[kingofthedemo]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 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. Feinstein’s 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 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.”

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 BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose 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.

[GetSomeE92]

I really, really can't stand all these "ban all guns" idiots.

[MediaArtist]

Trust me, lots of people in California have tried to get her out of office. Her support of entitlement programs has helped bankrupt this state. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to wait until she dies to get her out of there.

[Inspired]

Sigh.. Feinstein..

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Trust me, lots of people in California have tried to get her out of office. Her support of entitlement programs has helped bankrupt this state. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to wait until she dies to get her out of there.

I can't believe that C is still in office. The more you know about her the more crazy it makes you that she keeps getting re-elected.

[upstatedoc]

I forsee extra long lines at the gun shows.

[Undertow]

Feinstein had a concealed carry permit for protection back when she felt threatened by a radical group that attempted to blow up her house. She wants to ensure that you don't have the same access to protection.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Trust me, lots of people in California have tried to get her out of office. Her support of entitlement programs has helped bankrupt this state. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to wait until she dies to get her out of there.

Amen truer(sp?) words never spoken!

[silvergray545]

Feinstein is an idiot.

[MrRetep]

Which state has the least restrictive gun and car laws? Cause i'm moving there.

[Rotorocious]

Originally Posted by MrRetep

Which state has the least restrictive gun and car laws? Cause i'm moving there.

Florida is pretty hands off
Only a. 1-2 week paper work wait for a ccw

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by MrRetep

Which state has the least restrictive gun and car laws? Cause i'm moving there.

Originally Posted by Rotorocious

Florida is pretty hands off
Only a. 1-2 week paper work wait for a ccw

uh hello, Texas. You can shoot a man just for giving you the stink-eye.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

uh hello, Texas. You can shoot a man just for giving you the stink-eye.

I love Texas

[Mr Tonka]

Yeah, TX is where it's at.

Although i did a little research on NYE because i was going to light off my own fire crackers in the back yard, if you know what i mean. Florida State mandated that all cities and counties were to have gun laws that mirrored the states gun laws. This allows you to discharge your firearm within city limits, to carry your weapon in parks, etc... They did this to the point that the state was to start fining cities and counties should they have additional gun laws specific to their jurisdiction. In addition to that, the appointed person of that office which has additional gun laws was to be fined personally as well. Basically, the state of FL wants arbitrary additional gun laws out of the law books of the cities and counties. Go figure.

So i taught some trees in my back yard that they aren't to be giving me any lip. they're not talking tough anymore!!

[kingofthedemo]

[MrRetep]

Texas it is! what part of texas? I need lots of land, near a large city and wide open roads.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MrRetep

Texas it is! what part of texas? I need lots of land, near a large city and wide open roads.

San Antonio is where i'll be moving to.

[88Brimble]

Originally Posted by MrRetep

Texas it is! what part of texas? I need lots of land, near a large city and wide open roads.

If that's what you want....pick any large city, drive an hour in any direction.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by 88Brimble

If that's what you want....pick any large city, drive an hour in any direction.

Have you been to either coast?

1 hour drive and you will be in suburbia, if not a bigger city in some directions.

[Templar]

Already contacted my representatives voicing my opinion and telling them they should not support this proposed legislation. You all should do the same. It's different this time, they'll use people's emotions to push their agendas.

[stealth.pilot]

Guys handguns aren't just protected by the constitution for lawful purposes. They are also authorized for use against the government when the government becomes tyrannical.

So for instance if some pig came after me for driving my M5 at the kind of speeds it is engineered for, or if the IRS came after me with an unreasonable tax increase, I could take arms and overthrow the US government for that kind of tyranny. In fact it was done once before in the case of a tax increase - see 1776!

I wonder at what level of tax increase would we be justified to shoot the government.

[Rotorocious]