{"id":34558,"date":"2013-03-14T12:12:23","date_gmt":"2013-03-14T16:12:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=34558"},"modified":"2013-03-14T12:37:14","modified_gmt":"2013-03-14T16:37:14","slug":"judiciary-committee-approves-feinstein-weapons-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=34558","title":{"rendered":"Judiciary Committee approves Feinstein’s weapons ban"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Washington Post<\/a> reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Dianne Feinstein’s Scary Black Rifle Ban on a party-line 10-8 vote. Apparently, Ted Cruz and Feinstein had a heated debate;<\/p>\n

Speaking directly to Feinstein, Cruz asked: \u201cWould she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?\u201d<\/p>\n

Visibly angry, Feinstein shot back.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not a sixth grader,\u201d she said. \u201cI\u2019m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I\u2019ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here’s a video of the exchange;<\/p>\n