Feinstein to introduce AWB renewal tomorrow


PDA






Telperion
May 7, 2003, 10:01 PM
Various news agencies are carrying this story; here's a link to the SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/07/state1811EDT0137.DTL

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday intends to introduce an extension of the assault weapons ban that she helped enact in 1994.

If she actually follows through this time (how many times has she postponed this now?), it should be interesting to see what we're up against.

If you enjoyed reading about "Feinstein to introduce AWB renewal tomorrow" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AZTOY
May 7, 2003, 10:10 PM
The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law, which supporters of gun control point to as much more effective than the federal law in combating the effort by gun makers to evade the ban.

:cuss::banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

PATH
May 7, 2003, 10:28 PM
I would like to post what I think of Feinstein and her cabal of fellow travelers but I am too much of a gentleman and Oleg has turned the filter off.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Standing Wolf
May 7, 2003, 11:11 PM
Feinswine is one of the reasons I left the People's Republic of California to return to the United States last year.

This site is too slow for me.

Carnitas
May 7, 2003, 11:32 PM
That would be great if they modeled it after the California ban. You know, the one that's high centered in the california "courts" and headed for the Supreme Court, where its likely to get thrashed. Two birds with one stone.

Pendragon
May 7, 2003, 11:34 PM
Guys, the CA law is pretty horrific.

It will be interesting to see what happens if she tries to introduce the CA law to the nation.

Bush has said he would renew the AWB, but if this is what she does, then it is not hard to say that it is a whole new law, not just a renewal.

Airwolf
May 8, 2003, 12:00 AM
The line is drawn with this one.

For anyone who doesn't know (or suffer under) the PRK's "Assault Weapon" ban the only semi-auto rifles permitted to be purchased here over .22 cal are:

SKS-fixed mag with the grenade launcher removed.
M1A-with a "California approved" muzzle brake.
Mini-14
Mini-30

There's a fixed mag version of the AR-15 that's permitted. You have to break the weapon open to load it :barf:

Kel-Tec's new SU rifle meets the standard on the face of it.

Oh and there's a CETME that you can get without the pistol grip too. :barf: :barf:

Anyone else think of anything else that's allowed here?

This better wake the rest of the country up, real fast.

UnknownSailor
May 8, 2003, 02:23 AM
That is affermative. The Olympic style pistols with the mag in front of the trigger are banned, as well as the semi-auto Remington hunting rifles.
I remember Turner's Outdoorsman having a big problem with this. They wern't sure what semi-auto rifles they could sell, so they pulled them all off the shelves.

cpileri
May 8, 2003, 04:54 AM
Fred (of www.fredsm14stocks.com fame, surname unknown to me) should really get credit for this idea:

I read his story about he and his buddies sending Kofi Annan a shot-up blue helmet to provide a visual for his dissapproval of the UN global disarmament aims. Well, it got me thinking:

The reason corrupt politicians want to ban guns is of course fear; fear that they will face the business end of them causing an abrupt end to their corrupt carreers. Honest leaders have no reason to fear honest men with firearms.

Now, if its fear maybe that can be played upon. I don't have photoshop, nor the skills to do this, but someone might.

Just make 100 pictures, 2 for each senator (or 2 for each whatever);
the first shows them raising their hand taking the oath of office- use the original pic as its more personal. The caption shall read: "I support the right to keep and bear arms, and I will vote to abolish the p atriot Act" or something like that. The possibilities are endless.

The second is their portrait, riddles with bulletholes, perhaps even outlined by a scope reticle (you know, as if looking at it through a scope). the caption reads, "I support gun control and the patrio t act" or whatever.

They both arrive in an envelope together at the pols office; all 50 of them at once. No other note or communication is necessary. They will all get the message real quick.

wether or not that makes any difference is another topic.

Just don't put YOUR return address on it.

Me, well... I am not much a violent guy. Don't want to send the wrong message. Fred just has more b@!!s than i do.
C-


.....


p.s. seriously, I know its frustrating. But working within the system for non-violent change while that is still an option is morally defensible. Violence when non-violence is still an option is not.
C-

Waitone
May 8, 2003, 08:29 AM
Persistent little cuss, ain't she.

Does anyone know if the good senator turned in her other concealed handgun?

Master Blaster
May 8, 2003, 10:16 AM
I am wiriting and calling all three of my congress critter NOW!!! I suggest you do the same. My letter which I previously sent last month, and which I will be resending today:

Gentlemen;

Thank you for your conscientious efforts to serve my Fellow Delaware Citizens and me by upholding the Constitution of the United States, and preserving the God given rights laid out in the bill of rights from encroachment by those who seek to confer despotic power upon our elected government.

It has come to my attention that an odious piece of legislation has once again reared its ugly head. That piece of unconstitutional nonsense is known as the Assault Weapons Ban. Six years ago this legislation was passed with the intent of reducing crime by banning certain firearms based upon their cosmetic features. The Justice department recently completed a study of the effect of the AWB and found that it was not an effective or significant deterrent to criminal activity. What it does is demonize certain firearms based upon cosmetic features such as pistol grips and flash hiders. Make no mistake this legislation restricts the right of Honest Law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms of their choosing. It turns law-abiding citizens into potential felons based upon their ownership of an inanimate object. Criminals will still obtain and misuse weapons, even those that are banned by this legislation. If there is any doubt about that fact one merely needs to evaluate the effect of prohibition, or the now 20 year old war on some drugs for confirmation that these types of restrictions do nothing more than create a lucrative black market, for the ever expanding criminal population.

Thank You for your time.

Andrew Cohen
Constituent

DigitalWarrior
May 8, 2003, 11:32 AM
I write each of my senetors EVERY WEEK, just to let them know what I have done to try to stop them from getting re-elected. I list the number of people I have had converstaions with, usually about 10, so far this week it is only 2 :(. I also list the other efforts I goto, like giving money to other political parties and pamphleteering. She hasn't written me back in awhile. I think I will write up a letter and ask her why.

cordex
May 8, 2003, 11:58 AM
Snail mail going out tonight to both Senators (especially the one up for reelection in 2005) and my Rep.

rick_reno
May 8, 2003, 12:06 PM
Master Blaster wrote, in his letter to Congress...
"Six years ago this legislation was passed "

Wasn't this law enacted in 1994? If it's 2003, 1994 wasn't six years ago.

Carlos Cabeza
May 8, 2003, 12:35 PM
Shumer and Feinstein should leave my country and go where they are needed, like Columbia, South America. I'm sure they would be received with "open" arms.................................... :D :D

Bartholomew Roberts
May 8, 2003, 12:36 PM
Here's the short version:

Bush has said he supports reauthorization of the current law and would sign it.

As a result, Feinstein scratched her original bill which would have used California as a basis for the ban and proposed just a reauthorization of the current law in the Senate.

In the House however, McCarthy has proposed a really heinous "take-em all" kind of bill modeled on California law.

This actually works out well for us since we now have an extra chance to kill the bill in a House-Senate conference committee - although if it gets that far we will already be behind the power curve.

If you can only write one letter, write your Representative and kill that thing in the House.

Don't get despondent or despair either, things are looking pretty good - we are already swinging the debate from "Renew current or pass even harsher ban" to "Renew or let it die" early in the game. That is a good sign.

EDITED TO ADD:

Mailed my letters May 5th... nice timing eh?

Kaylee
May 8, 2003, 01:17 PM
so... is this being introduced on the floor, where it will be referred to Commitee? Or is that stage over, and we're down to the actual debate on the Senate floor?

It'd help to know where to focus our efforts right now.

-K

WonderNine
May 8, 2003, 01:52 PM
You guys are talking about Frankenstein like she's something other than just a senator. Remember, she's not the queen, just a senator. (thank god)

Bartholomew Roberts
May 8, 2003, 02:16 PM
The Senate bill was just introduced today and will go to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the appropriate subcommittee there.

The House bill has not yet been introduced but should be introduced in a few days. It will go to the House Judiciary committee where the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security will get first crack at it.

DadOfThree
May 8, 2003, 02:39 PM
I agree with Bartholomew Roberts, the more restrictive the bill they submit, the less likely it will pass. If they had turned in an exact duplicate of the original, we would have a much harder time stopping it and Bush has already said he would sign it.

Rawlings
May 8, 2003, 10:54 PM
In the House however, McCarthy has proposed a really heinous "take-em all" kind of bill modeled on California law.

This actually works out well for us since we now have an extra chance to kill the bill in a House-Senate conference committee - although if it gets that far we will already be behind the power curve.

If you can only write one letter, write your Representative and kill that thing in the House.

And what do we do if our Representative happens to be McCarthy? :banghead:

Bartholomew Roberts
May 8, 2003, 11:41 PM
And what do we do if our Representative happens to be McCarthy?

Encourage her to grab for the gold and tell her she isn't going far enough! If you can't drag them out of the burning building then time to push them deeper in...

Airwolf
May 8, 2003, 11:49 PM
Feinstein press release on AW renewal.

Warning! Major bull:cuss: ahead! Have barf bag at hand.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultweps.htm

Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Chafee, Boxer, Durbin Introduce Legislation to Reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban


- Bill would also close loophole in 1994 law that has allowed millions of large capacity ammunition clips to be imported into this country -
May 8, 2003


Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) today introduced legislation that would reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban and close a loophole in the law that has allowed millions of large-capacity ammunition clips to be imported into this country. The 1994 assault weapons ban was authored in the Senate by Senator Feinstein and authored in the House by Senator Schumer.


If Congress does not take action, the ban will expire on September 13, 2004, and manufacturers would once again be able to make the assault weapons that have been banned for almost 10 years.

"Military-style assault weapons simply have no place on America's streets," Senator Feinstein said. If Congress fails to act, the current ban will expire next year. This would be a terrible mistake. This is why Congress must reauthorize the ban and close the high-capacity clip importation loophole - so that we can help keep America's streets safe from the violence produced by assault weapons."


"The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons," Senator Schumer said. "That was as true in 1994 as it is today. But in a post-9/11 world, the assault weapons ban carries even greater urgency. With terrorists on American soil looking for ways to attack us at home, giving them carte blanche to pick up a Tec-9 with a high capacity clip is just plain stupid. It makes no sense. Sometimes the most basic and sensible laws are the most effective measures against terrorism that we have. I'd have to say this legislation fits that category."


The legislation would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban by striking the sunset date from the original law. This would:
Maintain the ban on the manufacture and importation of 19 types of common military style assault weapons - for all time.
Maintain the ban on an additional group of assault weapons that have been banned by characteristic for 8 years.
Continue to protect some 670 hunting and other recreational rifles for use by law-abiding citizens; and
Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons -- helping to prevent instances when law enforcement agents are outgunned by perpetrators.


"To the gun advocates who say assault weapons are not used for crimes, I say: Open your eyes, read the newspapers, see the heartbreak on TV every night across America," Senator Durbin said. "Just last week, in the town of Maywood, Illinois, a thug armed with an AK-47 rifle shot seven people, including a three-year-old boy. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, and we will only see more of these tragic headlines if we allow the current ban on these deadly weapons to expire next year."


The goal of the original bill was to drive down the supply of these weapons and make them more difficult to obtain. In the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically.

According to the most recent statistics made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:

In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes;
By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and
By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent.


In addition, the legislation introduced today would close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions.

A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but was bottled up in the 1999 Juvenile Justice conference report due to an unrelated provision. Since 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has approved the importation of almost 50 million high capacity ammunition magazines from some 50 countries.


President Bush has consistently indicated his support for the assault weapons ban, and just a few weeks ago, his spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated his support for reauthorizing the ban when he said: "The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law." Additionally, the President has also indicated his support for banning the importation of high capacity ammunition clips.


"Assault weapons are the weapons of choice for criminals and those who are seeking to do the maximum damage possible in the shortest amount of time," Senator Feinstein said. "That's what makes them so dangerous - because they have light triggers, you can spray fire them, you can hold them with two hands, and you don't really need to aim. They are not weapons of choice for hunters or those trying to protect themselves."


The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed, and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA).

Nightfall
May 9, 2003, 12:17 AM
...you can hold them with two hands...

Can't... stop... laughing...

UnknownSailor
May 9, 2003, 01:28 AM
Sometimes, I swear, telling the truth must be painfull for her. Everything in that press release was a a lie, and has been proven to be a lie so many times......
Enough. I will take my satisfaction in making abso-damned-lutely sure my Rep. and Senators vote against this. Prove Feinstein to be that wacked out nut job that she is. :mad:

Battler
May 9, 2003, 01:31 AM
Another is the light triggers. The lighter triggers are on "hunting" bolt-action rifles, military-pattern guns triggers are hard to even MODIFY to be better than appalling. (Okay, there are some okay aftermarket AR triggers; but AKs are a lost cause - good triggers are not an inherent feature of scary looking rifles).

I am truly uncertain as to whether or not the information they present comes from lack of knowledge, or is deliberate. I know, portraying them as evil would support the latter; but who could lie and misinform THAT much?

boing
May 9, 2003, 02:29 AM
The same people who have learned how easy it is to get away with.

Yes, they're evil.

pdt203
May 21, 2003, 09:47 PM
I called my representative, :cuss: , and voiced my opinion on the HR2038. I found out that Democrat actually does not support this.

Now if he votes for it, if it makes it to the floor, I will be pissed. But until then, everything looks good here! :scrutiny:

Johnny in Huntsville, AL

Carlos Cabeza
May 22, 2003, 02:28 PM
Yeahhhh rigghttttt, I see those "spray fire" weapons all the time...................They're so easy to get, any teen ager could easily afford to buy one with his allowance money.............AK47's are the weapon most criminals use..............
yeeaahhhh rigghhtttt ........:rolleyes:

Amazing how some people simply cannot think for themselves or even bother to research the issues...............:rolleyes: :scrutiny:

Meowhead
May 22, 2003, 04:25 PM
assault machine gun tec-9 clips blah blah light triggers blah two hands blah blah kill everything within a twenty mile radius blah nuclear-tipped twenty megaton bullets blah blah blah terrorist This makes me wonder. Are these people really this ignorant, or do they know exactly what they're saying - and say it anyway, knowing the average voter will take it as gospel?

Ewok
May 22, 2003, 07:35 PM
For anyone who doesn't know (or suffer under) the PRK's "Assault Weapon" ban the only semi-auto rifles permitted to be purchased here over .22 cal are [short list omitted]There are three different so-called assault weapon categories here, the one that lists a bunch by name (eg Colt AR15), the one that extends that to cover all ARs and AKs, and the latest one which covers cosmetic details. These details are:
“assault weapon” shall also mean the following:
Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of
the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
Note: Bayonets and bayonet lugs are not assault weapon characteristics under California law.
Pistols
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the fol-lowing:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to
fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
Shotguns
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or
vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.Any semi-auto rifle not on that list is still legal. Pretty much all hunting-style rifles are legal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Feinstein to introduce AWB renewal tomorrow" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!