Skip to comments.Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill
Posted on 12/29/2012 7:32:08 AM PST by IbJensen
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)author of the federal assault weapon and large ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004has announced that on the first day of the new CongressJanuary 3rd she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation and It will be carefully focused. Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinsteins website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of assault weapon that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinsteins 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. Feinsteins 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 Californias highly restrictive ban.
Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinsteins 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 BATFEs 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 Feinsteins 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, Feinsteins 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 bills 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.
The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.
Assault weapon numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's assault weapon ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of assault weapons has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an assault weapon is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFEs firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15sall models of which Feinsteins new bill defines as assault weaponsrose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.
Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of assault weapons in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing assault weapons were exempted from the 1994 ban and new assault weapons continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by assault weapons during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.
Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a central issue of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.
Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinsteins 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
Millions of Americans own so-called assault weapons and tens of millions own large magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about thehistory of the assault weapon issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.
Don't sit around waiting for it to start!
The ditz and her “staff” have really gone over the top with this “bill”. It must be stopped.
i wonder if this is legacy legislation for her.
Can we print wanted posters for the old hag?
This bill has zero chance to pass as written. Pelosi and company, however, will introduce a stand-alone hi-cap mag ban in the house early in January. Don’t think it will pass, but has much better chances than the Di-Fi bill.
Here is an angle I'm not seeing out on the blogs. The submission of this bill is nothing more than a precursor to an executive order/action.
Consider this. Obozo announcing an executive order banning this or that, taxing this or that based off of the fact that congress is gridlocked and he is forced to protect the American public from gun crimes.
Classic bait and switch if you will. They will not stop throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, but this will allow the executive branch to move.
I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation and It will be carefully focused. Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
“The submission of this bill is nothing more than a precursor to an executive order/action.”
When Hussein first made the speech about guns, I thought, “He’s going to do it by executive order.”
When it comes, it will be a series of moves.
Continued attempts by the EPA to regulate lead ammo as an environmental hazard.
HHS regulation deeming firearms a human health hazard.
Commerce dept./TSA/DHS regulation on transportation of firearms across state lines.
IRS databases for the purposes of registration.
U.N. small arms ban.
Legislation through congress. Republicans will bow down to the liberals reinstating a FFB.
The gun grabbers now have momentum on their side and for the global elite, this is now the time to go for the gold.
In order for their agenda to advance, they must disarm Americans.
We are "led" by these morons!? I'll wager she didn't even ask her security detail for their input.
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS BITCH!
I can envision the drug cartels branching out into guns and ammo. They supply where there is a demand.
I don't Swinestein's bill will pass as written; however, I expect the socialist bastards will put some type of grab in an addendum onto any "fiscal cliff" bill.
When the spineless jellyfish in Stupid Party (R) attempt to say anything, the (D)s will hem and haw and say the (R) want children to die, the middle class to face tax increases, the country to go 'off the cliff,' and to gut the military.
They will point to DiFi's ask for the moon bill and say that was what they really wanted, but "compromised." Then they will reference Boner's remarks on reasoned discussion about guns. Expect to see more "evil gun" stories in the "news" and of course more and more idiot celebrities to be paraded in front of the microphone - I'm sure sitcom scripts are being altered as we speak. Not sure if "Law and Order" is still on, but look for new episode in which the fearless Jack McCoy takes on the evil within the gun industry/lobby.
Boner will cry for a bit and then bite his pillow, limber up, and expose his posterior......but is the citizenry that will feel the pain.
If DiFi's bill did somehow get passed....I see a very funny list of things I will not comply with.
***and most or all models of the SKS. ***
Proof this is a gun grab. This has a 10 round magazine filled with a stripper clip.
My handgun does not fit into her bill so the gun is safe, for now. However, I just in the last day, installed a red laser on the gun to exactly pinpoint my target. Next, I guess she will go after lasers. She's not getting my gun.
Another thing that ticks me off is the provision for a grandfathered gun not to be allowed to be willed to another person. When the owner dies, the gun has to be given to the government. That's a provision to finally get all the grandfathered guns out of the population.
We are under siege and I wonder what Texas will do about whatever law passes. Sure, it's federal law but this state is full of “Bubbas”. If Texas govn. can't do anything to avoid these laws, the Bubbas “ain't” giving in to a “damn guberment gun grab”.
Only if you have strong thumbs and know the trick. ;)
I don't care what law they pass, I'm not giving up my firearms.
It'll be just another silly law for me to ignore.
Something similar has occurred in the U.K., where sub-machineguns from the former Eastern Bloc countries have crept in, replacing the banned handguns.
Since the penalty for possessing handguns is the same as that for the fully-automatic weapons, the "In for a penny, in for a pound" reaction was totally predictable.
Thanks, missed that working on legislation for over a year. Oh and Ms Senator, on that basis, I looked at your picture on December 20 and determined you to be unfit for office.
Don’t buy another gun as I think a law will pass to evaluate the mental condition of the buyer, and you might fail that test. In fact, I doubt any Bubba would pass it. You know, like, hatred of libs trying to take our guns and various and other personality traits of people who think independently. Disallow conservative people to buy a gun.
Ironically and cynically she no doubt wanted the Syrian people to be armed. Defense is not needed Offense is needed. My counter offer I want the 1986 NFA rules scrapped I want a SAW.
My English 103 prof was a fully indoctrinated U of Wisconsin grad and she flipped when I said basically the same thing. They have no capability of thought.
I can honestly say, that since I got rid of my AK47, I have no weapons classified as “assault” weapons. That said, I have plenty of firepower (until tomorrow’s freak boating accident).
The AK beat me up, and having had a totally detached retina, I wanted to save myself the hassle - opted for a nice 357/38 Special carbine with lever action - the 357s kick a bit, but nothing like the AK. I never have been fond of spray shooting and the 357 rounds will reach out 150+ yards and still have enough oomph to take down a deer.
I've made the same observation, although I think it's a twofer: They'll use Newtown as justification to go for a definitely legal, but totally bogus Senate "ratification" of the biggie: the Small Arms Treaty. A treaty can be ratified by as few as 34 Senators legally, but only if Harry Reid pulls an amazing parliamentary stunt or two. I think that's what is in the offing as well.