Feinstein Competes With Biden For Dumbest Gun Remark

From The Blaze:

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

Let’s start at the top.  “The time has come” is the kind of soaring romantic dictatorial rhetoric that appeals to the “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” nonsense.  “The time has come” is the kind of gibberish that masquerades as prophetic.

The Migratory Bird Act and such are regulations that limit hunting ducks with more than 3 rounds.

This is all absurd, and entirely irrelevant.  I’ll let Dr. Suzanna Hupp explain:

Feinstein’s reload argument is foolish.  She doesn’t mean it, because she, like the rest of the leftists, wants to ban all guns.  This is just some random dude on youtube who’s practiced a bit:

Dr. Suzanna Hupp, if you skip back in the other video a while, notes that it doesn’t take long to drop one magazine and put in a new one.  Defenseless people can’t protect themselves.  The murderer at Virginia Tech used a Walther P22 as one of his weapons of choice – which only comes with a 10 round magazine.

Saving the stupidest Feinstein remark for last:

it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines

-

An Injustice Against The Citizens of Colorado – Citizens Shut Up, Pro-2A Sheriffs Threatened With Fiscal Retaliation

By Sheriff Terry Maketa of El Paso County, Colorado:

An Injustice Against our Citizens

Sheriff Terry Maketa

Monday, March 4, 2013, was unlike any day I’ve experienced in my 12 years testifying at the Colorado State Capitol. During my tenure, I’ve had numerous opportunities to participate in legislative processes from draft proposal to signature of a bill making it law.

I’ve witnessed many hearings and observed citizens, law enforcement, and special interest groups share opinions on a variety of proposed laws. I’ve witnessed very controversial bills set in a process to allow full access from supporters, opponents, and citizens to be heard by their legislators. On numerous occasions, bills similar in nature were set for hearing on different days to ensure opportunity for anyone to participate in the deliberative process. On Monday, this didn’t occur. Instead, gun bills were simultaneously scheduled and of 25 plus sheriffs, only one could testify per bill. Hearings were split so bills heard simultaneously were on different floors, even though all were heard by senate committees. Rules for testimony changed three times from Thursday afternoon through Monday at 10:30 am, when hearings began.

Historically, any citizen would be allowed to speak if they arrived at the Capitol early and signed up on testimony records. Although sign up sheets were in place and citizens including myself signed up, we were completely disregarded. Minutes after I signed up to testify, I learned a different process would be utilized and testimony was based on three categories: experts, preferred witnesses, and public witnesses. No explanation was provided to define expert or preferred witness. I was told this decision was made by the senate president and the chairperson of the hearing committee. Additionally, experts would have no time constraints and all others would be restricted to three minutes. I was completely disheartened at what I was witnessing and this was exacerbated when I learned experts included an individual that was not a resident of Colorado who had no credentials to qualify as an expert except his spouse was a victim of the Tucson Arizona shooting. He admitted he had not read the proposed bill and could not speak to any specifics regarding this bill. He encouraged Colorado to adopt universal background checks and close the gun show loophole, both of which already exist. Sadly, he testified with unlimited restriction as voters and taxpayers of this state sat helplessly as they were denied the right to testify during committee hearings.

My colleague, Sheriff John Cooke, testified in opposition of the “Universal Background Check” bill on behalf of most sheriffs while staying within the three minute constraint. Fortunately, I was allowed to testify because a member of the legislature listed me as an expert witness. I was honored and brought statistics and facts as it related to the national insta-check system (NICS); the probable criminalization of law abiding citizens and the unenforceability of this particular bill. I offered other options knowing we all share the common goal of reducing violence. I was proud to represent my constituents and the majority of our sheriffs. That pride was quickly diminished as I departed the hearing room and witnessed hundreds of citizens who would not be given the opportunity to testify. Although they expressed their sincere appreciation for my comments, I recognized the injustice that was unfolding before my eyes. Citizens of Colorado were prevented from participating in the legislative process. Their rights had been overridden by the agenda of a few members of the State Senate.

As I made my way out of the Capitol, I was shocked at the number of people who attended these hearings. It’s estimated the number of people in attendance reached 1,000. I spoke to several and was told they just wanted their voice to be heard. Many of them had never been to the Capitol, let alone testified on any bill. Some brought their children as a lesson in civics and sacrificed a day at work to participate in the law making process. Unfortunately, what they hoped for never happened.

Due to a prior commitment, I could not stay for the remaining bills. Later, I phoned a member of our legislature and expressed concern for what I had witnessed; changing of rules, time limits, new classification of speakers to establish priority and most of all the number of citizens who made the journey to the Capitol in hopes of being heard. I was told the rules did change several times and that this was very unusual. These changes were driven by the majority leadership, Senator John Morse, and the chairperson of the involved hearing committee.

I am not sharing this because of the outcome of the hearings that day; rather I am sharing this because of the process implemented and the faces of all those citizens that were never permitted to participate in the process. Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people and on this day, they were crushed and kicked to the side. Special interest coalitions and hand picked experts with no relevant expertise trumped our citizens.

To add insult to injury, the following Wednesday, I received an email containing the following language from a member of County Sheriffs Of Colorado: “…I have been advised by a reliable source at the Capitol that the Dems are seriously not pleased with the CSOC positions on the gun bills, and given the potential for a real salary bill to be introduced as you shall see from a follow-up email from” (an unnamed sheriff), “support of SB197 would put us in a more favorable light for salary bill support from the Dems. I do not believe we would be sacrificing our principles or positions on the other gun bills by supporting SB197.” “…Please let us know what you think on this proposal ASAP as I need to get a letter from us to the Senate Dems before the close of business today.” As I see it, senate Dems have made it known, “sheriffs, obey or no pay for you.”

The first word that comes to my mind is extortion. Again, I’m disheartened that the pay of sheriffs is threatened to gain compliance with the majority party leadership. Local elected officials’ pay is set by the legislature as stated in Colorado Law. The previous governor’s process brought the need for a pay increase before the legislature and that legislature is attempting to buy compliance. I have great admiration for my fellow sheriffs; they are true professionals with high morals and principles. Having served with many of them for years, I can say they are men of honor with a passion to serve and do what’s right. I will not speak for them, but I personally will not concede to these threats, stand by while coercive acts such as this go without mention, nor will I compromise my values and beliefs for a justified pay raise based on studies performed by a bi-partisan commission formed by the democrat leadership. To be clear, this salary recommendation would have no affect on me, as I am term limited. Setting salaries is the responsibility of the legislature. This authority should not be used as a tool of coercion, but unfortunately it appears to have become such a device and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

- Sheriff Terry Maketa

Interview here is subsequent to his written piece above:

Feinstein: “I Don’t Intend To Stop” Going After Your Rights

From the Sacramento Bee:

As senator, she led the campaign to pass the original federal assault weapons ban in 1994, but it expired in 2004, and she couldn’t attract enough support for renewal. The massacre of 20 elementary school children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., in December, so shocked and reviled the nation that she is trying again.

…

“This is something I’m deeply passionate about, and I believe it saves lives,” she said. “I don’t intend to stop.”

No, she doesn’t care.  It’s about control.  She believes in guns as defensive tools, for herself.  She believes you should be able to fistfight your rapist, or the gang of home invaders who bash down your door.

“She’s not afraid of guns,” said Susan Kennedy, a political consultant and former Feinstein aide.

After a militant anti-capitalist group called the New World Liberation Front unsuccessfully tried to bomb her house in the 1970s, Feinstein trained to use one.

“I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did,” she told Senate colleagues in 1995. “I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

She understands.  She understands that you need to be dominated and controlled.  She is the Ruling Class, you are the peasant.

In April 1983, Feinstein faced a recall election in her first term as mayor, organized by a communist group that opposed a citywide handgun ban that she had signed.

The ban lost in court, but she won the recall with 81 percent of the vote.

“I don’t think this will stop anyone from filing against me, but I think anyone who does is going to be creamed,” Feinstein said at the time, daring anyone to challenge her in the November election. Again, she prevailed.

Read that first part again.  When even the communists are opposed to your gun bans, you’re so far in the wrong it’s insane.  And of course she won – that’s how the Ruling Class works.

If I could have banned them all…I would have!

- Diane Feinstein, who it’s good to remember is one of those rare people in California who’s a gun owner with concealed carry permit.  Stated on 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995.

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.

- Diane Feinstein on 60 Minutes.

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

- Diane Feinstein

It makes no one feel safe except for the fool who’s never been in danger.  Otherwise Feinstein would never have gotten a gun of her own – if being disarmed made her personally safe, she would’ve done so.  But it doesn’t.  It makes no one safe, except for the tyrant who controls the remaining guns.

We have seen this throughout history time and time again.  What we have seen is the relentless march of dictators and tyrants.  Now we see C.S. Lewis’s warning of the moral busybody tyrants – those who banned alcohol in the 1920s, those who want to ban soda and trans-fats in the 2000s and 2010s.  These are the same people, the omnipotent moral busybodies who believe that you need to be dominated and controlled – and they will dominate you because you need to be crushed under their heel for your own good.

Gun control, as always, is about control.

Chucky Shumer’s Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374)

From TheTruthAboutGuns:

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren’t very good ones. Page 11 starts off the meat and potatoes for those following along at home.

In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:

1. The temporary transfer takes place at the owner’s house
2. The gun can’t be moved from the property
3. The transfer must last less than 7 days

There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I’m reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don’t transfer them as a gift.

There’s also no exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoon on the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.

It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.

The whole bill’s text is here.

Nick Leghorn’s summary at TheTruthAboutGuns covers much of it.

Sebastian at PA Gun Blog has a few more interesting notes he pulled from it:

• If you left town for more than 7 days, and left your gay partner, or unrelated roommate at home with the guns, you’d be committing a felony. This should be called the “denying gun rights to gays act.” Remember that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if you’re state does, thanks to DOMA. 5 years in prison.
• Actually, even married couples are questionably legal, because the exemption between family only applies to gifts, not to temporary transfers. The 7 day implication is if you leave your spouse at home for more than 7 days, it’s an unlawful transfer, and you’re a 5 year felon. I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home. Maybe the Attorney General will decide to create a form for that.
• It would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend to take shooting. That would be a transfer. 5 years in federal prison.
• Steals the livelihood of gun dealers by setting a fixed fee to conduct transfers. The fee is fixed by the Attorney General. What’s to prevent him from setting it at $1000?
• Enacts defacto universal gun registration, because of record keeping requirements.
• All lost and stolen guns must be reported to the federal and local government. This means everyone will have to fill out the theft/loss form, and not just FFLs. You only have 24 hours to comply. If you lose a gun on a hunting trip deep in the woods, and can’t get back home to fill out the form in 24 hours, you’re a felon and will spend 5 years in federal prison.
• UPDATE: Teaching someone to shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted transfer.

With that lost/stolen thing, if you don’t report within 24 hours, you’re a felon.  So if you’ve “lost” a gun somewhere around the house, and it’s simply misplaced (think putting your Ruger LCP in the wrong pants or jacket), you may also be a felon.

Also, there is registration, as Sebastian notes:

(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub
section with regulations.

(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph—

‘‘(i) shall include a provision setting a max-
imum fee that may be charged by licensees for serv-
ices provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and

‘‘(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record
of transaction of any transfer that occurred between
an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee
accordance with paragraph (1).’’

—

They hate your rights, and they’re coming for them.

Asking Democrats: “Why Aren’t You Pro-Choice On Women’s Self-Defense?”

Via HotAir, Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia blows it off and says “next question”:

Note too the loud cheers that erupt when the question is posed.  Clearly, this woman’s concern didn’t come from the fringe, not even among Moran’s constituents.  The question of rape is especially pertinent, since it is primarily a crime of domination and power.  Why wouldn’t we want women to have the ability to change the power equation in these attacks?

The question is answered in there.

It is about domination and power – by the Ruling Class.  No, you can’t have guns – they need to dominate you and have power over you.  No, women don’t matter.  No, children don’t matter.  No, men don’t matter.  No, little people don’t matter.

They don’t want anyone to have the ability to change the power equation when it comes to domination.

Approaching this with the idea that legislators are rational, benevolent servants of the people would mean that his response makes no sense – their actions and words demonstrate that they are not.

They want you dominated by government in every aspect, from arms to sodas.  They are simply tyrants.

Taxing The Natural Right of Self-Defense Out of Existence – It’s Not A Bug, It’s A Feature

Via HotAir:

The latest item/behavior that progressives perceive as a societal vice? Firearms, obviously. Fox News reports that, as a part of the recent wave of gun-control proposals, legislators at both the federal and state level have been floating ideas for sin taxes on guns and ammunition, claiming that the added revenue will be directed toward mental health services, police training, and/or victims’ treatment.

There already is an excise tax on firearms.  From the Treasury Dept:

A. Tax Rates. The tax rates are 10% of the sale price of pistols and revolvers; 11% of the sale price of firearms other than pistols and revolvers, shells and cartridges.

…

C. Definition of Taxable Articles.

• Firearm. Any portable weapon, such as rifles, carbines, machine guns, shotguns, or fowling pieces from which a shot, bullet or projectile may be discharged by an explosive. See 27 CFR 53.11.  (Note — Black powder firearms are taxable firearms).

• Pistols. Any small projectile firearm which has a short one-hand stock or butt to an angle to the line of the bore and a short barrel or barrels, and which is designed, made, and intended to be aimed and fired from one hand. See 27 CFR Section 53.11.
• Revolvers. Any small projectile firearm of the pistol type, having a breech-loading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing. See 27 CFR Section 53.11.
• Shells and cartridges. Any article consisting of a projectile, explosive, primer, and container that is designed, assembled, and ready for use without further manufacture in firearms, pistols and revolvers.

They’ve already done this, they just want to raise it more in order to destroy people’s rights to enjoy the tools necessary for self-defense – against individual oppression or mass oppression.

HotAir lists some of the new taxes proposed, but just imagine the kinds of things you would write if you totally wanted to destroy the right to keep and bear arms.  Imagine what you would do if you wanted to oppress people, to make the poor defenseless and need your government command, to drive self-reliant citizens into crime against your taxes.  Imagine that, and that’s what you’ll find they’re proposing.

Why is it, exactly, that the responsible people who take it upon themselves to bear arms — creating positive externalities in the effort — need to be deterred or punished? I’m with these guys:

But firearms groups say a “sin tax” on firearms wrongly punishes law-abiding gun owners.

Ms. Johnson, that question that you ask and examine operates under the premise that the anti-gun, anti-rights forces aren’t out to get you.  Look at their actions, and examine their lies.  They are out to get anyone who resists them.  They even sometimes outright say it.  They really do mean it.

It’s not about preventing crime, it’s not about protecting good people – it’s about expansion of government power – their personal power as rulers.  They don’t care what anyone who resists them thinks.  The sooner you do away with the notions that these legislators are somehow well-intentioned but misguided and understand that they really do hate guns, they really do hate armed citizens, and they really do think you’re too stupid to live your own life and that they NEED to dominate you, you’ll understand.

That such tyrants existed in the past is unquestioned.  The fantastic notion that tyrants will never again appear is one that exists only in the minds of those who live comfortable, insulated, protected lives.  There is no way to say “it can’t happen here” when you look and can see it is happening.

Colorado Poll: Lots Of Opposition To Gun Bans

From the Weekly Standard:

“Democratic legislators also have to be mindful that even members of their own partisan coalition are conflicted about this proposed legislation.  While only 8% of Democrats oppose all of the gun control measures we tested, 70% of Democratic voters oppose one or some combination of the proposals (either the comprehensive package, the background checks, the liability claim, or the high-capacity magazine ban).”

“These poll numbers prove that Governor Hickenlooper and the Democrats are listening to Bloomberg and Biden instead of Coloradans,” comments state senator Greg Brophy, responding to the poll, in an email to me.

As for Republicans, Autry writes, “Not surprisingly, Republican voters in the state overwhelmingly oppose the comprehensive package (62% say it’s the wrong approach and another 26% say it goes too far), oppose holding manufacturers and sellers legally liable (94% oppose), and oppose the high-capacity magazine ban (85% agree with opponents).  For the most part, the highly politically prized Independent voting bloc also opposes the key gun control measures we tested in this survey.  Fully 69% oppose passing the comprehensive legislation (33% oppose outright, 36% think it goes too far), 84% oppose holding manufacturers and sellers liable, and 55% oppose the high-capacity magazine ban when presented with both sides.  The one area of exception is the proposal to require gun buyers to pay the cost for a background check (51% of Republicans and 69% of Independent favor it).  But, on the whole, Independents are more inclined to agree with Republicans (and gun owners), than with Democrats (and anti-NRA allies).”

The fact of the matter is, Autry writes, most Coloradans don’t think the legislation will make them “safer.” “Importantly, Colorado voters do not believe these sweeping gun control measures will make them any safer.  Two out three Coloradans (65%) say these new gun control laws won’t reduce crime or make the state any safer, while just a third say they will (32%).”

Colorado is saying no, but the tyrants are pretty much deciding to crush the rights of citizens anyway.  They don’t care that the people are opposed, they are the anointed, they have a mandate, elections have consequences, and they’re going to get it the way their betters who rule them in government want to give it to them.

And they may well be gone if they do.

And there “very well could be political repercussions for supporting this legislation, as well.  Nearly half (48%) of voters say they would be less likely to vote for their State Senator in the next election if he or she supports these gun control bills (40% more likely).  There is strong intensity behind this as well – thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters overall say they would be much less likely to vote for him or her.”

Colion Noir Targeted By The Left

Mr. Colion Noir posts that he’s being personally targeted:

There are web sites posting my personal information, my moms address, my dads address, and other family members. Other than to be malicious and put people close to me in danger why would someone do this? These are supposed to be the peaceful people. I crack jokes but never attack people on a personal level. Ironically, now I really feel the need to arm my family and friends. #IsItBecauseImBlack?

For a refresher, he was just hired by the NRA.  And he has an opinion the left doesn’t like.

Oh, and he’s a black dude, so it’s time for the left to turn on the racism full-blast.

-

But he’s still putting out good videos:

The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell

Good post over at Zerohedge by Brandon Smith:

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.

Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.

It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2^nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.

I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2^nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The entire post is a litany of leftist doublespeak and lies, with links to the stories that are critiqued for being fabricated.  It’s well worth reading for the examples given.  Most gun culture folks already understand these things, and the premise of the story, but it’s again nice to see several examples pulled out and used.

The piece ends with this:

If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”. Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.

The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.

Nothing that’s really news, but yet another confirmation thereof with the several examples that make up the body of the story.

Democrats Target Guns That Poor People Can Afford

From the Hill:

A prominent Chicago Democrat will propose legislation this week designed to ban the production of low-quality handguns, known informally as “Saturday night specials.”

Use the whole term, Democrats – just say who you hate:

In his book Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, civil rights attorney and gun scholar Don Kates found racial overtones in the focus on the Saturday Night Special^[16] (“niggertown Saturday night special“). Even gun control advocate Robert Sherrill claimed: “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.”^[17]

This is about going after poor people’s guns and disarming the black man again.

Not a big surprise, considering the racist sponsor:

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is going after the handguns that are used much more frequently by violent criminals — particularly in urban settings like his hometown, where shootings are a daily plague.

Yes, that Luis Gutierrez:

“I have only one loyalty,” he says, “and that’s to the immigrant community.”

That’s the illegal alien community, by the way – not the legal immigrant community.  He’s horrifically racist, to the point where he supports The Race above both people and citizens of all colors; and certainly he has no loyalty to the Constitution he lied his oath to.

Under current federal law, foreign-made handguns that fail to meet certain safety criteria outlined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are not allowed into the United States. In determining whether a handgun is legal for import, the ATF weighs features like firing-pin locks, loaded-chamber indicators, the quality of grip and what type of metal was used in construction.

But the same standards to do not apply to handguns produced domestically. In fact, the Consumer Product Safety Act explicitly exempts firearms and ammunition from its consumer-safety rules.

Those “safety features” are wholly unnecessary, and just tools to stop imports.  “Loaded-chamber indicators”, for example, are meaningless (the first rule of firearm safety is to treat everything as loaded), but they stop certain guns from being imported.  Firing-pin blocks (not locks) aren’t used in some cheaper firearms – which are the ones specifically targeted.

CPSA has to exempt firearms, because just like anything else that has an inherent danger of misuse, allowing for consumer-safety rules would simply make the product disappear.

Critics like Gutierrez counter that current law allows U.S. gun manufacturers to make cheaper guns by using weaker metals and excluding safety features — two practices that can contribute to more accidents and misfires.

“In spite of being widely considered unsuitable for self-defense or sporting, they are very popular crime guns,” Gutierrez said.

Cheap metal doesn’t cause accidents or “misfires”.  Cheap metal doesn’t cause negligence.

There is no such “widely considered” opinion.  The first rule of gunfighting is “have a gun”.

If you’re poor, and all you can afford is a Hi-Point with a zinc slide that looks like a space hammer, then that’s what you can afford.

It’s worth noting that some of the earliest gun control was aimed at poor blacks.  The “Army Navy” laws banned all but the most expensive handguns of the day for freed blacks:

The earliest law prohibiting inexpensive handguns was enacted in Tennessee, in the form of the “Army and Navy” law, passed in 1879, shortly after the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1875; previous laws invalidated by the constitutional amendment had stated that black freedmen could not own or carry any manner of firearm. The Army and Navy law prohibited the sale of “belt or pocket pistols, or revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or navy pistols,” which were prohibitively expensive for black freedmen and poor whites to purchase.^[7] These were large pistols in .36 caliber (“Navy”) or .44 caliber (“Army”), and were the military issue cap and ball black-powder revolvers used during the Civil War by both Union and Confederate ground troops. The effect of the Army and Navy law was to restrict handgun possession to the upper economic classes.^[8]

This all ties in with how the left works.  It’s racism from the racist Gutierrez, combined with a distaste for the underclasses and a desire for the Ruling Class to lord over the people – who can’t be trusted to defend themselves, and must be made reliant on the state.  It’s pretty standard for a leftist tyrant.