Details on the proposed gun ban Jan 3rd

[vort3xr6]

If this doesn't get your blood boiling, I don't know what will.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-ban-bill.aspx

[Ghosty]

OMFG! Hopefully the Republicans in congress can stop this insanely OVERREACHING bill!!! For fucks sake!

[TFOGGuys]

Not a revelation. Swinestain has proposed this crap every year since 1995. What I do find interesting is that she, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi all have concealed handgun permits. Fucking hypocrites.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...itbart+Feed%29

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104

[vort3xr6]

For those that don't want to click and read.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the 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, availablehere. 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.


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. Feinstein’s 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-l...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.

[Hoot]

Well I'm gonna be busy making some phone calls and writing letters.

[vort3xr6]

She is going to use fear and the death of children as a catapult for this bill. If she guilts congress into acting, this could very well pass.

[Hoot]

She is going to use fear and the death of children as a catapult for this bill. If she guilts congress into acting, this could very well pass.

It's already being labeled as political suicide. Not only for her but even other democrats.

[Ghosty]

If people actually care, do what I just did. I just wrote ALL FIVE of the Democratic congressman & women, using this tool:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org...c2011&state=co

My letters referenced Feinstein's proposed bill and included threat to never vote for them again if they approved this bill. I will check the list of yays and nays when this bill gets submitted for review. My letters also were written in a mature intelligent fashion that listed many common sense reasons why this bill is ludicrous.

I suggest ALL you responsible gun owners do the same. Even if you are for gun-control, realize this bill is totally out of bounds.

[Repsol a095]

This makes me happy.

[The Black Knight]

Funny how us crazy NRA extremist are always right when it comes to predicting that the government wants to disarm the populace. I'm just going to come right out and say it... I told you so...

[Ghosty]

Four years of nothing on gun-control, that's why. And extremist gun-nuts still look extreme. This bill will probably never get passed in it's current form. And the response is expected considering how many 'incidents' since Columbine.

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

http://www.infowars.com/petition-try...n-for-treason/

There will be MANY more bills proposed, so it's gonna be a long year...

[Hoot]

This makes me happy.

Nice to have the right to free speech.

How upset would you be if they were trying to basically completely take that right away from you?

This is why it is so upsetting to so many people. Even persons who are in favor of the 2nd amendment will tell you they think that there should be some better control measures in place as well as better enforcement of current laws. To be so close minded only makes others think less of your opinion, in my opinion.

[Hoot]

Four years of nothing on gun-control, that's why. And extremist gun-nuts still look extreme. This bill will probably never get passed in it's current form. And the response is expected considering how many 'incidents' since Columbine.

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

http://www.infowars.com/petition-try...n-for-treason/

It got 100 signatures in the time it took me to create an account. It will be we'll beyond 25,000 signatures today alone.

[Repsol a095]

Nice to have the right to free speech.

How upset would you be if they were trying to basically completely take that right away from you?

This is why it is so upsetting to so many people. Even persons who are in favor of the 2nd amendment will tell you they think that there should be some better control measures in place as well as better enforcement of current laws. To be so close minded only makes others think less of your opinion, in my opinion.

Ok. That is your opinion.

[asp_125]

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

The hypocrisy, people using their first amendment rights to defend the second amendment, and then wanting to deport others for their opinions under the same first amendment rights.

[The Black Knight]

Four years of nothing on gun-control, that's why. And extremist gun-nuts still look extreme. This bill will probably never get passed in it's current form. And the response is expected considering how many 'incidents' since Columbine.

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

http://www.infowars.com/petition-try...n-for-treason/

There will be MANY more bills proposed, so it's gonna be a long year...

I'll remember you said this when the bill passes.

[Hoot]

The hypocrisy, people using their first amendment rights to defend the second amendment, and then wanting to deport others for their opinions under the same first amendment rights.

In all seriousness. Do our rights apply to citizens of other countries? Obviously saying he can't speak his mind is absurd, but are we stifling a right he has?

[TFOGGuys]

Ok. That is your opinion.

And explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. And the opinion of the US supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

[asp_125]

In all seriousness. Do our rights apply to citizens of other countries? Obviously saying he can't speak his mind is absurd, but are we stifling a right he has?

While parts of the constitution specifically mention citizens; the right to vote or to hold a federal job for example, other parts of the constitution apply to "peoples" of the United States. The document makes a distinction between the two.

For instance I can legally go and buy a gun and hold a CCW, even though I am not a US citizen but a legal resident alien. The steps are more restrictive in a background check, but the end result is the same.

By inference the first amendment also refers to people, thus free speech is protected. You can say Piers Morgan is a twat, but he can say the same to you.

[Ghosty]

I'll remember you said this when the bill passes.

I hope you're wrong, hence writing my congressman, have you? My guess is it would fail the House with enough Republicans voting against. Then it would need 2/3 of the Senate which they couldn't get, right?

So the key is how many Republicans try to vote for it...

Otherwise it would need to be another bill, or this one reworked, right?...

[Ezzzzy1]

This reeks of Nazi Germany....

[I`m Batman]

This makes me happy.

Where can I get one of these signs?

[Repsol a095]

Where can I get one of these signs?

Yup, go ahead because so many home invasions that are going on now. No wait, I see that everyone is hanging their guns in the back of their trucks in my neighborhood, so the thieves just look for my Prius.

Here is the thing: I have many buddies who have guns in their homes that have led to trouble ( accidents, injury, and one death). My neighbor has a giant gun safe in his garage that is left wide open all the time. Many times, his garage door is then left open all night. Are they idiots? Maybe? Are others more careful? Sure. However, I don't want to sort through all of them in the meantime

In the end, there are no statistics that prove that more guns are the answer or that they keep us safe. There are a ton of stats that show death from firearms that were handled or used improperly. There is no answer here; otherwise, this wouldn't be a conversation or debate on this forum.

The second amendment was not created for the purpose that "we" are discussing here. I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves, but I am sure that some have been used that way. Owning ar15s and other semiautomatic rifles are a little extreme in my opinion.

In the end, have your guns, and be happy, but these deaths will continue because there are too many unstable people who need mental health instead of easy access to guns.

[I`m Batman]

Ban all cars too while they're at it. Cars kills a lot more people per year than guns. There are a lot of idiots on the road everyday that put my life and my family's lives in danger everyday. Ban all cars that can go over 25mph. Because it's dangerous.
Ban Apple too, NY crimes has increased because of Apple.

I'm just thinking like them politicians.


Maybe they need to concentrate on the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens.