, and I am sure that it is this faith which has enabled many members of the Conference to tender to the Government their fullhearted co-operation.

If I could make my countrymen retrace their steps, I would make them withdraw all the Congress resolutions, and not whisper "Home Rule" or "Responsible Government" during the pendency of the War. I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire, and racial distinctions would become a thing of the past. But practically the whole of educated India has decided to take a less effective course, and it is no longer possible to say that educated India does not exercise any influence on the masses. I have been coming into most intimate touch with the ryots ever since my return from South Africa to India, and I wish to assure you that the desire for Home Rule has widely penetrated them. I was present at the sessions of the last Congress, and I was a party to the resolution that full Responsible Government should be granted to British India within a period to be fixed definitely by a Parliamentary Statute. I admit that it is a bold step to take, but I feel sure that nothing less than a definite vision of Home Rule to be realized in the shortest possible time will satisfy the Indian people. I know that there are many in India who consider no sacrifice as too great in order to achieve the end, and they are wakeful enough to realize that they must be equally prepared to sacrifice themselves for the Empire in which they hope and desire to reach their final status. It follows then that we can but accelerate our journey to the goal by silently and simply devoting ourselves heart and soul to the work of delivering the Empire from the threatening danger. ...

If we can find one thing in there that today's RKBA-heads would honestly agree with, I'll be, well, amused.

And if anyone wishes to make the argument that Gandhi was arguing, or would have argued, against firearms control in the modern-day US, I'll be vastly amused, but not in the least impressed.

[iverglas]

13. continuing with colonial India

Gandhi referred in his autobiography (quoted above) to the Arms Act, the legislation that actually "depriv<ed> a whole nation of arms".

You'll note that "Act" is capitalized in that snippet. Oh, and you got it right: it's "the Act depriving", not "the act OF depriving a whole nation of arms" ... as, hmm, 2,390 internet sites ... and DoNotRefill ... would have us believe.

http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc039.htm

Memorandum as to Post-war Reforms, signed by 19 Elected Members of the Indian Legislative Council, October 1916

THERE is no doubt that the termination of the War will see a great advance in the ideals of government all over the civilized world, and especially in the British Empire, which entered into the struggle in defence of the liberties of weak and small nationalities and is pouring forth its richest blood and treasure in upholding the cause of justice and humanity in the international relations of the world. India has borne her part in this struggle and cannot remain unaffected by the new spirit of change for a better state of things. Expectations have been raised in this country and hopes held out that after the War the problems of Indian administration will be looked at from a new angle of vision. The people of India have good reasons to be grateful to England for the great progress in her material resources and the widening of her intellectual and political outlook under British rule, and for the steady, if slow, advance up to date.

... Apart from this question of the constitution of the Legislative and Executive Councils, the people labour under certain grave disabilities which not only prevent the utilization but also lead to the wastage of what is best in them and are positively derogatory to their sense of national self-respect. The Arms Act, which excludes from its operation Europeans and Anglo-Indians and applies only to the pure natives of the country, the disqualification of Indians for forming or joining Volunteer Corps and their exclusion from the commissioned ranks of the army, are disabilities which are looked upon with an irritating sense of racial differentiation. It would be bad enough if these were mere disabilities. Restrictions and prohibitions regarding the possession and use of arms have tended to emasculate the civil population in India and expose them to serious danger. The position of Indians in India is practically this, that they have no real part or share in the direction of the government of the country and are placed under very great and galling disabilities, from which the other members of the British Empire are exempt and which have reduced them to a state of utter helplessness.

... We feel that we should avail ourselves of this opportunity to offer to the Government our humble suggestions as to the lines on which these reforms should proceed. They must, in our opinion, go to the root of the matter. They must give to the people real and effective participation in the government of the country and also remove those irritating disabilities as regards the possession of arms and a military career which indicate want of confidence in the people and place them in a position of inferiority and helplessness. Under the first head we would take the liberty to suggest the following measures for consideration and adoption:

... 11. The right to carry arms should be granted to Indians on the same conditions as to Europeans.

...

From: A. Berriedale Keith, ed. Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 1750-1921. Vol. III. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922, 116-124.

[iverglas]

16. and some more about that Arms Act

http://www.sikhcybermuseum.org/history/ShahidGanj1935.htm

On 2 December the government passed a general restrictive order under Arms Act, 1878, banning the carrying of swords and kirpan. The Sikhs resented the restriction on kirpan which was, one of their religious symbols, and launched an agitation against the ban on 1 January 1936. The ban was withdrawn on 31 January 1936.

and what the successors to those Sikhs have to say today:

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082003/guns_and_huns.htm

Next month, the international community will gather in New York to assess the changes in the small arms situation throughout the world for the first time since they agreed upon a Programme of Action (PoA) in 2001 to combat the proliferation of these armaments. The meeting will review what actions governments have taken to implement the global, regional and national commitments they made two years ago at the UN Small Arms Conference. However, the PoA provides no international mechanism for monitoring compliance, and the UN's role has been limited to compiling information submitted by states on a voluntary basis. For that reason, much of the responsibility for reporting on states' actions or inaction has been taken up by civil society. One NGO that has played a key role in this issue, South Asia Partnership International, headquartered in Colombo and directed by an Indian, Dr. W. James Arputhraj, recently completed a comparative analysis of the national gun-control laws in each of the five South Asian countries, to see where a coordinated approach to dealing with the region-wide small arms menace could be facilitated. The study reveals a situation typical of the commonalities and diversity of the subcontinent; small arms affects each country in a different way, but the whole problem could be dealt with at the regional level if the five mistrustful governments could just find the political will to coordinate and cooperate.

General Nature of Small Arms Problem

Why are small arms such a big problem? In terms of human impact, they are the real weapons of mass destruction, posing a direct threat to the security of individuals and to the development of nations, during times of war and peace: ...

Throughout South Asia, small arms effect the same consequences as listed above. What varies across the region is what brings them into the hands of those who use them. Apart from the major theatres of conflict, illegal arms and private ownership is widespread in several areas. Non-State actors are getting hold of government weapons and re-exporting them to armed groups fighting in other countries. Even those legally allowed to carry arms, like security guards, are profiting during their off-duty time by renting their weapons to underworld criminals. The possession of small arms by politicians is a growing problem across the subcontinent, whether to intimidate opponents and voters or to protect themselves, and is posing a serious threat to the democratic process itself. Voters, particularly from marginalized groups, including women, are increasingly afraid to exercise their right to vote or express their opinions.

. In Bangladesh, most of the weapons in circulation are those that were not collected after the 1971 independence war. As Bangladesh is a major transit route for drugs from South-East Asia, traffickers have amassed extensive arsenals of firepower to protect their goods: Transit routes have thus now become end-users.

. In India, all possible problems associated with the proliferation of small arms seem to be found: Illegal manufacture, theft of State arsenals, licensing loopholes, lax enforcement, cross-border smuggling, political violence, unregulated private security and even a movie culture that often glorifies firepower and revenge. The result is that the availability of firearms to the largest population in the region is extremely high.

. In Nepal, a history of stringent control of citizens and their activities by both the Government and the Monarchy has resulted in a lesser degree of proliferation in this country compared to its other neighbours on the subcontinent; nevertheless, the Maoist insurgency, organized crime and the political elite are the main source of weapons in the Kingdom.

. It is in Pakistan that the degree of proliferation of small arms is the highest in South Asia. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US arming of the Mujahedeen brought millions of firearms and light weapons into the entire region. The much smaller amount of in-country movement of arms that comes from the centuries-old indigenous rifle manufacturing cottage industry in the north-west tribal areas of Pakistan is not under the jurisdiction of the Government, and therefore cannot be licensed or taxed.

. The primary source of small arms proliferation in Sri Lanka has been the civil conflict, and even though a ceasefire is now one year on, the circulation of weapons will continue to be a security threat for a while. Meanwhile, it has now become common practice for politicians to raise private armies to literally fight elections for them; and, the generous funding these mercenary armies receive are drawing government soldiers to join their ranks. Finally, all smuggling from outside Sri Lanka comes by sea routes, and coastal patrols are lacking.

Now ... is someone going to seriously suggest that a modern-day Hindu Gandhi would not be agreeing with his modern-day Sikh counterparts when it comes to the need for measures to regulate the possession of firearms?

Back to our 1878 Arms Act, from the same source:

- The unlicensed cottage arms industries could be strictly regulated and face stiff penalties for selling arms to unauthorized buyers. However, the carrot approach of recognizing the economic reasons why they produce arms and offering them alternative incentives would probably work better than the stick. For example, government manufacturing operations could be dismantled and the domestic producers could be designated the official small arms-makers for the State; or, alternate employment, such as being given the task of collecting and destroying weapons, could be offered to them; ...

Four of the five countries have a common legislative history arising from colonial rule: The Arms Act of 1878 stipulated the rules for manufacture, conversion, sale, import, export, transport, possession, licensing of and penalties relating to arms, ammunition or military stores throughout the British-ruled subcontinent. Today, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have each amended that base legislation to their unique social and cultural evolution. Interesting comparisons among them emerge in each of the main categories of small arms control:

... . Licensing: India's liberal approach of reducing the bureaucratic inconveniences to obtaining gun licenses has singled it out as the only country in the region where a police report is not absolutely necessary for the issuing of a permit to own a locally-manufactured firearm. The Government of Sri Lanka, on the other hand, is planning to put a moratorium on the issuing of licenses for small arms altogether.

... The five governments of the region would do well to remember the lessons of history and the fate of the Hun leader Mihirakula, by realizing that the greater threat, to their own power as well as to the human security of their people, comes not from whichever neighbour has the most hi-tech arsenal, but from the real weapons of mass destruction wielded by their own citizens and the reasons why they have them in the first place.

Of course, the authors aren't proposing that problems along the path of democratic development be solved by blasting away with guns -- they're not joyful about the weapons of mass destruction wielded by citizens against their governments. They prefer to see democratic development proceed without the threat of violence against one's opponents.

Damned if I don't think Gandhi would agree, and would have agreed, that the use of weapons against a government at the discretion of any individual or group is and was unacceptable.

Collective rights, you see. That's what he was on about. The right of A PEOPLE to self-govern. Not the right of a few people to use firearms to get their own way.

[goju]

18. Sure glad I dont live in India

:) I like our constitution, and it seems to have worked nicely for a couple hundred years.

[iverglas]

20. y'know, I'll bet

I'll bet you thought you were saying something that had something to do with something that someone else had said.

How sad.

Of course, I'd be just as likely to bet that you didn't think any such thing, but said what you said anyway.

How equally sad.

[goju]

22. Uh huh

And I bet you thought you made some sense there, but Im equally sure you failed miserably! :shrug:

[iverglas]

26. try this

The information I posted in this series was largely about the Indian Arms Act OF 1878.

You responded to the last post in the series by saying you are glad you don't live in India. Meaningful, if you have a time machine.

Perhaps you were responding to the information in that last post in the series ... although given that your "response" is time-stamped 4 minutes after the last post in the series was posted, I kinda doubt it. I don't think that something written in response to something that the writer hasn't read qualifies as a "response".

No wonder you didn't know what I meant, eh?

But heck, perhaps you really did read the info in that post in 3 minutes. Perhaps you really were responding to what it actually said about India -- the only thing that this could conceivably be being this:

India's liberal approach of reducing the bureaucratic inconveniences to obtaining gun licenses has singled it out as the only country in the region where a police report is not absolutely necessary for the issuing of a permit to own a locally-manufactured firearm.

Huh. In India, you would not need a police report to get a permit to purchase a locally-manufactured firearm. In the US, you would need one of those NICS things before you could buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, at least.

And you're glad you don't live in India ...

Go figure. I could, but I have work to do, so you'll have to let me know what you make of it.

[goju]

29. You just dont get it, do you?

The information you posted was in support of Ghandi's stance on gun control, and India has adopted "relatively" lax gun licensing procedures, meaning sometimes a police report is not necessary for obtaining "locally-manufactured firearms". Am I right so far? :)

See if you can stew on this; Im glad I live in America, where our constitution guarantees that I wont ever need a license to own a gun, wont need police permission to own a gun, regardless of where that gun is manufactured, and regardless of who thinks otherwise. Is that simple enough for you?

Perhaps you think you are the first to post the history behind the Ghandi quote. More's the pity. Do you know what ad nauseum means?

[iverglas]

34. nope

The information you posted was in support of Ghandi's <sic> stance on gun control, and India has adopted "relatively" lax gun licensing procedures, meaning sometimes a police report is not necessary for obtaining "locally-manufactured firearms". Am I right so far? :)

You blew it in the first bit of the first sentence. I hope that means I don't have to read the rest ...

I have said precisely fuck all about Gandhi's stance on firearms control. I don't have a clue what it might have been. I doubt that anybody else really does, either. I don't think it was an issue in his time, or in his mind, so I doubt that he even really had a "stance".

Im glad I live in America, where our constitution guarantees that I ... wont need police permission to own a gun ... . Is that simple enough for you?

Well, I'd have to say that "simple" might be the right word. "True", or "meaningful", I'd have more problem with.

We'll start with "meaningful". The souce I cited said that in India, a police report is not necessary in certain cases (from which it can be inferred that it is necessary in the others).

"Police permission"? Where the fuck you getting that from, b'ye? Did you actually, ex post facto, take a stab at reading the actual information, but just not do it really well?

So let's pretend that you knew what was actually required in India -- a police report, not "police permission" -- and that you just buggered it up a bit, and were meaning to contrast actual Indian reality to your USAmerican reality.

And your USAmerican reality is that if you want to acquire a firearm from a licensed dealer (and in some places, from other sources, I gather), the dealer has to get something suspiciously similar to a "police report" on you. I mean, you do know that a "police report" is a statement of criminal history, don't you?

Funny how much it looks like a NICS report, and how much that requirement does look like "police permission" -- I mean, from whatever angle you seem to be looking at things.

Oh, and --

Im glad I live in America, where our constitution guarantees that I wont ever need a license to own a gun ... .

-- of course there are all sorts of places in the US where permits are required in order to acquire firearms, as I understand it.
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html

Perhaps you think you are the first to post the history behind the Ghandi <sic> quote.

Perhaps. Perhaps it will snow tonight. Not likely, though.

Perhaps you should address your concerns to the person who posted the quotation in question. Perhaps s/he thought that s/he was the first person to post it. S/he certainly seems to think that I'd never heard it; I mean, I can't imagine why else s/he would have posted it in response to my mention of RKBA-heads with the gall to quote Gandhi in their own support.

And given his/her comment -- Well, can anyone check out Gandhi's autobiography? -- I'm fairly confident that the person in question was completely unaware of the history behind the Gandhi quotation. So there was an opportunity to be of service. I live for them.

Do you know what ad nauseum means?

Well ... no. I do know what "ad nauseam" means, but "ad nauseum", that's not ringing any bells.

Help me out, if you like. I'm as fond of learning as of helping others learn, of course.

[LinuxUser]

37. Police report vs. police permission

He didn't understand the difference. I think the term "police report" has a specific meaning in former British colonies that we don't have here. A "police report" is just a little form signed by some police official that says "so-and-so is not a criminal". It is EXACTLY the same concept as our National Instant Check System (NICS) which we use for the bulk of gun transfers here in the US. It just comes from the police station instead of from a computer system. When you go to buy a gun here in the US and you fill out your instant check form and they run that through the computer, they are simply getting what would be called a "police report", which is not at all the same thing as "police permission". When you go to your Chief of Police in a town here in California and ask for a concealed carry permit, then you are asking for permission, and that's why it's hard to get in most cities here.

Last time in India I saw some hunters with modern bolt-action rifles and asked our guide how easy is it to get a gun in India. He said you go through some paperwork and you can get it, but if you don't give some little "gifts" to the right officials it might take a long time. I get the feeling that that's how a lot of things work in India. Also, there is a reference above to "locally-made guns". I think large parts of India are not under much government control so these laws may not be enforced in some areas.

[DoNotRefill]

10. So Ghandi didn't say:

"Among the misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest." ?

[iverglas]

12. there we go, again!

I think I've landed my quota for this afternoon.

[iverglas]

24. in case you miss it --

-- it was an aside in another post of mine -- you're right.

Gandhi DID NOT say "Among the misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest." ... although whatever web site you copied that from seems to be among the several thousand that claim it.

http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi/part5.chapter27.html

Gandhi DID say: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

Voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial. What a notion. Democratic development through public participation. Damn, you'd almost think a Canadian was behind it.

Oh, that's right. Gandhi was seeking the same status for India within the then-Empire as Canada had -- which it now has within the Commonwealth. Funny youse republican empire haters should be so fond of quoting him ...

[Redneck Socialist]

7. I Here-by nominate this thread for...

the Funniest Gungeon Thread of All Time. :toast: It even beats (looks nervously about for the mods) lawn darts on the laugh-o-meter.

I've long held that for shear comedic value the Gungeon is the best forum at DU. It beats the lounge hands down most days.

It remains to be seen how long it takes before another thread will dethrone this one. Not long I'm betting.

[LinuxUser]

8. Thank you Herr Redneck-Socialist

I strive to entertain and amuse, above all other objectives.

But get ready for the sequel to this thread... "Part II, the Ex-Mayor Writes Back"!

[Redneck Socialist]

9. I can hardly wait n/t

[goju]

15. Just think of all the time and resources wasted

Its shocking the lengths some will go to in order to prove themselves. Methinks there are some "issues" needing resolved, then we can tackle the gun control fiasco.

[Wickerman]

41. This WAS a pretty damn good thread 'til you brought up the Lawn Darts

bit.

:argh:

[enfield collector]

14. while you're at it please ask her if she's got a

concealed snake permit as well as her handgun CCW

[goju]

17. Careful now

The Trilateral Commission doesnt approve of such "outings" of one of their members :)

I guess its fairly easy to obtain a CCW when you are a senator or mayor in CA. Too bad everyone else isnt as "special". I wonder is she still packs?

[iverglas]

19. yeah

I guess its fairly easy to obtain a CCW when you are a senator or mayor in CA. Too bad everyone else isnt as "special".

Lucky, I'd say. If everyone were as special as mayors of San Francisco (don't know what senators have to do with it), there'd be a whole lot more dead people than there are.

Anybody want to calculate the homicide rate for said mayors?

[goju]

21. LOL

Lucky, I'd say. If everyone were as special as mayors of San Francisco (don't know what senators have to do with it), there'd be a whole lot more dead people than there are.

Well, Feinstein just happens to be a senator now, FYI. :)

Why would there be more dead people if everyone else were able to obtain a CCW, instead of just the priveleged?

[iverglas]

23. fucking duh, eh?

Well, Feinstein just happens to be a senator now, FYI. :)

And poor iggerant moi didn't know that, I guess.

Perhaps you thought that this answered the question of what relevance her present status has to her being given authorization to carry a concealed firearm when she was Mayor of San Francisco.

It can be so hard to tell what some folks think.

[goju]

25. Yep!

Perhaps you thought that this answered the question of what relevance her present status has to her being given authorization to carry a concealed firearm when she was Mayor of San Francisco.

And perhaps you thought that I was referring to her present status (for whatever reason) when I speculated:

I guess its fairly easy to obtain a CCW when you are a senator or mayor in CA


But, I just dont see where I said anything about her current status, or made any declarative statement about her status, or how it pertains to her ccw.

It can be so hard to tell what some folks think.

Indeed. Maybe actually reading their posts would give you some indication though.

[iverglas]

28. mmm ... no

It can be so hard to tell what some folks think.
Indeed. Maybe actually reading their posts would give you some indication though.

Not in this case, certainly. You talk about it being easy for Feinstein to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm when she is a senator -- you see, following your careful generality, I guess its fairly easy to obtain a CCW when you are a senator or mayor in CA, with I wonder is she still packs? makes it plain you were talking about Feinstein -- and now you say you weren't referring to her present status.

Her present status is the same as the status she had throughout the time she has been a senator, rather obviously. So her present status is "senator". And you referred to her "senator" status. And now you say:

And perhaps you thought that I was referring to her present status (for whatever reason) when I speculated:
I guess its fairly easy to obtain a CCW when you are a senator or mayor in CA

??

Well smack me with a red herring; yup, I did. And do. Because you were.

And you and various of your little chums, while not having the guts to come out and make the claim, or perhaps the work ethic to do what is necessary in order to make a demonstrably true claim, that Feinstein still has a permit / carries a firearm, keep on implying that she does. Why doesn't somebody just write her a nice letter and ask?

[LinuxUser]

32. I already wrote her one letter today...

But I seem to remember that she gave up her permit at some point, with some publicity. She did have one, but according to the various unreliable info I have seen on various gun forums, she doesn't have one anymore.

However, while we're talking about Feinstein and urban legends, there is a follow-up urban legend that says she got rid of the concealed carry permit but used her influence to be made into some kind of Federal marshal, which allows her to carry in any state, own and carry in DC (handguns are banned for mere mortals in DC) and carry on airplanes. I could write her a letter asking about that, but she's as likely to present me with a gold-plated Uzi as she is to respond to that.

Here are some of those threads that mentions it, but none provide evidence that Feinstein has actually done this:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1019598
http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/32739/
http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/1458

And here's a post on the DoJ website that specifically addresses the practice of giving Congressmen this special marshal status, which allows them to pack everywhere, including in DC and on planes:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/depmar.htm

This article states that such special status is confered to a wide range of people, but the writer is saying that the practice should be stopped because it's moronic to make members of Congress into law enforcement officers (I'm paraphrasing here). The fact that this letter was written implies that maybe it was a fairly common thing to do, or it was being done excessively and getting excessive attention. Who knows. No mention of any specific individuals, but this information (on the DoJ site!), together with the fact that Feinstein did have a SF permit and she is a powerful and influential senator, means that there could be some truth to this.

But we'll never know. If there's one thing the DoJ likes, it's privacy... for itself. I think most state CCW permit records are public (you'll find mine in Florida!) but I'm sure that the DoJ rolls of Federal marshals are highly-guarded data.

[goju]

33. Oh how we toil to no avail

It seems your obstinance outweighs your integrity.

Not in this case, certainly. You talk about it being easy for Feinstein to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm when she is a senator -- you see, following your careful generality, I guess its fairly easy to obtain a CCW when you are a senator or mayor in CA, with I wonder is she still packs? makes it plain you were talking about Feinstein -- and now you say you weren't referring to her present status.

Pardon me, but when did I talk of Feinstein obtaining her permit? You see, I merely pointed out the ridiculously obvious observation (to anyone who was actually paying attention) that it is easy for senators and mayors to obtain CCW's while citizens are left unarmed.

Had I intended to discuss Feinstein directly in my statement about the ease with which senators and mayors can obtain CCW's, I would have done so directly, not cloaked in some veil of semantics as another poster here so frequently does. Alas, I made a general statement about senators and mayors being able to easily acquire CCW's, without mentioning when or how Feinstein received her special privelege, or what her status was then, or now. Clear?


And you and various of your little chums, while not having the guts to come out and make the claim, or perhaps the work ethic to do what is necessary in order to make a demonstrably true claim, that Feinstein still has a permit / carries a firearm, keep on implying that she does. Why doesn't somebody just write her a nice letter and ask?

What the hell does "guts" or "work ethic" have to do with a discussion about feinstein's ccw status? :wtf: If you honestly think any reasonable person would care about it beyond simple curiousity, you are sadly mistaken. There is only one person I can think of here who would likely take the time and effort to write her and ask about it, but again, I did say a reasonable person.

[iverglas]

35. you keep saying

these nasty things about poor LinuxUser:

There is only one person I can think of here who would likely take the time and effort to write her and ask about it, but again, I did say a reasonable person.

-- along with the title of the post I respond to, and the title and tenor of this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=93782&mesg_id=93808&page=

and, well, I just think you should stop.

If someone's willing to do the work to back up statements made (or, of course, retract them if they are found to be false, and if no proof one way or the other can be found either retract them or just own them as unsubstantiated statements s/he claims are true, which I don't have much problem with, and actually wish Dan Rather had done), then it just shouldn't bother you all this much, I don't think.

[LinuxUser]

38. Thank you for the compliment Senor Goju

"If you honestly think any reasonable person would care about it beyond simple curiousity, you are sadly mistaken. There is only one person I can think of here who would likely take the time and effort to write her and ask about it, but again, I did say a reasonable person."

I take it from this that you are such a gentleman that you make your compliments in most sophisticated and indirect manner. I thank you. I promise that, if I ever do get a response to Sen. Feinstein about the boa constrictor embraglio, I will then send her another letter asking her to detail her conceal carry permit and US special marshal history. I'm sure she won't respond, but I will write her and ask anyway. She doesn't respond to a lot of my letters. I sent her several letters asking her to vote "no" on the AWB. I sent a letter asking her to sponsor legislation that would repeal the 1986 ban on machineguns. If she would spend as much time reading them and responding to them as Mr. Iverglas does to my posts here, then I would have all kinds of good answers for you.

[LinuxUser]

27. CCW permits are treated as political favors in much of CA

Any time you have some special permit that is discretionary and there is no transparent process for deciding who gets it, it ends up being a political favor. Don Perata, the troubled gun-banner from Oakland, has a permit, too. If I lived in Oakland or SF, could I get a permit? No way, not unless I started making major donations to the police departments there. You have to have connections, money and influence to get them. And Feinstein does have connections, money and influence.

[goju]

30. Many do

Last I heard, half the LA city council had permits. And most state legislators need only to fill in the blanks to get theirs, if they havent already. Shameful.

[iverglas]

31. And hey, she's Jewish too.

You have to have connections, money and influence to get them. And Feinstein does have connections, money and influence.

Do you walk backwards as well as you reason backwards? If so, you probably have a lot of bruises.

If your governments are truly as corrupt as you portray them, you have serious problems and my deepest sympathy.

Demonstration of pervasive corruption in a government does not, however, prove that nothing that the government does is a legitimate and proper exercise of its powers.

Demonstration that someone is connected, wealthy and influential is not proof that s/he is not entitled to anything in particular based on the ordinary criteria that apply. It is also not proof that the connections, wealth and influence are the basis for anything s/he does have.

Does Feinstein have a driver's licence because she is wealthy, connected and influential? Because she's Jewish? She is wealthy, connected and influential, and Jewish. Surely these are the reasons she has or does anything, right?

When will one of you and your pals -- just one, is all I ask -- acknowledge that Feinstein assumed the office of Mayor of San Francisco ONLY because the elected Mayor was murdered by firearm?

When will any one of you address that fact in relation to the criteria that apply to the issuance of firearms permits in the jurisdiction in question? How about in relation to the interest of the people of the jurisdiction in question in attracting and retaining competent and desirable candidates for positions like Mayor?

Perhaps you will say that a known elevated risk of armed attack is irrelevant, and that all Mayors should serve in office for the princely sum of $1 / year, and drive their own VW vans and pay for their own gas.

Please do, if that's what you want to say. The consequences for whatever else you say will then be what they may be and can be shown to be. Otherwise, if you don't want to say that, address the relevant issues.

Or not. I prefer it if you don't, you see. It makes it unnecessary to actually burn any calories to make the points that need making. Res ipsa loquitur does quite nicely for those who simply refuse to speak to the relevant questions themselves.

[LinuxUser]

36. Many questions, many answers

"When will one of you and your pals -- just one, is all I ask -- acknowledge that Feinstein assumed the office of Mayor of San Francisco ONLY because the elected Mayor was murdered by firearm?"

That's right! I acknowledge exactly what you said: the previous mayor was shot with a firearm, and died from it, and Feinstein became mayor.

"When will any one of you address that fact in relation to the criteria that apply to the issuance of firearms permits in the jurisdiction in question? How about in relation to the interest of the people of the jurisdiction in question in attracting and retaining competent and desirable candidates for positions like Mayor?"

I completely agree! Being a prominent elected official is a dangerous job (see below) and absolutely, she is right to carry a gun. As a Jew, she has a duty to God and the Torah to defend herself. I support her right to carry, as long as she does so safely, responsibly and legally, and I have every reason to believe that she does so.

"Perhaps you will say that a known elevated risk of armed attack is irrelevant, and that all Mayors should serve in office for the princely sum of $1 / year, and drive their own VW vans and pay for their own gas."

No way. It's a potentially dangerous job (depending on which city, etc), it's a lot of work, it's difficult, and I sure wouldn't want to do it. Mayors should be paid as the professionals that they are and they should have a safe work environment, and that means that they should be armed if they decide they need to be. The current mayor of SF took a bold position on gay marriage and a lot of people in the country probably hate him for it. I hope nothing happens to him, and I hope he carries, just to be on the safe side.

Actually, elected officials are exposed to a high risk of violence. President of the US is one of the most dangerous jobs there is, with four murders in the past 228 years. I can't think of any job that's that dangerous, except maybe Space Shuttle astronauts or being the guy who is the first to land on the beach during an amphibuous assault.

[Wonk]

39. You have quite a talent for parody. I love it :-)

This is parody, right?

[anonymous44]

40. Lmao this is too funny.

You actually are going to prove it. Well good luck.

[Wickerman]

42. We look to your response with bated breath

Or, down here is it Baited?

In the meantime, this thread is locked, the point beaten to death at a ripe young age.

When you get your response please link back to this thread. You know, for grins and giggles, youse guys should set up a Dianne F. group. I can almost picture the mission statement... :eyes: