Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons--summary of Feinstein Bill, incl. registry requirement

United States Senate ^ | 12/27/2012 | Dianne Feinstein

[driftdiver]

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

-120 specifically-named firearms -Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic -Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

[Scrambler Bob]

Note previous repliers have covered the overall right to bear ANY arms. I’ll get into a little more detail.

How do you define assault rifle, legally for the purpose of regulation?

Stop and ponder ...

You cannot, without including a lot of other semi-auto rifles, some designed quite long ago, and which look like ‘conventional’ wood-stocked, blued steel rifles. These have been owned and used for around one hundred years with no problems based on their similarity to assault rifles.

Congress cannot; California tried, and there are many happy gun owners with rifles that look just like the assault rifles they were trying to ban. Because they changed the design to meet the requirements of Calif’s law, they are legal.

“But, I know one when I see it.” Right. That is the gun grabbers approach. The citizens can see them too. A ban on these demonized, easily recognizable guns means the gun grabber is protecting the “American People” from the evil gun.

[familyop]

"I certainly believe congress should go back and review exactly what policies led up to the confrontations at Lexington & Concord."

I agree. But they probably won't do so, if they don't receive many letters to educate them specifically about those policies.

[ConservativeInPA]

NOW is the time to stand up for your rights. I have a damn good .30-06 that is so much more accurate than my weapons that previously fell into the water in a boating accident. It is about time we just start carrying open all the time when it is legal.

[rustyboots]

The idea of “need” is what bothers me most about your question. When did we insert “need” into Constitutional Rights? They are Rights, not privileges or requests. Driving is a privilege, having a telephone is a privilege, being able to watch TV is a privilege. These and other privileges are not given to you by the Constitution.
You have the right to Free Speech, to Free choice of religion, to have a trial by a jury of your peers, you have the right to be secure in your home.
Now, is there a “need” for justifying the Rights listed above? If some think so, then maybe we are doomed.

Rights do not carry a “need” to be accepted , they are a “Demand” to be accepted.

[JTHomes]

Here here. Let’s persuade as many as possible not to stick our heads in the sand. I thought Obama in ‘08 had no chance, I thought Obamacare had no chance, I though the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare, and I thought Obama would lose re-election. I guess hoped rather than thought. Let’s not just assume that legislation like this can’t pass. This is the 1994 bill on steroids plus registration. If half of it passes and they don’t get registration, will that feel like a victory? Or will we be less free? I think this or something worse will pass the Senate by the end of January and the House will fold. They don’t need that many rinos (about 17 of 235) to go along to squeak through the house. On the GOA site I didn’t find complete ratings of house members, but of 332 rated (apologies if my count is off), 180 got A’s or B’s, 152 got C or less. That doesn’t give me much confidence in this climate of any gun confiscation plan being DOA.

[Red in Blue PA]

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for thepeople to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”-Thomas Jefferson

[familyop]

"There shall be no ex post facto laws."

An ex post facto law would allow prosecutions of people who violated the law before it was passed and not afterward. To use a so-called assault weapons ban as an example, it would allow for prosecution of everyone who owned high capacity semi-auto rifles in the past but not necessarily after the law was passed.

A Congress willing to pass such a ban could do so and have it enforced, although such a law would be unconstitutional. Another example is the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)--unconstitutional in more ways than one but still enforced (e.g., Emerson case, Supremes refused to hear).

We need to write our members of congress, and more importantly for some of us, our state assembly members, including Democrats. Even Democrats have many constituents who own the items on the ban lists. Firearms, especially the "tacticool" looking stuff, are in style.

[Democrat_media]

That poster believes that his betters , the government bureaucrats , should be able to define what is an assault weapon, who can carry what weapons and to finally install cameras in his house to make sure no weapons are there that might “kill” someone some day in a media report. Then of course if he has an incandescent light bulb (not those curly mercury laden bulbs) his government overlords will raid his house and take him away for global warming heresy.

[driftdiver]

Its a common question among those who don’t own firearms or aren’t into them. We need to be able to answer this question without hostility if we expect to win the war.

Purrcival, as others have posted the definition of assault weapon is very fluid. The very term is used by the left because it lets them paint certain guns as evil without getting specific. Essentially whatever gun they don’t like that particular day gets the label.

The guns most often labeled as ‘assault weapons’ are no different in function then other guns, they simply look different. They are also significantly less powerful then most hunting rifles.

If you want to start talking need, perhaps we should ask why people need the internet, cars, homes, heck people don’t really need more than one pair of shoes.

[lookout88]

my kid is stationed at Dyess AFB in Abilene. I love going there to visit. Maybe I will bring my hardware and join. The United State of friggen Texas!!!

[Monty22002]

IMO the worst part is the pistol mags. Nearly all pistols have over 10 round mags by default and it’s a real pain to have to go to 10. They simply shrunk the pistols and added the firepower during the AWB which made up for it a little bit.

The whole reason the .40 came into popularity was the AWB.

The problem with the new talk is they are going to try to ban anything that even accepts a full size mag. That is the ‘poison pill’ on this, but that is what they want.

[neverdem]

Thanks for posting.

[Quickgun]

The way that problem can be addressed is to ride up alongside the pilot’s car on his way home on your motorbike and................

[familyop]

"That being said, I am asking a sincere question: What is the problem with banning assault weapons? Why would anyone need them? I’m looking to the gun owners and those who really understand the Second Amendment to educate me, please."

1. To prevent tyranny. Historically, some bans during economic slides have preceded fascism and bans of other freedoms.

2. Imagine yourself living far from any city, on a large place with few trees or no trees (no concealment or cover). Imagine that one night, you're attacked by several criminals who fire rifle rounds through the house without stopping. They intend to do so for hours. There's no place to run and hide. The nearest sheriff's office is an hour away. Police are very busy with a disaster at the time.

3. You're overrun by an overpopulation of rodents (prairie dogs) that carry the Bubonic Plague (happening right now in the West)--thousands of 'em. Baits and traps haven't put a dent in the rodent population in two years. .22 long rifle rounds aren't accurate enough at the distances the rodents are seen.

Oh...the answer to your first question: the desired ban is unconstitutional and anti-American. A ban is also intensifying an already dangerous situation. About 2/3rds of our population is already distrustful of both political parties. There are too many regulations against freedoms (e.g., property rights). It also appears that a general strike is under way. People aren't buying much and may buy nearly nothing in the near future.

The attempts to violate constitutional rights are making the situation worse rather than better. Imagine trying to live on nothing at all but foreign debt and dollars printed from the US treasury without assets to back them. Imagine then, having all foreign currencies in accounts of Americans confiscated by the originating governments behind those currencies.

[Quickgun]

I agree, but we just have to be sure the confiscators are DOA. if it comes to that.

[3722535r]

“Type and serial number of the firearm; Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint....”

I’m so angry right now I could beat the walls....Words fail me to express what I think of this woman, and God would not be pleased....This is communism...We will actually have to use our weapons or give them up....They will not relent....Push you into a corner to create the scenario of violence and then use tha Alinsky method of creating chaos to achieve the goal......

[driftdiver]

IMO this is where they’ve been headed for a long time. The key message here is they don’t feel a need to hide it anymore.

Even the Brady bunch used to say they only wanted “sensible” gun control.

[DBrow]

“Will the GOP fight it?”

They will feel the need for, and be urged to, “compromise”.

Maybe they will trade the registration of “grandfathered” guns for a one-box-a-month of ammo.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You take yourself so seriously that it's really not necessary for anyone else to do so.

[familyop]

Oops...little correction follows.

Imagine trying to live on nothing at all but foreign debt dollars printed from the US treasury without assets to back them.

We're near a point in time, where foreigners will lose faith in the dollar and take their "haircuts" as bond investors. Then most, if not all American recipients of income from government will take their "haircuts." And on to repudiation and currency adjustment.

So it's a bad time for constituents behind policies to outlaw yet more freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. And one more problem with banning more firearms and freedoms. Even most Democrat voters either have such firearms or are wanting to buy them. They're in style. So most Democrat voters are also against any ban of semi-automatic rifles or magazines.

[Note to self: avoid even more purchases of items that I don't really need, and become more self-sufficient this month to pay lower energy costs. Maybe cut propane usage with the new heating system from the current 46 gallons per month to about 4 gallons for cooking only.]