Senator Feinstein’s Nazi Gun Control Law

How can we make such a statement? Simply put, Senator Feinstein has stated the following:

“On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds,” Feinstein said. “I am in the process of gathering support for the bill in the Senate and House.”

“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”

Trending: The Truth About Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

And to think, that our United States Senators took an Oath of Office to “Uphold” the Constitution, Not destroy it! Why would Senator Feinstein want to destroy our Constitution? Why does she have the vague idea that this will work? Senator Feinstein must have Nazi blood running through her veins, especially after I looked at the law she wants and the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938! We must wonder why she has been working on this for a year since it seems she stole the very idea from the Nazi Germans. The wording is very close to the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. All we have to do is compare what Adolf Hitler stated and we see that maybe Senator Feinstein is a secret Nazi.

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. (HITLER’S SECRET CONVERSATIONS 403 (Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevenstrans., 1961)

Adolph Hitler

Do Senator Feinstein and President Obama consider the “people” of the United States as “subject races” as did Adolf Hitler? This may well be the case since nearly anything stated against Obama seems to bring about liberals pulling out the race card so maybe they do have that concept, that “WE THE PEOPLE” are but nothing more than a group of races that need to be “controlled” by the government.

In an article by Joyce Rosenwald titled Nazi Gun Law, she wrote, “The Nazis operated within the Law. But in Germany, as here, a small private elite group wrote and defined the Law. WHEN YOU CREATE THE LAW, YOU CAN DEFINE THE LAW. IT CAN BE AS LEGAL TO ABOLISH LAWS AS IT IS TO INSTITUTE THEM. Hitler not only came to power legally, but instituted dictatorship legally.”

Could it be that Senator Feinstein is working with Obama to make sure he not only becomes the first black president, but now becomes the first black dictator? It is not clear as to why Senator Feinstein wants to counter the Constitution, but wait, herein lies a very deep and underlying problem, mainly due to the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact apply to individuals and their owning and bearing firearms. (See, District of Columbia et al.v. Heller)

This case was brought to the Supreme Court and they ruled that law abiding Citizens had the right to own guns, and this was done in 2008. In the writing of the ruling the Supreme Court stated;

“1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.”

Given this explanation by the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that the Second Amendment gives the right of the people to bear arms. Now Senator Feinstein wants to go against not just the Supreme Court, but the very Constitution she took an oath to uphold! This should be considered as treason at the highest level and she should be thrown into jail along with any other Senator or Representative that goes along with this terrible “attack” upon the Constitution!

Now let us look at just one section of what Ms. Rosenwald wrote in her article about the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938:

“On March 18 1938, the Nazis enacted a new, tougher, gun control law. The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) ensured that only Nazis and their friends could own or carry weapons, especially handguns. Licenses to sell, own, or carry firearms were required, except for exempted Nazi organizations and officials. Private persons were not exempt, but a Nazi Party Membership Card was proof of political reliability. The Nazi Weapons Law stated that no Jew could be involved in any business involving firearms. On November 11 1938, one day after the SS were unleashed against the Jews, new regulations under the Nazi Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons.”

Now let us take a look at what Senator Feinstein supposedly took a year to develop. Senator Feinstein has posted a summary of what the legislation will cover, which inculdes a ban on semi-automatic handguns and shotguns in addition to rifles. The legislation also requires registration of previously purchased guns. If passed, ATF would be in charge of enforcement which should be a huge concern to gun owners.

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms;

-Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

-Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
-Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
-Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
-Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
-Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
-Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

-Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
-Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
-Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

-Background check of owner and any transferee;
-Type and serial number of the firearm;
-Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
-Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
-Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.”

Now just go back to the brief paragraph and see what it states, “ … only Nazis and their friends could own or carry weapons, especially handguns. Licenses to sell, own, or carry firearms were required, except for exempted Nazi organizations and officials. Private persons were not exempt, but a Nazi Party Membership Card was proof of political reliability. The Nazi Weapons Law stated that no Jew could be involved in any business involving firearms. On November 11 1938, one day after the SS were unleashed against the Jews, new regulations under the Nazi Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons.”

Senator Feinstein could have left out nearly all her bright words and just implemented what is shown here since it nearly means the same thing! It seems that when a government wishes to take control of the people, they first disarm them and a prime example of this lies within the German history from 1919 when the German government passed the Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen Uber Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegate on Weapons Possession) and it stated very clearly, “All firearms as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.” Whoever kept a firearm or ammunition was subject to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 100,000 marks. That law remained in force until repealed in 1928. Could this be what is planned down the line by Senator Feinstein? Is she, along with other “Socialist type” Democrats, setting the stage to not just take guns away, but to throw the Citizens of the United States into jail, should they be found to own a gun? The gun buy backs look nearly like the Nazi gun removals! Prior to the total take over by the Nazi’s and Adolf Hitler, the supreme commander would go around and tack up notices that stated,

“Warning! All arms are to be surrendered immediately. Whoever is caught with arms in his possession will be shot on the spot!”

Of course the buy backs don’t have such strong language, as of yet, but maybe this is what they wish to do, how do we know they don’t especially since they seem to ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court when it comes to the standing of the Second Amendment!

If we look deep into what happened in Germany leading up to Adolf Hitler’s reign, we would see a gradual removal of weapons from the people, this was needed since once the weapons were removed, the government could do as it pleased and the people had to abide. One of the moves by the German government seems to be close to what Senator Feinstein is planning to do. In the Gesetz uber die Entwaffnung der Bevolkerung, (Law on Disarmament of the People); passed on August 7, 1920, it placed Reichskommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population. It was the “government” that made the decision to define which weapons were “military weapons” and thus subject to seizure. Does this sound very close to how our own Government has decided to label certain weapons as “assault weapons”? It has to be noted here that in all phases of the removal of weapons from the people, it began with the restriction of use of certain weapons; it was then called to have a license for the application to not just buy a weapon, but to do nearly anything to do with a weapon! It ended up with a person having to get a license to get a license to obtain permission from the police to buy another license to buy a weapon, unless you were a member of the Reich! It got even worse should a person want to carry a weapon.

Is this what Senator Feinstein and her “friends” wish to do by implementing a restriction on all the guns, not just the “assault” weapons, but all of them, including making it illegal to own any type of 50 caliber weapon, such as the old style Muzzle loader used for hunting? Please pass this article on and demand that your Senators do not vote for any bill that restricts any part of the Second Amendment, no matter what! It is up to us and if we cave in here, we will lose all our freedoms because once these Socialists take out the Second Amendment, they will not stop until they destroy the entire Constitution!

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous Choose Your Own Crime Stats
Next No Deal On Fiscal Cliff: Republicans Cave, Obama Pulling Rug From Beneath Them

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.