Feinstein is going for broke!

[Guest Mbeck]

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx#.UOHDtX1gagQ.facebook

 

I don't know if this has been posted..

 

 

 

 Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

 

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.  The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

 

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

 

 Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

 

Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

 

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

 

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

 

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

 

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

 

Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

 

Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

 

Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

she's going for broke because she has no argument, except an emotional one. That's the way liberals do.

They throw crap against the wall hoping to get the other side to compromise with part of it. That's called a

win for them. Enough of them and you eventually get your ban.

[gjohnsoniv]

Meh. Not concerned. It barely passed during a time when people felt more laws were, now we don't think more laws are needed so...

[Dolomite_supafly]

That is her "high offer". Now lets see what the NRA's "low offer" will be. And somewhere in the middle is where it will be. Hopefully the NRA's low offer will not be a compromise but a resounding no to everything.

Either way we are all going to have to take a bite of the proverbial shit sandwich that is gun control and the economy. Even if nothing gets passed we are still in for a rough year.

Dolomite

[Guest Mbeck]

Meh. Not concerned. It barely passed during a time when people felt more laws were, now we don't think more laws are needed so...

I would not be so sure.. we elected Obama.. twice..

[G27]

Meh. Not concerned. It barely passed during a time when people felt more laws were, now we don't think more laws are needed so...

I think we ought to be worried - the spineless repubs in the house are about all we have to stop this. 

[gjohnsoniv]

I think we ought to be worried - the spineless repubs in the house are about all we have to stop this. 

 

 

I think we ought to be worried - the spineless repubs in the house are about all we have to stop this. 

Worried, but not "oh my god the sky is falling because someone proposed a new legislation."

[cyh1830]

I've done my part.

 

Wrote Senators Alexander and Corker this morning. Then Congressmen Cooper and Blackburn.

 

How about you?

 

Here's some interesting insight on the gun control debate, both sides, and the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

 

http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/26/gun-control-gun-rights-gun-politics-and-newtown-part-i-of-ii/

[Guest Mbeck]

Yep, wrote my reps today.

[GoneBallistic]

Yeah me too. Now they'll have at least 3 sets of letters to ignore :-\

[Oh Shoot]

I think we ought to be worried - the spineless repubs in the house are about all we have to stop this. 

 

I'm not convinced it's going to be a cakewalk in the Senate.

 

No way all the Dems there are going to be in lock step on sweeping gun legislation. Finger on the pulses of their various constituencies is pretty complicated, but the bloodbath of the midterm elections of 1994 will not be totally lost on them. Suffice it to say there will be lots of private polling going on.

 

- OS

[gjohnsoniv]

See that's what I am wondering about Ohshoot. They know exactly what happened the first time, so why would they want to repeat it. If they think it will get them voted out their personal greed and want for power should keep them from voting in favor of a new ban.

[Oh Shoot]

See that's what I am wondering about Ohshoot. They know exactly what happened the first time, so why would they want to repeat it. If they think it will get them voted out their personal greed and want for power should keep them from voting in favor of a new ban.

 

Just no way to know right now. The parties, electorate, hell the whole country is so vastly different from 1994 I barely recognize it.

 

The only thing that's consistent is that job security remains the number one priority with most of these clowns.

 

- OS

[gjohnsoniv]

If I understand the dynamics of the first ban though, it was barely passed and at a time when people wanted more gun laws. Now we're at a point where people want less and the politicians don't want to get voted out.

[Oh Shoot]

If I understand the dynamics of the first ban though, it was barely passed and at a time when people wanted more gun laws. Now we're at a point where people want less and the politicians don't want to get voted out.

 

Well, people like you and me want fewer laws, but ....

 

And there's something else about "close votes" in either house. Once a party realizes it has the votes to pass something, many within that party are "allowed" to vote against it if doing so is perceived to help them in their electorate, as long as the thing gets passed period. 

 

It's actually pretty rare that very many are required to "take one for the team" and vote party line if it puts them in serious jeopardy back home. The Dems really miscalculated the backlash in '94. But polling wasn't nearly as sophisticated and reliable 18 years ago either, so they'll have better fingers on pulses this time around.

 

- OS

[gjohnsoniv]

I was not aware of that. I still think though that if they do try and pass it there will be backlash, and they are well aware of that. What I'm reading though is that fewer and fewer people think we need tighter laws. Where these polls are taking place though I don't know, there is probably a high percentage of bias.

[Guest Sysvr4]

Feinstein is going for "appease my constituents with legislative piece I know has no shot in hell of passing."  When it fails, as she expects it will, she'll simply look at her base and say, "I tried, but as you can see, the rest of the country is just crazy."  That's politics.

 

Doesn't mean you shouldn't call your rep, I'm just saying noone, not even Feinstein, expects that proposal to go very far.

[Oh Shoot]

...

 

... What I'm reading though is that fewer and fewer people think we need tighter laws. Where these polls are taking place though I don't know, there is probably a high percentage of bias.

 

Yeah, most everybody says they want fewer laws, except for all the ones they think will benefit themselves, of course.

 

Flaming liberals take it a step farther though, they want laws that will benefit "the planet", or the "the poor" etc. Even though they have little to do with that yucky dirty outdoors or the icky great unwashed.

 

- OS

Edited December 31, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[gjohnsoniv]

Well obviously.

[mikegideon]

The only thing that's polling high is the "gun show loophole". Don't mean to be selfish here, but I just don't care if they pass that one and leave everything else alone.

 

Feinstein is doing this because she can, just like in '94. A LOT of folks lost their seats, but not that old blister. She's the queen of commies, representing like minded idiots.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

And there's something else about "close votes" in either house. Once a party realizes it has the votes to pass something, many within that party are "allowed" to vote against it if doing so is perceived to help them in their electorate, as long as the thing gets passed period. 

 

It's actually pretty rare that very many are required to "take one for the team" and vote party line if it puts them in serious jeopardy back home. The Dems really miscalculated the backlash in '94. But polling wasn't nearly as sophisticated and reliable 18 years ago either, so they'll have better fingers on pulses this time around.

 

- OS

 

The miscalculation lasted until the 2000 election. Gore and the clintons and such still thought gun control was a winning issue at that time. They thought there were more soccer moms than nascar dads. Meh, I don't fit either demographic. In the Y2K election Gore actually stated on national morning show TV that semi-auto pistols should be banned. Smart. Real smart. Wonder if that opinion was polled by that super-genius modern-day prophet, Dick Morris? Or perhaps Pat Caddell? 

Edited December 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Oh Shoot]

The only thing that's polling high is the "gun show loophole". Don't mean to be selfish here, but I just don't care if they pass that one and leave everything else alone.

 

Agree, but a national registry will probably be attached for enforcement, and that's gonna have to be a line in the sand.

 

- OS

[Moped]

I don't want to see anything pass.  Even the Gunshow loophole is sacred with me.  They can kiss my butt!

Edited January 1, 2013 by Moped

[Guest Mbeck]

Yeah, we can't say one ban won't affects us while others will. You give them an inch, they will take a mile. This is the first step.

[JPR1959]

I am very worried. Obama won two terms and this just proves anything is possible. Most people are too apathetic to most of today's important issues. Too many people think just raising taxes will solve our debt problem. We are a divided nation on too many fronts. Gun control is not a very high priority for most Americans.