Feinstein Goes After 1st Amendment; Gun Bloggers Beware?

Honey-toned gun rights radio guy Bill Frady got on the blower with me today. He gave me a heads-up on Dianne Feinstein’s attempt to cut the nuts off of bloggers [paraphrasing]. Gotta admit: I hadn’t seen this one coming. Hopefully, I’ll get to see it going. Away. Even though her so-called shield law has made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I reckon only a major, money-motivated push by established media would see the anti-Wiki Leaks law continue its path into law. Would they? Could they? And would TTAG’s rag tag army qualify as “real” journalists under this bone-headed scheme? Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar C says:

    Lawsuits would be filed literally before the ink dried and there is precisely zero chance of the legislation holding up in court.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      That’s what they said in the German Republic, around 1929 but the Nazis had infiltrated the judicial system and later the legislative system

      1. avatar Patriot says:

        And that’s why I respond to anyone that says, “It will never happen here”, with, “there are 6 million or so dead Jews that will disagree with you”

        1. avatar Silver says:

          Too many people see our system as some kind of static truth that can’t be corrupted, like people have to take some kind of “American as apple pie” test before they’re admitted to office. Normalcy bias at its worst.

  2. avatar Not So 1337 says:

    Stuff like this makes me think I need to join the ACLU right after I join the NRA.

    1. avatar Patriot says:

      And yet the ACLU would love nothing more than to dispose of your 2A rights.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        I was a long time ACLU member. The fact that they see part of the bill of rights as “collective rights” convinced me they are the worst thing that ever happened to all of the bill of rights.

        My dad was from a soviet satellite country. All those captive countries, and the USSR itself had constitution with the “same” rights as we have in the USA. The communist constitutions guaranteed assembly, free speech, due judicial process, etc. The thing is they were conditioned on “collective interests.”

        You can have complete and totally tyranny once you collectivize rights. The ACLU should be ashamed.

      2. avatar joe says:

        I hate the ACLU for their stands on abortion,protecting pedophiles,banning the mention of a Creator in the public square,etc.However,the Rhode Island ACLU actually opposed a gun registration bill as being a violation of the Heller decision because there was a charge associated with such registration ($100 per gun!!) and a requirement to advise the police when changing the registration address-kind of like East Germany.

    2. avatar Ted says:

      Q. How does the ACLU count to 10?

      A. 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

      The ACLU sees “no civil liberties issues” regarding the second amendment. Post-Heller, they may be reconsidering the issue, but make no mistake. They are not on the forefront of defending our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      The GOA, NRA, and the 2nd Amendment Foundation are doing the heavy lifting regarding 2A rights.

  3. avatar disthunder says:

    Congratulations watchdog and free speech groups- you done got drafted into the war on Feinstien.

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      Reinforcements are always welcome.

    2. avatar Bruce L. says:

      And she has 8 more of the Bill of Rights to go.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        She has been taking chips at the 4th, 5th and 9th. Remember, she backs the NSA and IRS going rogue.

  4. avatar RobGR says:

    Makes perfect sense, eliminate 2A and then proceed to limit and then eliminate 1A. Control all media, control the message, control the people. Full compliance considering 4A and 5A have been suspended. Welcome to the future America, are you paying attention yet? Nope, thought not.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      As are the others in the Bill of Rights, these are natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights that belong to the people, not rights that are granted to the people by the government.

      As soon as any branch or level of government believes and is allowed to make any list that determines which citizens, under which circumstances, may exercise those rights, and devises means tests and licenses and taxes to determine when and how much you can exercise those rights THEY ARE NO LONGER NATURAL RIGHTS, but become by default rights granted (or taken away) by the government.

      Have any of these people actually read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America which they have (and in Feinstein’s case MANY times) sworn an oath to defend? I took that oath when I joined the Army and I was pretty sure I understood it so it can’t be that tough.

      “Congress shall make no law…” and “…shall not be infringed.” These injunctions seem very straightforward to me and any senator or congressman who even proposes such should be subject to immediate recall. If the Congress can write a law that lists the official qualification a citizen must pass before being allowed to exercise free speech in any medium then the government is the sole arbiter of who can and cannot exercise free speech.

      If Congress can write a law that taxes gun purchase and ammunition and requires a citizen to pass a government dictated qualification test before they can exercise their right to keep and bear arms then it is the government who decides who can and cannot exercise their RKBA.

      This is the EXACT opposite of the purpose of creating the Bill of Rights and it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged!

    2. avatar Patriot says:

      @RobGR I’m sorry, what were you saying? Too busy watching Miley twerk a teddy bear.

  5. avatar Howdy says:

    The government, or feinstein does not get define what is or isn’t newsworthy or credible. Stop the erosion of our rights. Vote people like this out. She’s out of touch and is looking to create a legacy. Deny her like you would a cockroach covered anything.

  6. avatar William Burle says:

    Ex-NSA chief Hayden said this weekend he wants a “Chinese-style Internet”.

    THE WAR ON 1-A is FULL-ON.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Gen. Hayden should be tried for treason in his role in rogue activities at the NSA and lying under oath. He should be busted to recruit and sent to Ft. Leavenworth to crack rock for 10 hours a day.

  7. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:

    I say Term Limits for ALL Legislators.. NO career politicians.

    1. avatar Bryan says:

      +10,000

      Starting with Feinstein. Unlike the Amendments she’s trying to circumvent, her time has past.

      1. avatar Patriot says:

        And yet this b!tch lives on. Like a d@mn cockroach

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Doesn’t go far enough. We need a cumulative limit on all government employment. 12 years total sounds about right. No more government retirements. No more bouncing from one government job to another. It is time these parasites found honest labor.

      1. avatar jus Bill says:

        And extend the govt-to-industry-to-govt “revolving door lockout” from six months to 10 years.

      2. avatar Ted says:

        While a good idea, we would see “privatization” of our entire government to insure that the powerful continue to get paid to do the work of government.

        Take a look at the revolving door that is the FCC. Everyone of those monkeys leaves the FCC and are immediately employed by the very companies they were regulating.

        Now that I think about it, it’s already happening in almost every other regulatory agency.

        We’re screwed.

  8. avatar Roadrunner says:

    It’s as if they thought they were elected to violate the Constitution.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      Bingo!

  9. avatar Keith M says:

    The 1st Amendment applies to everyone, not just those they choose.

    On one end of the spectrum there is Einstein, on the other end of the spectrum there is Feinstein.
    The only difference is a big fat F which represent Failure or whatever else that begins with an F.

  10. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Hey I’m all for term limits on all politicians get em in then get em out of politics before they go power mad or bat shit crazy but what politician would vote themselves out of a job??

    1. avatar Geoff says:

      The kind you would want to vote in there in the first place. Those that are there as a service to the country and their co-citizens. The ones that are not there for the power….

      1. avatar Rambeast says:

        This is the difference between politicians and statesmen.

    2. avatar Jeremy says:

      Look up Fred Thompson. He advocated for a two term limit for senators. After he served two terms, he put his money where his mouth was and didn’t run for re-election.

  11. avatar Chas says:

    Elitist bitch.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    So, let me get this straight. Mainstream running-dog lackeys of the Democrat Party = protected class. Independent bloggers who tell the truth = enemies of the people.

    Ibsen wasn’t a playwright, he was a prophet.

    Is that pretty much it, or did I miss something?

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      Ralph you got it, in order to report anything you need papers or some such nonsense..
      George Orwell is looking more and more of a Nostradamus every day..

      1. avatar ensitue says:

        Papers controlled by Fienstien, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and any number of Progressive ash-hats

      2. avatar Jürgen says:

        In Yugoslavia, if you wanted to write a critical article for some newspaper, you first needed to run it by your local police station. History tends to repeat itself.

  13. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    So if I have a blog, no professional background but spend hours doing research and due diligence, I can’t do that or I don’t have the same protections in my freedom of speech? Dah Fuq????

    I really want to apologize to everyone. I did not vote for her, and am so ashamed to be from the same state as her…

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      Ha! It’s not your fault, it’s the damn several million other gun owners who’ve been asleep at the wheel for 20 years.
      If I win that Powerball, I’m going to build a ranch out here in Utah for all of you AI stuck in enemy territory to come retire to. Fight while you can, what you can, but just remember there’s several states within a days drive full of friendlies.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Frankenstein is again calling for more gun control before all of the facts are even out on today’s shooter.

  15. Remind me again: is it not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to protect the 1st Amendment????

    1. avatar jus Bill says:

      View the Second Amendment as the protective mechanism for the other articles.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “And would TTAG’s rag tag army qualify as “real” journalists under this bone-headed scheme?”

    And this is why we need freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Otherwise, a tyrannical government only “qualifies” entities that will do their bidding.

    What amazes me is how the masses fail to see that the First Amendment compliments the Second Amendment and vice versa.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      If you want some good reading, click on the “shield law” link in this post (takes you to a Los Angeles Times article) and read the comments. It is hard to find one that is not scathing. Methinks the masses might just be starting to wake up in the once good old U.S. of A.

  17. avatar gloomhound says:

    Everyone that can’t afford their own lobbyist needs to beware.

  18. avatar KAT says:

    DC has some of the most anti-2nd amendment laws in the country, just goes to show the futility of passing more gun laws, Gun free zones need to be overturned, obviously not working!

  19. avatar CarlosT says:

    Another stark reminder that the Bill of Rights is an organic, internally self-supporting whole. No part of it is optional or extraneous, and it all needs to be defended with equal vigor.

  20. avatar Erik says:

    Well, the purpose of credentialing is to give them something to take away if they don’t like what you are saying. The leverage it will give is obvious, and appalling.
    No, I don’t think 2A bloggers will be considered journalists, at least not for long, if anything like this does come to pass.

  21. avatar Newt421 says:

    According to the 14th amendment
    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Shouldn’t we the people be throwing scumbags like Feinstein,Schumer,Obama in prison?

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      This provision only refers to the period from April 1861 until April 1865. It has no bearing after the end of the Rebellion.

  22. avatar benny says:

    Ha! Come at me, feinstein.

  23. avatar Gerry Nance says:

    O’Grady vs. Superior Court page 36/69
    “We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what
    constitutes “legitimate journalis[m].” The shield law is intended to protect the gathering
    and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no
    workable test or principle that would distinguish “legitimate” from “illegitimate” news.
    Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of
    the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable
    ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of
    government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace.”

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That answers that question. Succinctly too.

  24. avatar jus Bill says:

    Could one of the ladies here please click their ruby slippers so a house would drop on that old bag?

  25. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Ill admit some politicians may vote to give themselves term limits but probably not the ones we’d like to see limited they’d vote against it just like when they vote to give themselves pay raises.

  26. avatar Patriot says:

    The Kunt formally known as “Diane Feinstein”.

  27. avatar tdiinva says:

    I am like a broken record. Here is your civics lesson.

    For a bill to become law it must pass the House and if someone objects achieve a super-majority of the Senate (60 votes) and be signed by the President or have his veto overridden by 2/3 of each House of Congress. Like the gun control bills this one has zero chance of becoming law.

  28. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    They want to only apply to the “media”. Only the ones that are part of the lap dog drive by liberals who will do as they say. Only the 2A now can stop the “government” from completely destroying the constitution. In My Humble Opinion.

  29. avatar Don says:

    She’s got a dementia-like fixation on this notion, that constitutional rights should only be exercised via state approved lists, and establishing what she calls “tests” for what is legitimate and what is not.

  30. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    She reminds me of a 50s grandmother.
    Time for you Californians to kick her old wrinkled ass out already.
    Same with New York.
    Is there a camera Chucky hasn’t gotten his fuggle face in front of the last 20 years or so??
    We should have beaten him senseless back in Jr High school.
    A profession dweeb if I ever saw one.
    Those 2 have gots to go already.

  31. avatar Bob7 says:

    Historical precedence tends to indicate that one day she will face justice for her actions. The democrats have this notion that taking away the rights of the American people will pacify them. It won’t. It will simply intensify the resolve of the American people to fight back. Surely, the democrats have read a history book before. They have to understand that they are standing near a powder keg and carelessly lighting matches. Why would they do this when they know they are risking everything for just a few minutes of political power? Their self destructive psyche just doesn’t make sense.

  32. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Would you, could you, shoot a hog?
    Would you, should you, buy from SOG?

    I could never shoot a hog, and I would never buy from SOG, but I should gladly gag a blog…

  33. avatar Anonymous says:

    “The Senate Judiciary Committee approves a media shield bill to keep ‘real reporters’ from having to testify on their work.”

    “But the new legal protections will not extend to the controversial online website Wikileaks and others whose principal work involves disclosing “primary-source documents … without authorization.”

    Sure. Because real reporters shouldn’t be reporting the truth. No. We need to keep real reporters from having to testify on their work… this way, they can make up whatever crap they feel like and call it “news.”

    “Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “Thanks to important bipartisan compromises, we’ve put together a strong bill that balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”

    So… not really free then. Right? Freely restricted? Right?

    “It is essential that all Americans take the time to honor and remember those individuals who gave their lives in defense of our liberty. – Charles Schumer”

    What a liar and hypocrite. What lemmings New Yorkers are to continually reelect him again and again.

    “But the bill also makes it clear that the legal protection is not absolute. Federal officials still may “compel disclosure” from a journalist who has information that could stop or prevent crimes such as murder, kidnapping or child abduction or prevent “acts of terrorism” or significant harm to national security.”

    So… it doesn’t really do anything then? It protects them in special cases… sure. What a waste of time and my hard earned tax dollars.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      As differentiated from offline websites…?

  34. avatar pak152 says:

    just shows how much the liberal/progressives hate the blogosphere

  35. avatar RKBA says:

    Mr Farago, with all due respect, you frequently blog about things you didn’t see coming, most of which many of your readers (and contributors) have previously warned you about.

    Keeping this in mind, allow me to remind you that each of these events, while significant in their own right, are collectively providing the groundwork and fuel for a civil war, right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

    The sheer number of elected ‘public servants’ who work tirelessly to erode their constituents constitutionally protected civil rights is beyond reprehensible. Where our founding fathers alive today, these politicians would already be hanging in the streets.

    The NRA is a joke. They barely tow the line, just keeping their head above water, claiming a small (and usually meaningless, eg Colorado Recalls) victory now and again, while continuing to loose the big picture war.

    We The People’s civil rights (not just the second amendment) are all dying slow painful deaths before our very eyes, and quite truthfully, the only real and meaningful correction remaining can be taken from a Thomas Jefferson quote:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

  36. avatar Andy says:

    In most instances the big money owns the judges,no matter what is said,that is how it is,whoever pays the most gets their win.That is what this country has turned into,corruption in its highest!Just like the money the lobbyists pay Capital Hill,it is unaccounted for,by law,that was passed by the same folks that recieve the money by the crooks on Capital Hill,so that means they ok’d legal bribes.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  37. avatar Geoff says:

    What these people are trying to do to the constitution is straight up TREASON. They should be treated a TRAITORS to the nation.

  38. avatar Saul Feldstein says:

    The anti gun maniacs were in full blown bugeyed mode last night, with Piers MorGOON leading the pack, getting a libtarded doctor to say “ban the guns, put my trauma center out of business.” Doctor Quack seems to think the only trauma injuries come from gunshots, and car accident and other victims of trauma are imaginary. This is the kind of sick depravity that this liberal marxist crowd revels in, they love these mass shootings so they can tear their chests and plead for gun control. They were a little hasty with their zealotry, since this Naval shooter STOLE his AR15 from a Navy guard, but hey, when did facts ever get in the way of the liberal agenda? By their logic all LE should be disarmed of their AR15s and Glocks because someone might steal it and cause trauma that doctors do not want to treat. Obamaville just gets brighter and brighter on the shining hill of idiocracy.

  39. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Feinstein and the other witches in her covey from Kalifornia are living proof that they shouldn’t be a part of the United States anymore.

  40. avatar jwm says:

    I actually see this move on difi’s part as a good sign. The progs were no doubt planning on going after 1a once they had 2a crushed. Becoming desperate at being unable to crush 2a she prematurely launches the campaign against 1a. Tipping her, and the progs, hand in such a fashiobn as to be unable to ignore. difi, barry and slow jow, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

  41. avatar Gerry Nance says:

    This article is not about 2A guns, it’s about your rights to gather information, take photos/video, and protect your unpublished information before publication and to shield the sources of your information after publication. 1A protects Freedom of Press and by default the gathering of news. 1A protects the right to petition for redress of grievances and by default the gathering of evidence proving government misconduct. 14A protects privileges and immunities of citizens.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Wow, and we thought the article was about aspects of the 1st Amendment.

  42. avatar Blue says:

    The Wicked Witch of the West rides her broom again and again and again . . ..

  43. avatar Todd says:

    HHHHHHHHHHHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Profession qualification!!!???? Where does that leave you???!!!! You dried up piece of human excrement!!!!!! You are not qualified to even be human. Please leave the planet as soon as possible, you miserable excuse of a hag.

  44. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    They are attempting to kill any web service not affiliated with a news wire service and in process kill free speech by anyone with a Blog with a dissenting voice. If you agreed you wouldn’t be noticed.

  45. avatar NavyRetGold says:

    This woman (and I use the term loosely) is about as close as I can come to to the definition of “shit-for-brains” without mentioning Michele Obama.

  46. avatar NavyRetGold says:

    If, however, you desire an illustration of the term “bat-shit-crazy”, look no further than Nancy Pelosi.

  47. avatar NCG says:

    I, too, hate DiFi. She, like most politicians on both sides to the aisle, is a tool of the authoritarian national security state. She is a hawk on pretty much every foreign policy issue. She is a supporter of drone strikes and secret torture prisons. She is an elitist who wants to carry a gun for her own protection, but doesn’t want you to have that right.

    She is, basically, a typical Conservative.

    Please understand that this matter of defining who’s a “journalist” is aimed squarely at populist and left-wing outlets – Anne Coulter is totally safe. Glenn Greenwald, maybe, though his partner was recently held for 9 hours by British security. The guy filming with his cell phone as the cops beat someone to death is fair game. This is totally a response to the Arab Spring and the subsequent Occupy movement, where citizens with cell phones were able to document all sorts of authoritarian abuse.

    As I say all the time, we need to get over this partisan bullshit, and agree about the real threats to our freedom.

    1. avatar RKBA says:

      “She is, basically, a typical Conservative.”

      What?

      1. avatar NCG says:

        I should have said Neo-conservative – the hawkish, elitist, we’re-going-to-spy-on-you-for-your-own-good, secret torture, Dick Cheney kind, not the Libertarian kind that is so prevalent now that there’s a president that conservatives really don’t like.

        One thing she is not is a Liberal or a Leftist, any more than Dick Cheney is a Libertarian or a safe hunting companion.

  48. avatar Pat says:

    Never vote libtard (democrat) again.

  49. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Feinstein, McCain and so many others have totally lost it, time to find replacements for these drones…

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Don’t forget Dingy Hairy Reid. He is suffering from dementia. If Nevada has the recall, I wish they would use it and get him in a home for public safety.

    2. avatar Pat says:

      While McCain was not my first choice for prez, at least he aint no libtard (democrat) who tries to ban guns.
      Never vote libtard (democrat) again.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Juan McCain would have been better than Barry. However, old Juan backed the Manchin-Toomey gun registration scheme.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email