Feinstein's New 'Assault Weapon' Ban: Read It and Sleep

The full text of the new, supposedly improved "assault weapon" ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein last week is now available for your perusal. The 121-page bill consists mostly of Appendix A, which takes up 95 pages and lists 2,258 "Firearms Exempted by the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." As I said on Friday, this list is redundant at best, since any gun that is not specifically named as an "assault weapon" and does not meet the more general definitions is not supposed to be covered by the law, whether or not it is explicitly "exempted." It seems the main point of Appendix A is to impress us with Feinstein's lenience. Look, she specifically allows 14 times as many gun models as she specifically prohibits!

As for the list of 157 guns that are banned by name, it is much longer than the list in the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 (which Feinstein also sponsored), and its terms are broader. While the expired ban covered "copies or duplicates" of the 18 named firearms, the new one covers "copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles"—language that seems designed to keep lawyers busy. The references to "variants" and "altered facsimiles" suggest that a gun can be deemed an "assault weapon" even if it is not listed and does not have any forbidden "military-style characteristics." Maybe that's one reason Feinstein tries to reassure gun owners with her lengthy list of exempted firearms.

A story in Friday's New York Times claims Feinstein's bill would "ban certain characteristics of guns that make them more lethal." By describing the bill that way, reporter Jennifer Steinhauer endorses Feinstein's fraudulent premise that "assault weapons" are especially suited to mass murder or other kinds of gun crime. Here are the characteristics that, according to Feinstein, turn a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine into an "assault weapon": a pistol grip or forward grip, a grenade launcher or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel, or a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock. How exactly do these features—a threaded barrel, say, or a grenade launcher without (already banned) grenades—make a gun "more lethal"? They don't, which is why opponents of "assault weapon" bans object to such arbitrary, appearance-based distinctions. Some people at the Times—notably, criminal justice reporter Erica Goode—understand this point. If Steinhauer had read and digested Goode's January 17 front-page story about the contentiousness of the very term assault weapon, she could have avoided the error (assuming that's what it was) of taking sides in an ostensibly evenhanded news story about Feinstein's bill.

New York Times reporters Thomas Kaplan and Danny Hakim made a similar mistake in a January 15 story about New York's new, stricter "assault weapon" ban, saying it would "bar semiautomatic weapons that have a single additional feature to increase their deadliness." Notably, that claim was excised from the online version of the story, which I took to be a sign that at least one editor at the Times recognizes the tendentiousness of such seemingly neutral descriptions. Maybe if there had been a correction at the bottom of the story acknowledging the change Steinhauer would not have repeated Kaplan and Hakim's error.

Steinhauer also claims Feinstein's bill includes "more explicit language on the types of features on banned weapons" than the old ban did. That's not true either. Feinstein fiddled with the list of suspect features (dropping bayonet mounts, for example), and she decided that one, rather than two, was enough to qualify a gun as an "assault weapon." The latter change made the ban broader, but it did not make it more "explicit," let alone "make it far more respectful of firearms for recreation uses," as a former Feinstein aide quoted by Steinhauer asserts.

I do remember that scandal —the ATF called it Operation Dragon Fire, and it was in 1996, or so.

DiFi’s husband had and has connections with Poly Technologies (which is simply an arms division of the ChiComz), and the scandal primarily centered on importation of 2,000 fully automatic AK-47’s into the US:

The intended end-users were STREET GANGS in Los Angeles. They wanted to make money while sowing violent chaos in our country.

Few realize that the scandal also involved ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES, and that we narrowly missed arresting either a major Chinese or Diplomat who was then inside the USA and handing the biz on this side of the Pacific.

The scandal got so huge that the State Department deliberately tipped off the guy, and he fled the USA. Thus the State Dept succeeded in heading off the then-impending Diplomatic crisis.

I remember that it was Blum’s connection with the ChiComs that permitted them to store the AK’s at some port facility in Long Beach, which was later also sold to the ChiComs.

DIANE FEINSTEIN HAS MAJOR CONNECTIONS TO CHINESE ARMS SUPPLIERS.

That woman hates, “AR’s” but apparently loves AK’s.

She is a hypocritical insect, loaded to the gills with Chinese money, and her SF house is totally amazing.

You may be correct but what is in the works is universal backround checks. The deal was made during the behind doors immigration agreement. We are being played.

I see many here on FR saying “nothing will pass the House”. BS. It is going to pass unless ALL of us get off our collective asses and tell them no more gun laws. The deal HAS BEEN MADE for universal backround checks. It needs to be undone. McCain sold us out.

Take a mintue and stand up for your rights:

http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/

ONLLY 822,000 have done this.

CALL, CALL, CALL:

The message is simple and straight forward.

1. We won’t stand for scapegoating.

2. No new gun laws.

3. Remove the phony “gun free” zones which enable killers to go unchecked.

4. Work with us or we will work to retire you.

DO NOT PLAY NICE!!! This is hardball.

Correction: “POPPERS” was the smuggler spook-speak for, “GRENADES”.

ANATOMY OF A STING http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,135999,00.html

By MICHAEL S. SERRILL

Jun. 3, 1996

Maybe it was his Runyonesque swagger, or the 6-ft. 6-in., 350-lb. former football linebacker who served as his bodyguard, or his expert craft, which included hiding a key in a potted plant. Whatever the case, Gary Hipple, a U.S. Customs agent based in San Francisco, convinced a group of Chinese arms dealers that he was a Mafia big shot who was in the market to buy guns for drug rings and street gangs. By the time the undercover deal was over, Hipple and his partner, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent who also posed as a mobster, had persuaded the brokers to smuggle 2,000 fully automatic Chinese-government-made AK-47s into the U.S.

Last week (May 1996), the charade ended with an explosion of headlines (what ‘explosion’ of headlines?), as Customs and ATF agents arrested seven people for illegal gunrunning. U.S. Attorney Michael Yamaguchi described the sting operation as the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in U.S. history! (Why did 60 minutes and Nightline ignore this story???)

The diplomatically sensitive source of the guns: two state-owned arms manufacturers in China, Poly Technologies and Norinco. The president of Poly Technologies, a defense corporation controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, is He Ping, the son-in-law of Deng Xiaoping.

The operation began in 1994, when an informant told Hipple that a Taiwanese businessman named Hammond Ku was looking for ways to circumvent Customs. Hipple arranged a meeting and to impress Ku took along fellow agent and former Green Bay Packer Byron Braggs. Ku allegedly set up a test: he had a suitcase of weapons parts flown from China to the San Francisco airport. Hipple duly carried the case past Customs and stashed it in a locker, telling Ku he would find the key in a nearby potted plant.

With that, the sting was on. According to a 34-page criminal complaint filed in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court in May of 1996, Hipple helped Ku smuggle in 20,000 machine-gun stands (bipods, you journalistic ‘geek’...). Ku then told the agent to fax his weapons wish list to Ku’s secretary, using code words: “apples” for automatic weapons; “Alpha Kings” for AK-47s; “poppers” for grenades. Later, a Florida ATF agent was introduced to Ku as an arms dealer interested in machine guns. Eventually the undercover team negotiated an order for 2,000 AK-47s. They paid Ku and his associates $700,000 in cash and wire transfers to Beijing and Hong Kong bank accounts.

Ku made clear that he was acting as a middleman for Chinese arms dealers, including Robert Ma, head of U.S. sales for Poly Technologies, and Richard Chen, U.S. representative for Norinco. It was Ma, according to last week’s complaint, who arranged for shipment of the rifles. They arrived in San Francisco aboard a Chinese freighter on March 18, 1996.

Once the transaction was completed, according to court papers, Ku reported that his contacts at Norinco were eager to continue. Customs agents say Ku offered a variety of larger arms, including surface-to-air missiles that he boasted “could take out a 747.” Customs didn’t have any more money to spend but delayed making arrests. “We were trying to lure the large business figures [in China] to the States,” says Rollin Klink, head of Customs in San Francisco.

Officials finally sprung the trap after learning that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were on to the sting. (Gee, it’s not like Bill Clinton ordered a ‘LEAK’ in order to COMPROMISE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION, RIGHT...)

Still, one important figure, Ma, is at large and may have escaped to China. (Of course Clinton made sure Ma escaped, as Ma would tie Clinton to this $8 million dollar AK-47 deal...) Ku and Chen are under arrest, along with several Chinese and American collaborators.

Note what Sec. 3 Paragraph (4) on page 15 reads:

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— (A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State

That looks like legalese for saying that anyone who works in any capacity for the government would be exempted from this law. Those who work in a similar capacity in the private sector would be subject to it.

This goes beyond people in law enforcement, because although they are exempted too, their exemption is listed separately.

Subparagraph (C) reads that it also shall not apply to the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited

A retired police officer is no different that any other civilian. Yet, they, too would be allowed the kinds of weapons and magazines forbidden to the rest of us civilians.

Sen. John F. Kennedy’s statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960): “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Sen. Hubert Humphrey’s statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.