What's new

Feinstein's New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22

Hot_Sauce

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Rating - 100%
126   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
2,284
Location
Grit City
This one really sucks!!

FU Feinstein:grinFU:




Feinstein's New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to bFeinstein's New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22



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 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 1941 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 transfer 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. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.



http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...anuary-22.aspx

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democra...10737436852-1/

Eight bills introduced yesterday
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ls-gun-control e Introduced January 22



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 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.
 

Hot_Sauce

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Rating - 100%
126   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
2,284
Location
Grit City
•Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:

--Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 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 transfer 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. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.



http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...anuary-22.aspx

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democra...10737436852-1/

Eight bills introduced yesterday
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ls-gun-control
 

mwlabel

BoM July '13
Rating - 100%
84   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
5,699
Location
Midwest!
It can get my BP way up there. But, it's important to remember she introduces bills like this WEEKLY... so the odds of it catching traction aren't high.
The push for another magazine capacity ban seems to be the front-runner right now.

Also, I'm quoting a post from m4c I think people should read.

First let me say that I have many years of political experience from within the system. I know the process doesn't appear very rational (because it isn't), and there's a great deal of uncertainty right now. But bear with me as I lay out a few basics.

There are many proposals out there right now. Some (like Feinstein's) are extreme opening bargaining positions with little chance of passage, others (like several currently proposed in the California general assembly) are emotional responses written in the first 24 hours after the school shooting, and most of these have serious legal failings, and a few are honest attempts at addressing an issue... some from each end of the political spectrum, and a few from the center.

We can't go chasing around after all of the proposals, because that's all they are. Most will never become more than a proposal. Once a bill is actually introduced, once it has a number assigned, that's when we start sending e-mails and making phone calls. That focuses efforts on the 10% of proposals that actually get introduced, it doesn't waste the time of legislators and staffers (who I can assure you have very limited time), and it doesn't waste our limited time. If we must send e-mails now, it's best to limit it to succinct statements like "I'm a supporter of second Amendment rights."

The effort gets more focused when a few bills are called in committee (when we can identify a few swing committee members to contact), or if they clear committee and go to the house or senate floor. Most bills will never get that far.

The Feinstein bill is unlikely to ever see the light of day. First, it won't even clear committee in the house as it's constituted for the next two years, much less pass. It's far from certain that it would fare any better in the senate, where Harry Reid is an NRA supporter. It will also get scrutiny from the Justice Department, and no good lawyer likes to support a bill they have a poor chance of defending in court. Finally, the fact that Obama has handed the whole thing off to a blue-ribbon commission that won't report for months suggests that he too would like things to cool down a little.

I have a low opinion of Feinstein for whatever it's worth. Although I frequently have in-person interactions with several congressmen and have in the past received correspondence from Barbara Boxer, I've never had any contact with Feinstein and my impression is that she is aloof and arrogant. The good news is that she is likely in her last term, six years from now she will be in her mid-80s.

Finally, I'll point out that her gun views are allegedly a result of her presence at the killing of Moscone. Since it's emotionally based, I doubt a letter from me or anyone else is going to influence her viewpoint.

In summary, I don't expect anything at all to happen in the next three months. In the longer term there may be some state-by-state legislation, at the federal level prospects remain uncertain but none of the more extreme proposals currently have much chance of going anywhere.
(found here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1489142&postcount=42 )
 

Cigar Cowboy

BoY...in Hell!!!
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
6,761
Location
SoCal by way of Texas
Got to love those freedom hating Democrats.

A government big enough to take away, limit or restrict one constitutional right is big enough to take away, limit or restrict any or all of your constitutional rights.

Stock up now boys.
 
Rating - 100%
103   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
3,855
Location
upper marlboro md
That's pretty ridiculous ... More laws to stop the law breakers. He'll if that was to pass , current law abidin citizens will become law breakers I'm sure. It's like a car dealership though she's startin high to get what she wants when they close the deal
 

bballbaby

Nov '08 BoM
Rating - 100%
183   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
6,460
Location
Ohio
Got to love those freedom hating Democrats.

A government big enough to take away, limit or restrict one constitutional right is big enough to take away, limit or restrict any or all of your constitutional rights.

Stock up now boys.
Here , here!!
 
Rating - 100%
110   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
4,845
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Sheesh. I wish our lawmakers would stop making laws for a little while. By a little while I mean a long long while. Just think how better off our country would be if our politicians didn't pass anything at all? They'd stop figuring out ways to strip our freedoms and screw everyone. I'd be willing to pay them 3x what they get paid now for them to not show up for work!
 

vperlman

Harleyrider
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
1,204
Location
Phila. PA
Sheesh. I wish our lawmakers would stop making laws for a little while. By a little while I mean a long long while. Just think how better off our country would be if our politicians didn't pass anything at all? They'd stop figuring out ways to strip our freedoms and screw everyone. I'd be willing to pay them 3x what they get paid now for them to not show up for work!
I always figured that if I were ever insane enough to run for public office, my platform would be that my success should be measured by how many pieces of legislation I attempted to repeal, not how many I tried to get enacted.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,307
Location
Pennsylvania
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote " Those who would give up Essential Liberty to Purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety". Banning guns will have one effect only, it will take them away from the law abiding gun owners.
 

vperlman

Harleyrider
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
1,204
Location
Phila. PA
OK, so how many of us have contacted the White House and our federal legislators asking them to support the Second Amendment instead of blaming guns as the easy way out? If you haven't, you should take the few minutes required. Otherwise, as our rights get eroded, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
19
Location
I like the biggies OpusX, Illusione, Alec Bradley,
OK, so how many of us have contacted the White House and our federal legislators asking them to support the Second Amendment instead of blaming guns as the easy way out? If you haven't, you should take the few minutes required. Otherwise, as our rights get eroded, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
I am active many causes however all those dumb bastards do what they want all of them need to go north parties I am ready for a strong third party to take it over, geeze what a mess and an obamanation we have going.
 
Top