Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law


PDA






Justin
December 27, 2012, 12:54 AM
Straight from the horse's mouth:

feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

(Hot linking deliberately disabled, so you'll have to copy and paste.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons



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.

To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Press releases

Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012
Summary of 2013 legislation

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
•Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
•Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
•Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
•Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
•Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
•Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
•Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
•Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
•Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
•Background check of owner and any transferee;
•Type and serial number of the firearm;
•Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
•Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
•Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here:
feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119




There it is folks.

We either kill this thing now, or the most popular sporting rifle in the entire country gets regulated as a machine gun.

If you enjoyed reading about "Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vtail
December 27, 2012, 01:01 AM
Oh, is that all?

Justin
December 27, 2012, 01:18 AM
It's late, and I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

This looks like pretty much our worst nightmare.

USAF_Vet
December 27, 2012, 01:21 AM
Hopefully someone will remind her that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

As it sits, I don't think that bill has a snowballs chance of getting out of committee, let alone an open vote.

Banning bullet buttons would make every single AR patter rifle in the state of California illegal to own.

Registering the several million civilian owned AR patter rifles on the rest of the country under the NFA is enough to kill this bill all by itself. Throw in all the AK, SKS, FAL, and every other civilian semi auto variant of a military rifle in private ownership, the ATF would grind to a halt.


"From my cold, dead hands" indeed.

RBid
December 27, 2012, 01:22 AM
That is more aggressive than what I expected.

Onmilo
December 27, 2012, 01:22 AM
I told ya...

HDCamel
December 27, 2012, 01:31 AM
If this passes. I'm out.
Seriously.

Onmilo
December 27, 2012, 01:37 AM
"Accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature" Like, say, a trigger...

Pilot
December 27, 2012, 01:38 AM
It is a negotiating stance. You demand the most over the top, outlandish position which shocks your adversary, therefore anything less seems like a compromise from them.

The counter should be repeal of the GCA of 1968, and the repeal of the ban on new manufacturer and importation of fully automatic rifles. In addition we want CCW reciprocity nationally. Ultimately we'll probably meet in the middle which is the current status quo.

SilentStalker
December 27, 2012, 01:39 AM
What ^^^do you mean you are out?

Flopsweat
December 27, 2012, 01:39 AM
...

As it sits, I don't think that bill has a snowballs chance of getting out of committee, let alone an open vote.

...
That's exactly how the Brady Bill got passed. Nobody thought it had a chance. Please take this seriously. Contact representatives. Be heard.

sidheshooter
December 27, 2012, 01:46 AM
She's flipped her lid. Killed in the egg, as written.

Justin
December 27, 2012, 01:49 AM
It is a negotiating stance. You demand the most over the top, outlandish position which shocks your adversary, therefore anything less seems like a compromise from them.

The counter should be repeal of the GCA of 1968, and the repeal of the ban on new manufacturer and importation of fully automatic rifles. In addition we want CCW reciprocity nationally. Ultimately we'll probably meet in the middle which is the current status quo.

You're probably right. It's just shocking to see it actually in print like that.

ATBackPackin
December 27, 2012, 01:51 AM
Time to call my represenatives.....again. If this or something like this passes, then I only have one thing to say.

It is better to die upon your feet then to live upon your knees.

Pilot
December 27, 2012, 01:53 AM
You're probably right. It's just shocking to see it actually in print like that.



Oh, I don't doubt she and her anti gun friends want all that and more, and we better prepare for the worst, because in recent years, and months things have passed and been upheld by the Supreme Court that I never thought would succeed. We are truly in different times.

I totally agree with the others. Treat this seriously, and inundate your elected representatives with your views, and let them know that we VOTE.

sidheshooter
December 27, 2012, 01:55 AM
You're probably right. It's just shocking to see it actually in print like that.

I didn't mean to be flip with my post right above. I mean, yes, she's flipped her lid, but I agree that the pucker factor went up when I read it.

JBrady555
December 27, 2012, 01:56 AM
"•Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic"

What handguns would be in this bullcrap legislation?

sidheshooter
December 27, 2012, 02:00 AM
^^^Hell, it could be any semi auto with night sights or a rail, as written.

JBrady555
December 27, 2012, 02:07 AM
I think we should all just move and take over costa rica or something.

Just kidding.

mljdeckard
December 27, 2012, 02:08 AM
I want a gold toilet seat. Doesn't mean I will get it. Feinstein knows this is probably her last hurrah. She's old, and she doesn't have enough time left to keep riding out the public sentiment cycle. Right now she has a lame-duck congress that wants ANYTHING besides the budget to talk about, and the fervor will not get more intense than it is RIGHT NOW. This is the peak of her power and control. She will not keep this position for long. There are a lot of roadblocks she has to get around. Getting it heard and voted on in both houses, (which is far from likely in itself,) Reid is not her ally in this, and she doesn't have the votes in congress at all. She is not in a position where she can force anyone to accept any degree of new gun control. It's not like she can force them to give her a counter-offer, they don't have to. The only difference between now and a month ago, is that she has the half-hearted support of five or so legislators who previously said they were against new gun laws, who are probably only saying so because they know that the law has absolutely no chance of going anywhere.

Yes, it's a lot to swallow, seeing it there all together like that. But remember she has ALWAYS wanted total confiscation of all guns. This should not be a surprise.

Half this battle is psychological. When we freak out every time they speak, they are winning. Don't freak out.

TAKtical
December 27, 2012, 02:09 AM
Im not moving to costa rica. Id be happy to escort some anti's to the border though.

Sheepdog1968
December 27, 2012, 02:10 AM
It sounds so extreme that it might push some who are on the fence in congress to vote no.

Dr_B
December 27, 2012, 02:13 AM
I like the title on her page "Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons." You know, because assault weapons are more deadly than other guns, or because they are deadly while other guns are not.

LISTEN UP! People need to stop saying this new legislation has little chance of passing. It has a chance. If you don't remain vigilant and treat it like it has a good chance of passing congress, then you will most likely end up living under it. Write your representatives, hit polls, do everything you can.

You might even have an effect by being a good representative of gun enthusiasts and taking someone who knows little about guns to the range. When you hear someone saying they support a ban, offer to take them out shooting. Show them that guns are only as dangerous as the person behind the trigger. Put a good face on gun ownership for them.

Feinstein wants to take the rifles we already own. She will not stop at registration. What will happen is this:
1. We register our guns.
2. Someone will screw up and not lock their guns away. More shootings happen even though we have a ban.
3. She will push for confiscation.

To make matters even worse, she wants the ATF to control registration, etc... Eric Holder is as crooked as a dog's hind leg and is, after all, responsible for losing guns to criminals.

JBrady555
December 27, 2012, 02:20 AM
One thing that is in our favor is that the last AWB passed with a vote tally of 216-214. That was in a democratically controlled congress. With republicans in control hopefully it will be shot down. No pun intended.

1911 guy
December 27, 2012, 02:22 AM
I agree. Innundate your representatives now while this thing is still in its infancy. We have a lame duck session in which some will seek to either make a name for themselves or leave an indellible mark upon their exit.

I'd like to agree that the result of negotiations will result in maintaining status quo, but I'm not so sure. We'll either kill this bill while it's still a nightmare rolling around in the ether or we'll be royally screwed.

mljdeckard
December 27, 2012, 02:28 AM
It has little chance of passing. No one is saying we shouldn't take it seriously.

My representatives are rock solid. Work on yours.

wacki
December 27, 2012, 02:52 AM
It is a negotiating stance. You demand the most over the top, outlandish position which shocks your adversary, therefore anything less seems like a compromise from them.

The counter should be repeal of the GCA of 1968, and the repeal of the ban on new manufacturer and importation of fully automatic rifles. In addition we want CCW reciprocity nationally. Ultimately we'll probably meet in the middle which is the current status quo.

I like this idea.

Dr_B
December 27, 2012, 02:53 AM
It has little chance of passing.

You and I will have to disagree on this. I think it has a much larger chance of passing than people are choosing to believe. The democrats and the media are playing hard on it this time. There are too many sheep out there, and the republicans are not as strong right now as people think.

I've contacted all of my reps for Idaho, and others in certain states.

22-rimfire
December 27, 2012, 03:04 AM
Thanks Justin for posting this. I had heard the one military characteristic versus two being in this bill. Serious stuff for shooters. Very serious.

If this thing passes, there will be a lot of guns that are not "registered".

Quick Shot xMLx
December 27, 2012, 03:14 AM
People need to take this threat seriously. I could see this getting attached to a fiscal cliff deal which is favorable for the Republicans and enough traitors will vote for it.

Iramo94
December 27, 2012, 03:24 AM
Wow. This is, uh, big. Wow.

Was it this fast in England and Australia? Did they have one bad day and dump all of the legislation at once?

Hopefully we can kill this while it's still just a proposal, so someone doesn't decide that it's time to water the tree. There will be just an almighty amount of resistance if this happens.

wacki
December 27, 2012, 03:28 AM
It has little chance of passing. No one is saying we shouldn't take it seriously.


If it has no chance of passing why is NPR doing hail marry and railing on guns daily?

Even they say "things feel different now" and "we need to keep the drum beating"

.
.
.

mljdeckard
December 27, 2012, 03:34 AM
I never said 'no', you did. What do you think NPR usually says about guns? NPR is anti-gun and suddenly this is a crisis?

AGAIN, this is nothing new folks. They might stir up some of the general public to harumph. But we certainly aren't helping running around looking for pieces of fallen sky. I would love to play poker with some of you guys.

Tim the student
December 27, 2012, 03:40 AM
This is not good. We need to up our activism on this one.

If we can't get it stopped, I pray my wife will pop out our kid prior to this becoming law, so I can gift our newborn a couple black rifles.

gunNoob
December 27, 2012, 03:51 AM
My guns will get grandfathered and I will conveniently forget to register them because I never had any guns ;)

Checkman
December 27, 2012, 03:56 AM
Get busy guys. Those of you who are panicking need to channel all that energy to more positive actions like contacting reps, joining the NRA, getting others to contact their reps and join the NRA. I guess go debate some anti's on the various social media sites. you might convince some people who are unsure that Feinstein is a nut.

Yes it's scary and yes it's imposing. Well okay that doesn't mean it's indestructible. Try to remember that no matter what the anti's are saying (and of course they're going to make themselves sound like they are twelve feet tall and everyone is behind them) this isn't 1994. We are better organized and we have better communications than there were in 1994. THR is an outstanding example of that.

In many ways this reminds me of the summer of 99 after Colombine. Only then they had the AWB in effect so they were going after little things. Everyone kept saying that we didn't have the moral imperative and that we had reached a "moral tipping point". The news media kept talking about how the NRA was crippled and blah blah blah. It was a really rough time for gunowners, but we got through it. However it took a lot of work. I became very active that year. I didn't worry about the sky falling.

dark.zero.x
December 27, 2012, 05:52 AM
I cant even.

No more concessions no more compromise. Since 1934 My rights have been given up without my consent.

As a very brave man once said:
Give me liberty, or give me death.

RX-178
December 27, 2012, 07:03 AM
Let me get this straight.

This woman reintroduces the old AWB year after year after year... after YEAR. It never gains any traction.

The ONE TIME she has a chance at getting support for this bill, the one single solitary time in almost 10 years...

She dives off the deep end and comes up with something so unbelievably radical and insane, even the Joe Manchins in the Senate will laugh it out of the room.

I swear to god she's gotten too used to the bill failing to want it to succeed.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 27, 2012, 07:13 AM
Now can we finally stop repeating that "they learned their lesson in 94" nonsense that is always brought up?

gunnutery
December 27, 2012, 07:50 AM
That sucks to say the least.

I would like to remind everyone to checkout the FBI crime stats under murder by weapon. Let you're reps know that RIFLES (doesn't specify auto,semi,bolt etc) were only used in 323 murders out of 12,644 in 2011 and the trend is on the decline over the last 5 years. Obviously there are variables and the stats aren't the end all be all, but we're using GOVERNMENT stats against them!

RX-178
December 27, 2012, 08:00 AM
Oh, when you guys write your senators and congress-critters about this, be sure to copy and paste what's on Feinstein's website. Just READING this will probably get a few of them, even a few anti-gun leaning moderates to steer clear of this career-killing insanity.

I'm going to repeat my opinion that I think Feinstein has just lost the support of Joe Manchin, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and all the other A-ranked congresspeople that turncoated on the high-cap issue.

Gregaw
December 27, 2012, 08:09 AM
I agree that she's asking for less than she wants, but more than even she knows she can get. Then it will make her seem reasonable when she "compromises" away some of this lunacy.

Demand the first-born son and then you'll seem like a nice guy when all you take is the family dog.

napjerk
December 27, 2012, 08:15 AM
This is bad news.

On an unrelated note (I don't know where else to put this), I went out on a boating trip yesterday and for some stupid reason I took all my guns along with me. As luck would have it, the boat capsized and I lost ALL my guns overboard in international waters. Dammit. :(

mcdonl
December 27, 2012, 08:22 AM
The great thing about extremist is they are always looked at with one raised eyebrow. The over the top style proves deadly to both sides and typicaly the status quo wins. In my opinion.

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 08:22 AM
You and I will have to disagree on this. I think it has a much larger chance of passing than people are choosing to believe. The democrats and the media are playing hard on it this time. There are too many sheep out there, and the republicans are not as strong right now as people think.

I've contacted all of my reps for Idaho, and others in certain states.
Exactly. These folks in D.C. are just toying with us. They already know in advance what they are going to do. We will be lucky to escape without a SA ban in rifle and handgun. Forget about hicap magazines, that is toast even before the argument begins. Forget about NFA registration of all black rifles, they are looking at "real and substantive" changes. I never thought Obama could be elected not just once but twice in this country.

If you look at some of the early reports, folks with an NRA A rating are beginning to line up. They have always wanted to remove the guns from Americans, as far as SA and those black rifles, if they are not banned, I will be quite surprised myself. Don't underestimate where we stand. That is, completely at the mercy of the folks that "we sent" to D.C. It didn't matter that the majority of folks in the US didn't want Obamacare, but guess what is the "law of the land" today. We live in a different era, the Obama era. Nothing is beyond belief any longer.

Buck Kramer
December 27, 2012, 08:24 AM
Those surveyed were asked what happened to their firearm collection:

100% were lost in a boating accident
End of list lol

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 08:27 AM
Wow. This is, uh, big. Wow.

Was it this fast in England and Australia? Did they have one bad day and dump all of the legislation at once?

Hopefully we can kill this while it's still just a proposal, so someone doesn't decide that it's time to water the tree. There will be just an almighty amount of resistance if this happens.
Yes in Australia, no in England, they were a slow burn over about 100 years of progressive gun control. By the time it hit them, they had already surrendered most of their rights long ago.

Master Blaster
December 27, 2012, 08:28 AM
The state of Delaware does not allow NFA registered items. So for Delaware this would be a complete ban on all semiautomatic weapons. I am sure my three Democratic toadies in congress would vote for this. The Hunters in my state are Morons, and I am sure would support the ban.

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 08:30 AM
The state of Delaware does not allow NFA registered items. So for Delaware this would be a complete ban on all semiautomatic weapons. I am sure my three Democratic toadies in congress would vote for this. The Hunters in my state are Morons, and I am sure would support the ban.
Unfortunately, the individual state battles have not even come on the radar screen yet. Even if nothing substantive gets done in D.C., the states will begin lining up as well. This will not look pretty when it is over, what ever over means.

Sav .250
December 27, 2012, 08:38 AM
To think that the gun owners in the US and certain gun owners in particular are not in for a rough stretch is not facing reality. Like it or not this is when ther rubber meets the road. May take time but when you can hear the drummer, the band is not far behind.

wow6599
December 27, 2012, 08:42 AM
Sent an email to Senators Blunt (good guy) and McCaskill (Obama's puppet).

I asked McCaskill for a yes or no answer - or not one at all. We'll see...

19-3Ben
December 27, 2012, 08:44 AM
Ok, I just wrote one hell of a note to Senators Blumenthal and Leiberman.
This is outrageous.

It's one thing to engage in "positional bargaining" where each side starts off with an unreasonable extreme stance, and then meets in the middle. But when you start off this crazy, I feel like you just lose credibility.
She talks a big line about "common sense gun laws." There is nothing about this that meets up with common sense.

HOOfan_1
December 27, 2012, 08:44 AM
Those evil thumbhole stocks.....

wow, the gun grabbers actually did some research to figure out that the thumbhole stock is a work around...but they still fail to understand that a pistol grip in no way makes weapons more dangerous.

Idiots...all of them are idiots

JohnBT
December 27, 2012, 08:45 AM
"The ONE TIME she has a chance at getting support for this bill, the one single solitary time in almost 10 years... She dives off the deep end "


That's what I was thinking.

Gato Montés
December 27, 2012, 08:47 AM
I don't suppose the 120 banned and 900 exempt lists are available to see, are they?

What I'm most surprised about are all the speculations before anything was released that are actually true, like the move to NFA. Seems like a lot of people knew about this for some time which only tells me that a bunch of folks were working on this for a long time, at least before the tragedy in CT.

racenutz
December 27, 2012, 08:50 AM
I'm quite surprised she isn't trying to ban .50 BMG rifles. I guess that's for the next tragedy.

M-Cameron
December 27, 2012, 08:54 AM
120 specifically-named firearms

120 specifically names firearms!!!:what:

goodness, depending on the guns, that has the potential to practically shut down the majority of the firearms industry...

has anyone released a list of those firearms? or is it like obama-care and you have to pass it to find out whats inside?

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 27, 2012, 08:54 AM
What I'm most surprised about are all the speculations before anything was released that are actually true, like the move to NFA. Seems like a lot of people knew about this for some time which only tells me that a bunch of folks were working on this for a long time, at least before the tragedy in CT.

Well, yeah. People like Feinstein and the rest of her ilk have been telling us what they want to do for years. It has never been a secret that massive restrictions like his have been their goal.

Bob2222
December 27, 2012, 09:08 AM
I'm quite surprised she isn't trying to ban .50 BMG rifles. I guess that's for the next tragedy.

Oh, like most libs she's Barrett-phobic -- notwithstanding that anyone who spends that kind of money for a rifle isn't going to shoot anything but paper or steel targets.

It's no doubt on her "list". The problem with specifying .50 and larger, of course, is that it covers a lot more than Barretts -- like a lot of black powder.

If you have a bill that's written by a bunch of recent third-tier law school grads who are working as unpaid interns, that minor detail would not be considered a problem. Even if she read the proposed bill, I don't think Feinstein is a lawyer herself.

This bill is so stupidly written that it has a snowball's chance... but I said that about Obamacare, too.

I'd contact my Senators but one is in advanced state of senile dementia and the other one is so much of a left wing loon that he makes Karl Marx look conservative. It would be a waste of electrons. Contact yours!

hogshead
December 27, 2012, 09:09 AM
Sorry can't help but think that for the first time Obama actually stimulated the economy. Now Fienstien even wants to ruin that for him. Imagine the gun manufacturers that would simply have to shut down. Maybe a house will land on her before long. lol

Pictures
December 27, 2012, 09:22 AM
I'm honestly not worried about this at all. There's a greater threat to us here in NY. We have to fight just to keep what few gun rights he have left.

Speaking of which, how's the housing market in PA looking these days?

Pilot
December 27, 2012, 09:22 AM
My largest worry is what someone else said in a different thread. The country is different from 1994 regarding the backlash from the original AWB to change to Republican control. The demographics are different, the attitudes are different, and while we still have 2A, and Heller it may not be enough to reduce what the Dems and media are calling "reasonable gun laws".

IMHO, they only thing we're going to have to hang our hat on with regards to upholding very draconian restrictions to semi-auto military style rifles is the "Common Use" test in Miller and Heller. If the nature of the SCOTUS changes due to death or retirement, all bets are off on what the 2A really means.

The-Reaver
December 27, 2012, 09:32 AM
Telling these individuals that " the 2nd amendment " does this and that doesn't work. THEY DON'T CARE!


If Thomas Jefferson, George Washington where here she'd be hanged for treason just for opening her trap.

Yo Mama
December 27, 2012, 09:33 AM
I want a gold toilet seat. Doesn't mean I will get it. Feinstein knows this is probably her last hurrah. She's old, and she doesn't have enough time left to keep riding out the public sentiment cycle. Right now she has a lame-duck congress that wants ANYTHING besides the budget to talk about, and the fervor will not get more intense than it is RIGHT NOW. This is the peak of her power and control. She will not keep this position for long. There are a lot of roadblocks she has to get around. Getting it heard and voted on in both houses, (which is far from likely in itself,) Reid is not her ally in this, and she doesn't have the votes in congress at all. She is not in a position where she can force anyone to accept any degree of new gun control. It's not like she can force them to give her a counter-offer, they don't have to. The only difference between now and a month ago, is that she has the half-hearted support of five or so legislators who previously said they were against new gun laws, who are probably only saying so because they know that the law has absolutely no chance of going anywhere.

Yes, it's a lot to swallow, seeing it there all together like that. But remember she has ALWAYS wanted total confiscation of all guns. This should not be a surprise.

Half this battle is psychological. When we freak out every time they speak, they are winning. Don't freak out.

This is the only post that has made me feel better! I'm still writing everyone today.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 27, 2012, 09:39 AM
Unfortunately, this administration and his comrades in Congress have literally passed laws under a "don't read it until after it's passed" rationale. All bets are off. "This is too stupid to actually pass" is not a sure thing anymore, if it ever was.

Texan Scott
December 27, 2012, 09:48 AM
Fellow Texans,

Write your Congresscritters of course, but also:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, we should write our GOVERNOR and ATTORNEY GENERAL asking that if this bill passes the House, the State of Texas must immediately sue in the 5th Circuit Court demanding an injunction against enforcement in Texas on the grounds that it is a direct affront to the State's sovereignty and security.

I am not a secessionist. I think it would be possible, legal, probably peaceable, certainly difficult and uncomfortable, and I'm not in favor of it. I greatly fear, however, that passage and enforcement of this bill under this President might well push us to the brink of a full-court mainstream press for a new Republic of Texas.

Someone please talk some sense to these people... what do they really want to happen?

Trent
December 27, 2012, 09:52 AM
This legislation would probably make just every weapon I own illegal except a breech load 12 gauge...

It's almost like this idiot is TRYING to start an insurrection.

Jim Watson
December 27, 2012, 10:05 AM
This is very much the sort of proposal that I expected.

Get after your supposedly elected alleged representatives and let them know your rights and interests in no uncertain terms. Politely but clearly and firmly.


Remember, the people who are telling you that repressive gun control laws cannot pass are the same ones who told you that B. Hussein Obama was not going to be reelected.

highorder
December 27, 2012, 10:06 AM
I'd imagine the ATF would need to double it's manpower just to manage the enormous expansion of the NFA registry.

Awful.

All hands on deck folks. Write your congress critters, educate your friends, family, and shooting buddies. This one is going to take all our efforts to defeat.

herkyguy
December 27, 2012, 10:12 AM
letters in the mail to representatives. member of the NRA. and lastly, i will take anyone out shooting if they show even a slight interest.....all in the name of opening up people's eyes.

this is ridiculous, but still needs to be taken seriously. the political climate is indeed different and there is a lot of pressure, both domestic and international, against gun ownership.

hso
December 27, 2012, 10:16 AM
This looks like pretty much our worst nightmare.


No, this is bad enough, but our worst nightmare would be an Australian style forced confiscation. Since that's simply not possible as a starting point to start negotiations with other Congresscritters she's taken the next step down from that extreme to what colleagues in her camp will push.

Single feature was expected. Magazine capacity was expected. I think she's angling for CA style AWB as her end game with the addition of single feature and will give up NFA (since you have to amend the NFA to include semis), "bullet buttons", fixed magazines, etc.

It will be interesting to see how the hunting community responds since AR type rifles have grown in that area (heck, my wife had a Colt SP-1 in 7.62X39 for whitetail deer) with manufacturers like Remington and others producing AR types in classic hunting calibers and people are using 6.8 ARs for everything from boar to deer.

ZeSpectre
December 27, 2012, 10:16 AM
I'd imagine the ATF would need to double it's manpower just to manage the enormous expansion of the NFA registry.
Really, a Government office getting bigger and demanding more money?!?

I have been in my representative's ears since 1997. At this point they see me coming a mile away. Some of the relationships are cordial and professional, a couple are antagonistic (I have one representative who HATES to be reminded that he works for the citizens not the other way around).

GET ACTIVE AND STAY ACTIVE, constant steady unrelenting pressure is how this game is won!

Notes on activism and activism fatigue (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690308)

kwguy
December 27, 2012, 10:28 AM
What's really sad is that she is so obvious, just like we've been saying all along. NONE of this nonsense would have made a bit of difference in the CT school murders. She just used that to grease the skids of this fascist monstronsity, and the kids are forgotten. They were just a part of her equation.

Mojo-jo-jo
December 27, 2012, 10:50 AM
Be vigilant. Frankly, I see this passing the Democrat controlled Harry Reid led Obama-rubber-stamp Senate with flying colors. I can only hope that the house doesn't cave as usual. If this goes to a vote in the house, we're going to get stuck with at least half of it.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 10:54 AM
Interestingly it talks about grandfathering weapons but makes no mention of grandfathering magazines. Instead it just talks about banning 10+ mags so i gota wonder what her plan is there.

Mostly i'd just like to see the list of 120 specific weapons. Plenty are obvious but i'm curious what all is on there and how they define each gun. Did they include Saigas, for example?

vtail
December 27, 2012, 10:59 AM
On drudgereport.com now, full headline reads:

"SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS"

The link leads back to Feinsteins summary on her website.

This has now hit the mainstream. Drudge has millions of readers. I predict a huge uproar will start in 5,4,3,2,...............

herkyguy
December 27, 2012, 11:01 AM
It just took me half an hour to email Senators in my state of residence and the state where i am currently stationed. Additionally, i emailed congressmen and governors of both states informing them of my strong support of the Second Amendment and my strong opposition to the knee jerk reaction soon to be proposed by Dianne Feinstein.

i pointed out that the recent murder of two firefighters was the responsiblity of a convicted felon, a man already not "allowed" to legally own guns.

I decided to skip the whitehouse as I gave up long ago on that madhouse employing any reason at all.
Please do the same.

Agsalaska
December 27, 2012, 11:02 AM
I am glad to see that the vast majority of posters on this board are taking this seriously. Those that still believe that nothing is going to happen need to wake up. This is, IMHO, a far more dangerous situation than 94.

They pushed thru Obamacare despite widespread opposition in the public. There were elected officials who knew voting for Obamacare would cost them their positions and they did it anyway.

fehhkk
December 27, 2012, 11:05 AM
I'm glad it's very over the top and ridiculous, as it has less chance of passing. They want ALL or NOTHING. So, they will get NOTHING banned.

T Slothrop
December 27, 2012, 11:06 AM
Mostly i'd just like to see the list of 120 specific weapons. Plenty are obvious but i'm curious what all is on there and how they define each gun. Did they include Saigas, for example?

Indeed. Also, is the mini-14 on or off this time? And what about rimfires? Are 10/22s in ATI stocks going to become "assault weapons" this time?

Doc7
December 27, 2012, 11:08 AM
Interested to see some examples of "form letter" style responses to this that I can send to my senators and congressmen. I am in NJ and have found a site to identify my reps: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

I am very new as an owner (though not new politically) to this hobby/lifestyle and want to make sure that all the avenues of it that seemed bright, gleaming and open to me such a short time ago (1911s for IDPA and/or CCW, continuing down the path of .22LR target rifles and small game rifles, a black gun for home defense, etc etc) STAY open. I understand that the ban as written will have no impact on people who WANT to inflict damage on people, and the primary impacted audience will be the millions of law abiding citizens. I don't know the best way to write it up to my reps though.

xwingband
December 27, 2012, 11:17 AM
It's even scarier is that the lists are not there and what comprises a "military feature". For example I have a Keltec SU-16 I put on the pistol grip and stock conversion... could I get boned because of the rails or detachable magazine???

I've e-mailed my senators. I have never campaigned before, but if any part of this gets passed there will be hell to pay.

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 11:45 AM
I will be writing letters and emails as soon a I get home from work. If having a detachable magazine with a standard capacity of 11 or more and a rail is enough to need to register, then 2 of my 3 handguns would be NFA. I guess it's a good thing I lost them when I was out deep-sea fishing, because I don't want to pay tax stamps to register.

I will be attacking this from the perspectives of economy (increase in taxes cripples lower income gun owners, damage to the market especially in small-business accessories manufacturers), crime (what really stops crime as opposed to gun bans), and what the 2nd Amendment and freedom in general are all about.

If the ban passes and Texas secedes, I think I'd have to move to Texas, despite my aversion to heat. The population of that state (er...country, I guess) would probably triple in a year unless some extreme immegration laws are put in place and enforced.

we are not amused
December 27, 2012, 11:47 AM
This is Senator Feinstein! What did you expect?:rolleyes:

Personally as much as I despise Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid politically, he has been pretty darn good on the gun issue. As have many individual elected Democrats in the Senate.

This Bill has zero chance.

Add to it the fact that the House is controlled by the Republicans.

I think by it's mere over-the-top nature, that even Senator Feinstein recognizes this, which is why a more moderate, passable Bill is not being considered.

Still, it is important to call your Representative and both Senators, even if they are anti-gun, and let them know you do not support this still un-submitted Bill.

It is even more important, to let those who would oppose this Bill, know that they have the support of their constituents.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 11:50 AM
I just hope this doesn't draw attention to the fact that the tax stamp fee has never been adjusted for inflation.

Derek Zeanah
December 27, 2012, 11:51 AM
This makes me very angry.

ID-shooting
December 27, 2012, 11:53 AM
Wrote both senatros and my congressman just now. I even added my governor since this proposed ban would violate our state constitution as well.

Gregaw
December 27, 2012, 11:55 AM
I just hope this doesn't draw attention to the fact that the tax stamp fee has never been adjusted for inflation.

I just plugged $200 dollars into an inflation calculator for 1934 and that would equal about $3400 today! yikes!

morcey2
December 27, 2012, 11:56 AM
I think I share a rep w/ mjldeckard. Even if I don't, all of our reps (even Matheson) are really good on RKBA. Regardless, I've written them along with Sens Lee and Hatch. I still don't see it going anywhere in the house.

I do think this is a negotiation starting point though.

The one line that I thought was odd from the "summary" is

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by ...

I'll ignore the fact that 2A has nothing to do with hunting.

So. Existing gun owners have rights, but new gun owners don't? Is that because of some footnote in the Constitution having to do with the sunsetting of the Second Amendment? How about we apply that same logic to the First Amendment? If you haven't been baptised or otherwise declared some religion prior to the law taking force, you will need to apply through the Bureau of Atheists, Trinitarians, Faiths, and Evangelicals to be able to join the church of your choice. If, after the fee is paid and background check run, you don't qualify for the religion of your choice, you will be banned for life (and afterlife) from any religion.

:banghead:

Matt

we are not amused
December 27, 2012, 11:56 AM
By the way, I noticed the Senator has posted a link for updates on her proposed legislation. It might be interresting to sign up, so that when ever she post an update, we can all call our Congressmen and urge the proposed legislation be struck down.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban

Yeah, I know, just more spam! But think about what an almost instant response to her updates might make.

ngnrd
December 27, 2012, 11:57 AM
I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

Needing to know what on the proposed list to be banned, or asking if a particular weapon is likely to be banned, is an indication that some people would be OK with a new ban, as long as it doesn't immediately affect them. This is a dangerous attitude.

People, please understand that even if they only want your neighbor's guns today, they'll soon want yours. Don't think for a minute that "It's OK, I'll still have mine when this is over", because you most assuredly won't. You will wake up one day, and your's will be gone, too.

And, the only way that won't happen, is if we all band together to protect everybody's rights; even the rights of those whom you might think may not actually have a need for a semi-automatic rifle that can carry more than 4 rounds.

bds
December 27, 2012, 12:02 PM
This makes me very angry.
Me too. We haven't even started the "meaningful" discussion on how to better protect the students in public schools and citizens in public places and the antis push this out!

This should bring together pro-gun supporters and forge a stronger opposition.

Many democrats are pro-gun/pro-2A under the "right to self-defense" argument and will be interesting to see what happens next.

22-rimfire
December 27, 2012, 12:05 PM
Unfortunately, this administration and his comrades in Congress have literally passed laws under a "don't read it until after it's passed" rationale.

I don't think this will be one of them. I just hope they don't try to attach this bill or one very similar to a spending bill or a bill to raise the national debt limit.

Interestingly it talks about grandfathering weapons but makes no mention of grandfathering magazines. Instead it just talks about banning 10+ mags so i gota wonder what her plan is there.

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

The word BAN to me means that it will be illegal to use them and perhaps possess them.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 12:10 PM
Needing to know what on the proposed list to be banned, or asking if a particular weapon is likely to be banned, is an indication that some people would be OK with a new ban, as long as it doesn't immediately affect them. This is a dangerous attitude.

Nope, not at all. I have literally dozens of firearms that i have no doubt would be included. You're reading far more than is there.

So i assume you are active in all other fights against government infringement on liberties?

gbw
December 27, 2012, 12:21 PM
I'm surprised that it's such a cumbersome bill, this list and that list and this piece and that part, register this or that, ad nauseaum. But I'm curious about the lists too.

Very bad legislation - too complex, hard to understand, intrusive into lawful citizen's personal lives, difficult and expensive to implement and enforce, bound to be unpopular. But as others have noted, so is Obamacare. The difference is this bill is can achieve none of the results she purports to want. This must be made clear, correctly and loud and often.

Feinstein isn't stupid and she knows all this, it'll be interesting to see what she really wants to keep and what loopholes she'll allow and what she'll trade away for votes. She's looking to build legacy, one of 2 goals for career politicians. The other is re-election.

Perhaps I'm wrong but this tells me they aren't as serious as I feared. If they were really serious they'd have just tried for a nice, clean, easy law, something like a retroactive outright ban of all SA magazine fed weapons, which is what I expected.

Never the less, as others have said, take this very very seriously. Work hard, make your points politely, be respectful, and do not come across as a zealot.

ivankerley
December 27, 2012, 12:23 PM
i cant articulate any better than the rest of you already have how bad the bill sounds, but can anybody find the magic 120 list? ive googled and read through alot, nothing yet. or is this just a magic number they pulled outta their airy little heads like the magical 10 round nonsense...
gene

ID-shooting
December 27, 2012, 12:25 PM
Just a guess, but probably similar to the UN's list

ultramag44
December 27, 2012, 12:35 PM
As this proposed bill, is the low-information, simpleton voters who keep sending this national embarrassment back to the senate!

Don't think for one minute she heard about the tragic events in CT, said a silent prayer for the dead, then sat @ her keyboard and write this affront to the 2nd amendment.

She has been writing, tweaking and adjusting this thing for years and waiting patiently as a circling buzzard. What happened in CT happened and she gleefully filed the bill.

Of course sister Fienstein says, "This is all I want. Give me this bill and I'll be satisfied."

Would she be willing to amend her bill to read: The United States shall make no law to ever further restrict firearms acquisition or ownership beyond the confines of this bill.

NOT! This is the first step on Satan's Cat Walk.

bds
December 27, 2012, 12:38 PM
So how will her "proposal" help the home owners defend themselves against multiple intruders?

Recently, a home owner had to engage 3 robbers in a home invasion robbery gun fight and I really don't think 10 rounds is enough against multiple attackers - http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 12:40 PM
So how will her "proposal" help the home owners defend themselves against multiple intruders?

Recently, a home owner had to engage 3 robbers in a home invasion robbery gun fight and I really don't think 10 rounds is enough against multiple attackers -http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion

But doesn't Cali already have a ban on 10+ mags?

we are not amused
December 27, 2012, 12:43 PM
I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.


Excellent post! And, yes, I have noticed that too!

Too many people are assuming something must be done, and seem willing to cut separate deals for themselves.

While we need to know what the enemies of the 2nd Amendment are up to, we need to stand firm against them.

Look, let us be honest here. There are a lot of people on this site who don't really believe in the RKBA.

And by the way JustinJ, I, for one, am in the fight against Government overreach, and trampling of our 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

But this is a gun forum, and I try to limit my political opinions to gun control on it.

But we are getting off subject.

I think that the simple over reach of this bill will doom it to failure.

But we need to let our elected Representatives know. And we need to stand together.

Don't forget Ben Franklin's warning, "We must hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately."

SilentStalker
December 27, 2012, 12:44 PM
Thank you for all of those that have written their congressman. This is something we must do. However, I would like to address the point that I think most of us need to be more stern in our letters. In others words, instead of being all nice about it we need to blatantly tell them that any legislation enforcing any of these proposed bans or any ban of any kind will be met with resistance. That will get them thinking. I am serious about this. The time for being nice about it is over. We need to stand our ground and speak with a stern voice that this will not be tolerated.

KMatch
December 27, 2012, 12:44 PM
Indeed. Also, is the mini-14 on or off this time? And what about rimfires? Are 10/22s in ATI stocks going to become "assault weapons" this time?
"Fixed magazines over 10 rounds" was mentioned. So, that rules out TONS of 22s as assault weapons.

bds
December 27, 2012, 12:44 PM
But doesn't Cali already have a ban on 10+ mags?
Only for the law abiding citizens ... the ban doesn't apply to the criminals and never will.

The 10 round magazine restriction will only hurt the law abiding citizens defend their lives as home invasion robberies often involve multiple robbers.

we are not amused
December 27, 2012, 12:47 PM
So how will her "proposal" help the home owners defend themselves against multiple intruders?

I don't think she gives a tinker damn about them. The way she looks at it is, they can call the cops and let them handle it. Even if it means that the home owner is dead, it beats letting him defend himself.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 12:49 PM
And by the way JustinJ, I, for one, am in the fight against Government overreach, and trampling of our 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Great, but most people are only concerned with liberties that they specifically value. If that truly isn't you then i applaud you.

Regardless, wanting to know more specifics of the bill is not indicative of only being concerned about continued availability of the guns one currently owns.

jrdolall
December 27, 2012, 12:49 PM
Anti-gun compromise is an oxymoron.
I will give you an example of their type of compromise.
I demand that every member of THR immediately send me $1000. I expect that some of you may balk at this proposal although it makes perfectly good sense to me. I mean that you guys have plenty of extra cash to buy guns and ammo so why not give me part of that money for a worthy cause(me). Okay, since this seems unreasonable to some of you regressive people I am willing to compromise and you only have to send me $400. I can "compromise" my way all the way to $1 each and show people who believe in my "cause"(mainly my family members) that I was willing to compromise all the way from $1000 to $1 so who is the one willing to give up the most?
Compromise at it's finest and I am up a few thousand dollars.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 12:52 PM
Only for the law abiding citizens ... the ban doesn't apply to the criminals and never will.

The 10 round magazine restriction will only hurt the law abiding citizens defend their lives as home invasion robberies often involve multiple robbers.

You've completely missed the point. The post was citing a story of multiple attackers as a need for 10+ mags but the defender in said story was most likely using a weapon with a 10 or less capacity.

bds
December 27, 2012, 12:53 PM
The police chief of our city publicly stated the department lacks the resources to sufficiently respond to all 911 calls if the home owner is in immediate danger.

I have seen this sentiment repeated by many other city/county LEOs.

If a home invasion robbery takes place with one or multiple robbers, you are on your own to defend your life and the lives of your family. Police cannot help you at that moment. Gun/magazine restrictions will not help the home owner.

hso
December 27, 2012, 01:00 PM
While the Whitehouse.gov petitions are just to bring an issue to the attention of White House staff there is a basic broad petition that has gotten the needed signatures to pass through the first "gate" for attention. This "No AWB" petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-any-legislation-will-ban-assualt-weapons-semi-automatic-rifles-or-handguns-and-high-capacity/bjlkvNSf) should be signed by all THR members, as well as any other firearms site member, to show the number of people interested enough to say no to this proposed AWB.

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 01:11 PM
Good call HSO, will sign when I get home.

TanklessPro
December 27, 2012, 01:14 PM
And how would this new law have stopped the Newton disaster?

It would not have. If this was law before Newton, the only difference would be the $200 bucks that would have been paid. That shows that 26 lives are worth 200 bucks in the libs eyes, what hypocrites. They don't care about anything except their public image.

I pray this doesn't pass.

roadchoad
December 27, 2012, 01:25 PM
I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

The scarier thought is that beyond the anti-gun and pro-gun crowds, there is a whole group of what I call non-gun people who feel the same way. They do not own, use, or interact with guns in any way, so an AWB will not affect them personally. They could care less what law passes. Those are the ones whose ear we need to bend.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 27, 2012, 01:37 PM
The scarier thought is that beyond the anti-gun and pro-gun crowds, there is a whole group of what I call non-gun people who feel the same way. They do not own, use, or interact with guns in any way, so an AWB will not affect them personally. They could care less what law passes. Those are the ones whose ear we need to bend.
Personally, I think it's scarier that you see that attitude here more than with non-gun people. Non-gun people generally don't make as big of a deal about the Constitution and rights as we do. And yet, despite all the talk of defending rights and liberty, there are FAR more "Just don't ban what I like" attitudes on THR than I would have expected. Pages and pages of multiple threads of supposed liberty loving gun owners saying that they would be OK with banning certain types of video games, or would consider accepting a ban on "military style" rifles as long as their particular type of favorite guns don't get touched.


Yet again, as was true long ago, we must hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Logan5579
December 27, 2012, 01:42 PM
I'm seeing a lot of posts on here that say that this has no chance of passing or its DOA because it is too extreme. Well extreme is what the anti-gun crowd does best, and to underestimate your opponent may get you an unwelcome surprize. I'm glad that so many are writing their reps and making our voice heard, the loud left surely has their outlet (the mainstream media) and we have to counter that by every means we have at our disposal.

The congresscritters are vote driven and if we generate enough volume even the ones on the fence may think more about leaning our way. That being said, write your reps if you haven't already. Try to stay away from form letters and use your own words, be polite but firm, and use your spell checker. Some of the people you contact may think we're savages already and we don't want to re-enforce any negative stereotypes.

bds
December 27, 2012, 01:50 PM
there is a whole group of what I call non-gun people who feel the same way. They do not own, use, or interact with guns in any way, so an AWB will not affect them personally. They could care less what law passes. Those are the ones whose ear we need to bend.
The democrats and liberals I work with were against gun ownership in the past until the crime rate increased in our city in recent years with increasing number of violent home invasion robberies by multiple criminals who often raped and killed the home owners.

Over the years, they openly purchased guns and began to speak in support of gun ownership and cited right to self protection. They even asked us conservatives to teach them to shoot and I welcomed the opportunity to educate them in the virtues of gun ownership and safety training. Now, increasing number of them have joined the ranks of CCW holders.

While we disagree on most of political issues, we found common ground on gun ownership and right to self-protection as crime doesn't discriminate whether you are a republican or a democrat. We are all at risk of being victims and if police cannot provide the timely and proper protection for us, we should have the right to self-protection.

TennJed
December 27, 2012, 01:56 PM
I have a Stupid question, but what sort of timeframe does things like this entail. When will we know for certain if this is to pass or fail?

hso
December 27, 2012, 01:57 PM
The old saying "Ask for a swimming pool if you want to get a bathtub" essentially means you should start from an extreme position to negotiate from there to near where you want (and you might end up better off than you thought). We see this as people dicker over a gun all the time. "That's awful steep. Will you take $$$", "Didja see A, B, C and D? Do ya know how this gun A, B, C? I'll take $$$$$.", "I don't need C or D and B doesn't matter to me. Will you take $$$$.", "Ok, but ..." We have to be careful that we don't get taken in the deal. Same here.

The best would be if we could kill this poisonous piece of garbage, but we have to beware of the deal makers that could want to show that they've heard the cries to "do something" and that they don't sell us out.

bds
December 27, 2012, 02:00 PM
More the reason to support the NRA so they can better lobby the lawmakers.

Dave Workman
December 27, 2012, 02:00 PM
From Justin:
Straight from the horse's mouth:


Horse's what?

I would argue that you need a quick lesson on equine anatomy, or a visit to an optometrist, perhaps.

:D

But of course, I may be mistaken. Perhaps I will get it straight as I write about it. Already posted on The Gun Mag (http://www.thegunmag.com/feinstein-going-after-semi-auto-rifles-handguns-and-magazines/)

And here's my take on Examiner, which is a bit more analysis:

http://www.examiner.com/article/handguns-rifles-magazines-sen-feinstein-wants-them-all?cid=db_articles



The idea of forcing people to register their sporting rifles under the NFA is alarming a lot of people.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 27, 2012, 02:03 PM
When will we know for certain if this is to pass or fail?
January 3, 2015

jrdolall
December 27, 2012, 02:10 PM
The issue is already beginning to fade from the front pages after only two weeks as new issues are grabbing headlines. That does not mean it is over but public sentiment that was sky high right after the CT shooting has already begun to moderate as the immediacy has died. Just check out the headlines on your favorite Homepage or your local newspapaers. Gun issues are still there somewhere but nothing like last week.
Fiscal Cliff issues are probably more improtant to most people than are gun rights questions right now. Stay on your Congressional reps and make them answer you. be sure they know where you stand and make sure they know you will talk to their voter base if they feel differently.

gopguy
December 27, 2012, 02:18 PM
I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.


I think a lot of folks who don't have an AR or AK but own pistols and shotguns that are effected are going to be surprised to learn they own "assault weapons". We all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

I also note beyond a NFA 1934 style registry that we would NOT be able to transfer these items. Forget passing them to your kids or selling them. Get involved gang. If you are not a member of NRA or GOA its a good time to rectify that. Let those folks on Capitol Hill hear your voice!

AlexanderA
December 27, 2012, 02:46 PM
I also note beyond a NFA 1934 style registry that we would NOT be able to transfer these items. Forget passing them to your kids or selling them.

Notice that there is an internal contradiction in the proposal. This:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
•120 specifically-named firearms....

Compared to this:

•Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
•Background check of owner and any transferee;

Since we haven't seen the legislative language, I have to assume that the NFA transfer procedure would be an exception to the blanket prohibition on transfer. This would be an added incentive to register. What they're trying to do is drive unregistered weapons underground. You might decide not to register a weapon that you have, but it would become unusable (because it could not be taken to a range, or be seen anywhere in public) and worthless (other than on the black market). Meanwhile the registered ones would spike in value, as we saw with machine guns after the 1986 registry freeze.

Hoppes Love Potion
December 27, 2012, 02:59 PM
Sure, this has "no chance" of passing. But I can predict that soon before this comes up for a vote in Congress, we will see another, perhaps even more horrific, massacre of innocents, and Congress will cave.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
December 27, 2012, 03:00 PM
Either way we have one hell of a fight on our hands. Leave quarrels and differences ,between us , aside. We must be united, and stand strong. While the ban may not limit or affect some firearm owners, when will they stop? The anti's do want everyone unarmed. So whether it concerns you directly or not, don't let your brothers and sisters in arms lose a battle that can be the turning point of 2A rights(either good or bad). Next it will be anything larger than a .22, and no shotguns over .410 gauge. If they really think the 5.56 is so high powered then what stops them from saying a .308 or .270 is too much being as they are more powerful.

Or my worst fear.... That they get the ban on the books. The an EO can expand it in ways we haven't even considered yet. Make no mistake, it is a fight. One where the more determined will win. Just food for thought. A lot were caught off guard by the recent tragedy and panic, don't be caught off guard about a ban. Write,call, & email anyone on Capitol Hill, anti or not. Let them know where we stand.

CJ

mcdonl
December 27, 2012, 03:02 PM
January 3, 2015

Jorg, could you explain this?

Also... HSO... I filled out that partition but given that some of the other petitions were so silly I wonder if that is just a tool to make us feel like our opinion matters. Keep that British dude that I never heard of before last week in America? What was that nonsense about...

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 03:06 PM
Mcdonl, Piers Morgan is a Brit who does some American TV, including (up until last season) judging Americas Got Talent and hosting his own talk show. He is very anti-gun, and when people suggest using guns for self defense he calls them idiots.

There was a petition to have him deported to UK for being a foreign citizen who is trying to undermine the constitution.

mcdonl
December 27, 2012, 03:08 PM
Thanks Skribs...

pillage
December 27, 2012, 03:10 PM
I guess Dear Dianne has gone over the top with her demands. This proposed bill is beyond disgusting. I will cut and paste it to send it to my Senators and Congressman and note my disdain for this idea. The only thing that gets to those we put in office, is the promise that they will lose their job when they upset us.

It would be nice if our fellow gun owners, stop trying to jump at the chance to price gouge, other potential owners every time these bills come up. We need as many lawful owners who vote as we can get.

Geneseo1911
December 27, 2012, 03:14 PM
Jorg, could you explain this?
He's referring to the end of this Congress. Those elected in the elections of 2014 will be seated at that time. This bill, once introduced, can be considered at any time between now and then. Of course, DiFi has been introducing something like this every year since 2004, and always will until she kicks the bucket. And then some other hoplophobe will take up the banner. (no pun intended)

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 27, 2012, 03:15 PM
Jorg, could you explain this?
He wanted to know when we would know for certain if the bill had passed or failed. The only date we could possibly know at this time is that day. That's when the 113th Congress ends.

Lurkerdeac
December 27, 2012, 03:15 PM
If the 10 round magazine limit is really going to help, shouldn't they be able to show statistics from California and other states that show it?

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 03:16 PM
Thanks for the explanations Geneseo and Jorg. I was thinking it was a typo and you meant 2013.

mcdonl
December 27, 2012, 03:42 PM
Yes thank you. Sadly, the great majority of us stay out of politics unless it directly impacts us.

TwoEyedJack
December 27, 2012, 03:45 PM
I just talked with my rep. He is going to propose to the governor that our local and state law enforcement be enjoined from enforcing any of this nonsense if it does pass. There is precedent here. When the feds refused to negotiate on the issue of hunting wolves in ID, Governor Otter enjoined state employees from enforcing any federal laws regarding the Canadian Gray Wolf. That brought the feds to the table. Too bad I did not fill my wolf tag this year.

41magsnub
December 27, 2012, 03:51 PM
I sent a note to both my Senators. I'm worried about them, both are D's. Baucus despite his B NRA rating was the swing vote on the 94 ban. Testor was not around in 94 and has an A rating, but is also Obama's stooge.

I too am worried about attaching a new AWB to a fiscal cliff bill and some squishy R's in the house using that as an excuse to go along with it.

armoredman
December 27, 2012, 03:56 PM
My old Rep is unavailable, as he's going to the Senate next year. Good man, and he will do very well, very pro gun.
BUT, they re-districted, and my NEW Rep is a die hard Demonrat...and I cannot contact her until 2013...
Does this bill repeal the Hughes Amendment that closed the National Registry, or is this the trick - sure, you can try to register your newly banned items, but the Registry is closed...guess you'll just have to turn them in.

gym
December 27, 2012, 03:57 PM
All of this is just hypothetical at this point, and depends on how the heck they would enforce any of it. There is no money for this sort of ATF funding, not even for school programs. I don't take any of this seriouslly at this point, and I sure am not going to allow these jackasses to upset me with their crazyness. Once they sit down and see how unenforcable this is, and how much it would cost them, much of it will change.
They don't have any money, for enforcement, just as they can't enforce the exhisting laws on the books.
Plus if you already have your gun, then it's granfathered in.

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 04:00 PM
Gym, if we're required to pay $200 to register all of our semi-automatics, then we could very well end up funding it with that tax money. Even just five million of said firearms would rake in $1 Billion in tax dollars for them to fund this.

Xyr
December 27, 2012, 04:00 PM
All of this is just hypothetical at this point, and depends on how the heck they would enforce any of it. There is no money for this sort of ATF funding, not even for school programs. I don't take any of this seriouslly at this point, and I sure am not going to allow these jackasses to upset me with their crazyness. Once they sit down and see how unenforcable this is, and how much it would cost them, much of it will change.
They don't have any money, for enforcement, just as they can't enforce the exhisting laws on the books.
Plus if you already have your gun, then it's granfathered in.
I know in NY Cuomo is talking mandatory buy-backs. Which as we all know is just mandatory confiscation. So no grandfathering here. Even if the National AWB fails expect Station level legislation. Unfortunately as a NYer I feel I'm screwed.

GiorgioG
December 27, 2012, 04:15 PM
I know in NY Cuomo is talking mandatory buy-backs. Which as we all know is just mandatory confiscation. So no grandfathering here. Even if the National AWB fails expect Station level legislation. Unfortunately as a NYer I feel I'm screwed.
Don't feel screwed...just move (like I'll be doing as soon as we sell the house.) Let's face it, NY (outside of NYC) is dying economically and our politicians are useless.

armoredman
December 27, 2012, 04:21 PM
Come to Arizona, a great Constitutional Carry state. We might get our Legislature to vote to "realID" this bill, too.

Dean1818
December 27, 2012, 04:21 PM
I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

Needing to know what on the proposed list to be banned, or asking if a particular weapon is likely to be banned, is an indication that some people would be OK with a new ban, as long as it doesn't immediately affect them. This is a dangerous attitude.

People, please understand that even if they only want your neighbor's guns today, they'll soon want yours. Don't think for a minute that "It's OK, I'll still have mine when this is over", because you most assuredly won't. You will wake up one day, and your's will be gone, too.

And, the only way that won't happen, is if we all band together to protect everybody's rights; even the rights of those whom you might think may not actually have a need for a semi-automatic rifle that can carry more than 4 rounds.
You are correct...... Speaking with former gun owners in the UK, the clear strategy was division........ First one type... Than another.......

We need to hang together.... If you have a pea-shooter....... You need to support

Tygarys
December 27, 2012, 05:20 PM
There was a petition to have him deported to UK for being a foreign citizen who is trying to undermine the constitution.

And they are petitioning their gov to stop it because they don't want him either.

unlimited4x4
December 27, 2012, 05:35 PM
Reading through this post there are some who believe that this will never pass. It may not but we cannot afford to be complacent. The NRA has a great link that lets you contact all your Representatives at once,

This is the link:http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

I encourage all of you, whether you believe the Bill will pass or not, to make our voice heard. Encourage others too, we have everything to lose by not being vocal about our 2A rights.

mljdeckard
December 27, 2012, 05:38 PM
No one is saying we should be complacent.

But half of this fight is propaganda. If they have half of US they have already won, they are that much closer.

All of Utah's reps, including our lone democrat are solid.

AlexanderA
December 27, 2012, 05:40 PM
Does this bill repeal the Hughes Amendment that closed the National Registry, or is this the trick - sure, you can try to register your newly banned items, but the Registry is closed...guess you'll just have to turn them in.

Nobody's read the legislative language yet, but I'd be very surprised if Feinstein's bill, as introduced, repealed the Hughes Amendment. But that doesn't mean that a repeal of Hughes couldn't be added later by someone from our side.

Remember that the NFA includes several categories of items. The Hughes Amendment closed the registry for machine guns, but didn't affect destructive devices, suppressors, SBR's, etc. If semiautomatics are added to the NFA, they would be in their own (new) category.

walt501
December 27, 2012, 05:49 PM
We've had a Fast & Furious investigation that has been going on for years with no resolution. Then we have the Benghazi attack with yet another investigation that is going to drag on for months if not years.

My point? Any new weapons or magazine bans will need to be carefully considered along with months and most likely years of expert testimony in order to write a law that will actually reduce the incidence of tragic shootings of innocents.

Just playing the game the same way the other side plays it. That's all.

sidheshooter
December 27, 2012, 05:54 PM
While the Whitehouse.gov petitions are just to bring an issue to the attention of White House staff there is a basic broad petition that has gotten the needed signatures to pass through the first "gate" for attention. This "No AWB" petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-any-legislation-will-ban-assualt-weapons-semi-automatic-rifles-or-handguns-and-high-capacity/bjlkvNSf) should be signed by all THR members, as well as any other firearms site member, to show the number of people interested enough to say no to this proposed AWB.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like the petition has been closed (and responded to in unsatifactory fashion)? I can't find a place to sign...

PaisteMage
December 27, 2012, 06:38 PM
Wrote both Senators.

No offense but it doesn't matter WHAT weapons they want to to take or ban, it is the first step. Some people are fine with the fact that their guns aren't taken. It may be a comment on the topic, but we are all in this together.

Patriot act, homegrown radicalization act of 2007, NDAA of 2012, etc...

One thing leads to another.

The right to keep and bear arms is for all arms.

A defenseless society is easily controlled.

browneu
December 27, 2012, 06:44 PM
How will people know a gun is registered? That's if it becomes NFA.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

gym
December 27, 2012, 07:31 PM
XYR, leave New York, "I did" and I owned 5 businesses there a home in the Hamptons and 2 apartments in Queens and LI, I was vested about as deep as you can be. It sucks to live there. "This to my NY friend, who was worried about confiscation", I never went back, not even for a visit, My family comes to visit me here, now, my mom is here also. I would not live in that cesspool for seven figures a year, "so please don't say you can't leave" yes you will take a pay cut unless you open a business", but it costs 30- 50% less to live here in FL, and it never gets below 50 for 3 or 4 days a year.Plus you have a gun friendlly enviornment.
Next, nothing has been done yet, just because one senator released a draft of something she probablly sleeps with, does not mean that it will become law.
Third and most important, they put this stuff out to scare you so that when they do pass a watered down version, everyone is relieved, and willinglly accepts it. Don't be intimidated, there are more people shooting now than ever before.
Once they realize that this will have no effect on the criminals who commit these acts, and the mentally unbalanced who they are unable to house. There will be a backlash. These things are often overturned as unconstitutional.
I think we stick together and wait to see what they actually announce, then we get the best attorneys money can buy, "there are more than enough of us", and get it thrown out on appeal, most casses like this get thrown out on appeal.
It has to be unconstitutional.
.

barnbwt
December 27, 2012, 07:38 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like the petition has been closed (and responded to in unsatifactory fashion)? I can't find a place to sign...


Wow, the Official White House Position is that there are more anti's than gunnies, so therefore the gunnies' rights are forfeit. What else should we expect from a person directly elected by a simple majority (or nearly so)? Thank God our nation's designers were smart enough to not vest more responsibility to protect the citizen's rights with the Executive branch.

Our Constitutional Scholar might be interested in this, though;
*9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-As I read it, one person's rights should not trump those of others, and the Constitutional Enumeration of rights should not be taken to describe the limits of the rights retained by the people (i.e. just because "semi-automatic guns weren't around back then" doesn't mean we don't have a right to bear them now)

TCB

crossrhodes
December 27, 2012, 07:43 PM
Her and Polosi need to take their government issued depends and retire

KLL
December 27, 2012, 07:44 PM
I just wrote my officials in Florida. First time I ever have, and I let them know that. A few points I made were that I support stronger and more accessible mental health programs, that ANY legislation (any part of this potential bill or any other bill) further restricting what firearms & magazines law-abiding citizens can own or registration of firearms is absolutely unacceptable, and that failure to use their votes to prevent these things from happening will result in a loss of my vote.

I only say this (with my first post, I believe) so others who may think, as I did at first, that others will speak up on my behalf, is not acceptable. We all have to speak up for ourselves to our elected officials, a few of us is not nearly as impactful as millions of us. I have only owned guns for a short time, but the thought of someone telling me I can no longer have some, and I have to let the government monitor the rest, is outrageous, and we should not stand for such an idea to even be entertained in the House or Senate.

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 07:47 PM
Went to sign the petition that HSO mentioned, and it's closed with a response from Obama which basically says "I respect the second ammendment but..." with the "but" being "I don't."

gym
December 27, 2012, 07:51 PM
Exactlly, you can't use money as leverage, if so the ammendmant would read, you have the right to bear arms if you can afford to pay the extreme costs that we will levy on you for doing so.
This old lady has been saying the same thing over and over for so long now that it's an echo. The common man is supposed to be reflected in the Constitution, it's not supposed to favor those with more money than the other guy. That's why we split with England, "taxation without representation", that's how one revolution started, perhaps we can Paraphrase that and use it in this argument.
If that's their plan, to tax the people who choose to exercise their Constitutional rights, then they too will fall. Justices no matter what their political views are, will usually rule on the side of law. They are funny that way.
States can delare these laws unconstitutional also, and force the supreme court to hear it or just let each state have it's own interpretation of the law.
The supreme court chooses which casses it will hear, if it chose not to hear this one, then the state would have the final say,"I believe". Just as they do now with shall and may issue, It's how they choose to interpret the law.
Like Gambling or prostitution. some places it's allowed others it's not.
Here is what I just found that kind of clarifies this stae vs federal thing,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/27/states-cities-already-mulling-assault-weapons-bans/

bobbo
December 27, 2012, 08:31 PM
Hopefully, we can negotiate it to something less than this cluster. Good news for that plain-Jane Mini-14 I was looking at, though :).

Hacker15E
December 27, 2012, 08:35 PM
Hopefully, we can negotiate it to something less than this cluster. Good news for that plain-Jane Mini-14 I was looking at, though :).

How about we negotiate this into a repeal of the GCA 68? Or a repeal of NFA 34? Or a nationwide CCW reciprocity agreement?

I don't accept that ANYTHING proposed in Feinstein's bill be adopted, much less "negotiate it to something less". If we negotiate that it doesn't even come out of committee for a vote, that's a start.

morcey2
December 27, 2012, 08:47 PM
Hopefully, we can negotiate it to something less than this cluster. Good news for that plain-Jane Mini-14 I was looking at, though :).


How about we negotiate this into a repeal of the GCA 68? Or a repeal of NFA 34? Or a nationwide CCW reciprocity agreement?

I don't accept that ANYTHING proposed in Feinstein's bill be adopted, much less "negotiate it to something less". If we negotiate that it doesn't even come out of committee for a vote, that's a start.


I don't think we negotiate the repeal of GCA 68, NFA 34, or CCW reciprocity in exchange for dropping some of the stuff that she's proposed, I think all three should be our starting point for negotiations. No new restrictions at all.

Matt

Hacker15E
December 27, 2012, 09:07 PM
I don't think we negotiate the repeal of GCA 68, NFA 34, or CCW reciprocity in exchange for dropping some of the stuff that she's proposed, I think all three should be our starting point for negotiations. No new restrictions at all.

Matt

Exactly what I mean. Constitutional carry is the "starting point".

Ky Larry
December 27, 2012, 09:08 PM
Time to start holding our political prostitutes feet to the fire. Remind them that 'We the people' put them in office and that 'We the people" can pull their snouts out of the public trough.

armoredman
December 27, 2012, 09:21 PM
Remember that the NFA includes several categories of items. The Hughes Amendment closed the registry for machine guns, but didn't affect destructive devices, suppressors, SBR's, etc. If semiautomatics are added to the NFA, they would be in their own (new) category.
Thanks, I didn't know that, my bad.

Texan Scott
December 27, 2012, 09:54 PM
Texas isn't in a negotiating mood of late, it seems. Last time the fed admin tried to negotiate with our attorney general (to have UN observers monitor and validate our participation in the November elections), his first refusal was well worded and polite, but offered no middle ground. His second response was blunt and carried a threat of police arrest.

His third and final response to the Hon Sec State Hillary Rodham Clinton was a *tweet* consisting of just two words, ie: "BRING IT".

I'm proud of my state and its commitment to states' rights and personal liberty. I respect my governor and my attorney general as men of principle and backbone. But I do worry about the out-of-state, out-of-touch (out of their mind) types who view Texan -baiting as a fun game like cow tipping. You mess with the bull, someday you'll get the horns.

Texans won't give up their guns to Washington ... I don't see it happening.
Our leadership will do a lot to fight this on its own initiative ... but I FEAR what others behind them may push them to do if DC pushes first.

cowhrse1
December 27, 2012, 11:17 PM
The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the NRA. Today they published a report on their site of the proposed draft Bill which is actually worse than the OP and answers many questions I've seen asked in the previous pages, such as "Grandfathering." Do not take this Bill lightly!!! Feinstein's website page shows the frosting but not the whole cake!!

From: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

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.”

GA400
December 28, 2012, 12:13 AM
Just wanted to point out that if all or some part of this passes, the agency under Eric Holder will enforce it, and the Supreme Court will interpret it if any parts of it are challenged. The same Mr. Holder who is not held accountable when his department performs like keystone cops... The same court where our beloved president has already installed two of his lackeys - Sotomayor and Kagan - who have both waffled on gun rights - declaring them settled law in their confirmation hearings only to interpret them differently after being seated. Oh, and fearless leader will almost certainly get to seat two more justices due to the health issues of Ginsberg, Scalia and Kennedy.

We need to pay attention to this issue, in my humble opinion.

JBrady555
December 28, 2012, 12:56 AM
I see that Governor Cuomo of NY is now saying that he is open to confiscation. And just when we thought that Feinstiens crap was the lowest of the low.

AlexanderA
December 28, 2012, 01:09 AM
I hate to say this, but the NRA-ILA analysis is misleading in places. For example:

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,

The NFA imposes the tax on the transfer or making of a firearm. Initial registration of a legally-owned firearm is neither a "transfer" nor a "making." Initial registrations under both the original NFA in 1934, and the GCA amnesty in 1968, were free.

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.

That would be a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, which would require compensation at the fair market value. The whole point of this NFA registration scheme (as opposed to outright confiscation) is to avoid the necessity for compensation. Since the bill makes provision for NFA-compliant transfers of the newly-registered weapons, the blanket prohibition on transfers is obviously intended to apply only to unregistered weapons.

This bill is bad enough as it is. We don't have to be misleading or untruthful in demonizing it. That just diminishes our credibility.

David E
December 28, 2012, 01:17 AM
Any new weapons or magazine bans will need to be carefully considered along with months and most likely years of expert testimony in order to write a law that will actually reduce the incidence of tragic shootings of innocents.

IF that were their goal, you might have a point. The trouble is, that's not their goal.

kenny87
December 28, 2012, 06:24 AM
I hate to say this, but the NRA-ILA analysis is misleading in places

I am going to have to agree to an extent, her bill does include the world "transfer" in it, so did the 1994 bill and it only applied to post-94 firearms, near the bottom on her NFA statement she included the word "background check of any owner and transferee" which would mean you should be able to sell it if you want. We will have to see the full text to come to an understanding of what she is trying to do.

Regardless, this is a bad bill and need to be fought off, though I think the odds are on our side I will take this seriously.

ID-shooting
December 28, 2012, 08:20 AM
On the bit about turning guns in after death ofnthe owner...

What is the current law in California in these regards? What happened to legal firarms owned before thier ban took effect?

ID-shooting
December 28, 2012, 08:23 AM
Hopefully, we can negotiate it to something less than this cluster. Good news for that plain-Jane Mini-14 I was looking at, though :).
Hate to break it to you but 10-1 says the mini's are part of that 120 gun list. They are listed by name in the UN version.

Hacker15E
December 28, 2012, 08:30 AM
The anti's, proggies, libtards - whatever you want to call them, are convinced that they have us conservatives

How about we don't "call them" anything?

This is THR, and this kind of mudslinging is contrary to what the forum is all about.

Not all firearms owners are conservative Republicans and not all liberals/leftists/Democrats are anti-freedom and anti-firearms. Furthermore, the readership here is not just "us conservatives", so statements like this don't really further the discussion.

If we are really concerned about protecting firearms rights, how about we deal with the issue of protecting those rights instead of pointing fingers and taking sides on political teams that are irrelevant. The 2A is a right for all Americans, regardless of which part of the political spectrum they live on.

Bobk538447
December 28, 2012, 08:49 AM
There's another issue with her proposed legislation of making semi-automatics NFA weapons. No one should have to pay a tax to practice his/her 2nd Amendment rights. It's no different than a Poll Tax which had to be prevented by the 24th Amendment.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 28, 2012, 08:51 AM
There's another issue with her proposed legislation of making semi-automatics NFA weapons. No one should have to pay a tax to practice his/her 2nd Amendment rights. It's no different than a Poll Tax which had to be prevented by the 24th Amendment.

True. But there's already a tax on NFA devices, and so far that as stood up to court cases. T

cowhrse1
December 28, 2012, 09:09 AM
I hate to say this, but the NRA-ILA analysis is misleading in places

I will also agree to a limited extent.

The NRA will, and are not above embellishing the details, it's politics after all and they are the heavy hitter in town. HOWEVER, Feinstein won't lay all her cards on the table until/if it goes to the floor. They know how to play too. I think the truth lies somewhere in the grey area between what Feinstein's site says and what the ILA says. Either way there could be a significant change in the guns we can own. Pay attention everyone! Whatever may make it through, we will have ZERO chance of repealing in the future! Consider whatever we offer up gone forever...

Onmilo
December 28, 2012, 09:15 AM
Here's my offer.
My guns didn't kill anyone and neither did yours.
I am not willing to give up ANYTHING for the sake of murders who will continue to do what they "Like to do." regardless of restrictions placed on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who's rights are protected by government decree.

GA400
December 28, 2012, 09:34 AM
Hacker15E - point taken on labels and pigeonholing.

Original post edited to remove those comments.

Gordon_Freeman
December 28, 2012, 09:48 AM
....

rbernie
December 28, 2012, 09:53 AM
And yet I agree. Looking through the lens of history, those that would disarm us are historically colored both Red and Blue, and our Big R friends have backed and enacted as much antiRKBA legislation as our Big D friends.

Using inaccurate labels for our foes can only lead to a misapplication of resistance.

SuperNaut
December 28, 2012, 10:13 AM
I fail to see how dividing 2A support along modern partisan lines is beneficial to our cause in any way.

Hacker15E
December 28, 2012, 10:25 AM
And yet I agree. Looking through the lens of history, those that would disarm us are historically colored both Red and Blue, and our Big R friends have backed and enacted as much antiRKBA legislation as our Big D friends.

Using inaccurate labels for our foes can only lead to a misapplication of resistance.

I think it is easy to just split the world up into 'us' and 'them' along convenient and (unfortunately) intellectually lazy lines.

The 'us' in this case are people who believe that the RKBA is a natural right that is secured by the 2A, and the 'them' are people who would infringe on that right for many different reasons.

Because there are many different reasons, those foes and threats come from many different places, including BOTH sides of the political spectrum AND even from within the "pro gun" community. I've read plenty of letters to the editor from "gun people" who are perfectly willing to sell out "assault weapons", so long as it doesn't infringe on whatever firearms they like.

Here's a perfect example:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20121228_Stu_Bykofsky_.html

Stu starts off with a nice argument about how "why" isn't a valid argument against firearms ownership by responsible citizens, and then later in the article apparently feels that the rules are different for responsible citizens who own "military-style rifles" (apparently not understanding that just about every rifle today has origins as a military firearm).

Sen Feinstein's proposal has overshot just the "military style rifles" and is looking for anything semiautomatic, including pistols. She basically proposes limiting gun owners to choose from anything designed before 1900. Is she has her way, we're all going to be able to "bear arms" like the Colt SAA and the Winchester 1894 lever action, and that will be called "sensible restrictions".

The Cowboy Action Shooters and the hunters will shrug their shoulders at this law, and not care about the loss of ability to buy or own a Glock or AR....right up until some idiot shoots up a movie theater with a pair of six-shooters, and then the gun control advocates will be asking for another round of "sensible restrictions" on the "high power handguns" that are only "designed to kill people". They'll be playing the clip from Dirty Harry in an endless loop, showing how we need to get "the most powerful handgun in the world, the .44 magnum" off the streets! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maBJzJgYjto

What we need here is to STICK TOGETHER as supporters of rights and liberties for firearms owners. We are ALL under attack. It may not be your choice of firearm today, but given the slippery slope, it may be your choice on the chopping block next. And it won't matter who you voted for, what party you are registered with, or what your religious or political leanings are: we will ALL have lost an important right.

pillage
December 28, 2012, 10:43 AM
The only us and them categories that need to be made, are those for keeping gun rights and those who are for taking them. It is that simple really.

AlexanderA
December 28, 2012, 10:45 AM
What we need here is to STICK TOGETHER as supporters of rights and liberties for firearms owners.

Ain't that the truth! I think that by this point, just about all bona fide gun advocates have realized this. When I read letters to the editor or online comments from so-called "responsible hunters or gun owners" (AKA Fudds)advocating the outlawing of "assault weapons," I immediately suspect that these are shills for the antis. Nobody could be that obtuse in this day and age.

r1derbike
December 28, 2012, 12:00 PM
Now you know what Obama/D.F. and other anti-constitutionals have been working on "under the radar".

I'm amazed at how many didn't see this coming, or didn't see how over-the-top this was to become.

Time to pen our reps., lest this insanity prevails.

Hacker15E
December 28, 2012, 01:48 PM
When I read letters to the editor or online comments from so-called "responsible hunters or gun owners" (AKA Fudds)advocating the outlawing of "assault weapons," I immediately suspect that these are shills for the antis. Nobody could be that obtuse in this day and age.

I think there are still plenty of firearms owners who don't see the bigger picture and would be perfectly happy to throw "assault weapons" to the wolves in order to placate the masses. In fact, they themselves probably stick their nose up at such firearms and the people that use them -- I know plenty of guys like this at my very own shooting range in rural Oklahoma.

FWIW, it doesn't do any good to label these guys as 'Fudds' as if they're not part of us -- that doesn't help us all stick together.

r1derbike
December 28, 2012, 02:09 PM
Communications sent to my representatives in D.C. as of now.

This insanity must be made known.

r1derbike
December 28, 2012, 02:18 PM
I think there are still plenty of firearms owners who don't see the bigger picture and would be perfectly happy to throw "assault weapons" to the wolves in order to placate the masses.True, but they don't realize the wolves will be coming after their firearms, eventually. :)

hso
December 28, 2012, 02:37 PM
I suggest sending this to every elected politician at the local, state and federal level.

"Any AWB is a failed idea because it doesn't address the root cause of the shooting at Sandy Hook, is unconstitutional in the light of the SCOTUS rulings on DC and Chicago clarifying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, is unworkable because of the budgetary crisis and that millions of people will be accidentally turned into felons when they fail to register their existing firearms thinking they aren't covered, will create greater government bureaucracy, and treats 200 million voters as if they were criminally insane instead of treating the criminally insane. If you oppose an AWB I pledge to work for your reelection to keep a rational elected official in office. Any support for an AWB will result in my passionately working for any opponent running to unseat you and to unseat those who also supported an AWB. The backlash against politicians who supported the 1994 AWB will pale in comparison to the backlash against those that don't oppose such misguided politically motivated legislation using the tragedy at Sandy Hook as an excuse now."

MuleRyder
December 28, 2012, 02:52 PM
Any politician that votes against this will be labeled during future campaigns as,"...voted to allow criminals access to military style assault weapons."

mljdeckard
December 28, 2012, 05:04 PM
I don't see how this is under the radar. Feinstein has pushed a new AWB many times. I honestly think that Obama wanted to do a lot of under-the-table actions with BATFE rules and DOJ guidelines, and he actually resents being forced to drag this process out into the light. This will cost him political capital, which he wanted to use for other things.

RX-178
December 28, 2012, 05:14 PM
Any politician that votes against this will be labeled during future campaigns as,"...voted to allow criminals access to military style assault weapons."

Their liberal opponents ALREADY use this line.

mljdeckard
December 28, 2012, 05:24 PM
Correct. We have been very successful in proving to them that the consequences of supporting these laws far outweigh the consequences of not supporting them. This needs to continue.

gdcpony
December 28, 2012, 06:22 PM
Time to call my representatives.....again. If this or something like this passes, then I only have one thing to say.

It is better to die upon your feet then to live upon your knees.
Me too. I hope it works tough.

lionking
December 28, 2012, 08:24 PM
Seeing as how the AR and M1A is most popular at target matches, shooting sports would be a different world after.

Question, many cops buy and own AR's or whatnot for personal use , would they fall under this regulation also or not? I hope they aren't exempt.

Another question, there is the term "no sunset" but nothing can be set in stone, anything should be capable of being overturned right?

mcdonl
December 28, 2012, 08:38 PM
Susan Collins response.....

Dear Leroy,

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to gun control legislation in the wake of the horrifying tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

These shootings were acts of violence that our country has experienced far too often. I was shaken as I learned of the details of the shooting, which cut short the lives of so many little children and seven adults, causing such immense suffering and unspeakable grief for their families and their community.

I grew up in northern Maine where responsible gun ownership is part of the heritage of many families. While our country should examine what can be done to help prevent gun violence, denying the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens won't change the behavior of those who intend on using firearms for criminal purposes.

We need to have a national conversation to try to avert another devastating shooting. To be fruitful, however, that discussion must do more than focus solely on regulating firearms; it also needs to examine issues such as the glorification of violence in the media and video games and the mental health system in this country.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.


Sincerely,


Susan M. Collins
United States Senator

Much what I expected her to say.

slidemuzik
December 28, 2012, 08:52 PM
I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

Needing to know what on the proposed list to be banned, or asking if a particular weapon is likely to be banned, is an indication that some people would be OK with a new ban, as long as it doesn't immediately affect them. This is a dangerous attitude.

People, please understand that even if they only want your neighbor's guns today, they'll soon want yours. Don't think for a minute that "It's OK, I'll still have mine when this is over", because you most assuredly won't. You will wake up one day, and your's will be gone, too.

And, the only way that won't happen, is if we all band together to protect everybody's rights; even the rights of those whom you might think may not actually have a need for a semi-automatic rifle that can carry more than 4 rounds.
^^^ THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND^^^
I felt the same way reading the posts in this thread. History has shown this to be true over and over.

RX-178
December 28, 2012, 09:09 PM
'We'll talk about everything and do nothing' is frankly, at this point far preferable a response than 'We'll ban guns'.

blkbrd666
December 28, 2012, 10:39 PM
Even if you think this won't pass, even if you only own a single shot .22 rifle, at the very least, go to the NRA/ILA site and notify your representatives! If nothing else, cut and paste the moderator's suggested text and send it on.

If you do the math on what this government spends/owes/takes from you in taxes, it's a sinking ship in a matter of time. Please hang on to your rights and your guns because you'll probably need them to stay alive and free. Of course, you're not free now, but it could be worse.

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 29, 2012, 12:49 AM
All of Utah's reps, including our lone democrat are solid.
Apparently you haven't heard of Chris Stewart (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55535097-90/armed-control-gun-health.html.csp).

SuperNaut
December 29, 2012, 01:00 AM
Apparently you haven't heard of Chris Stewart (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55535097-90/armed-control-gun-health.html.csp).
He just backtracked, or clarified, or denied it on his FB page:

Hey friends!

I've received a lot of phone calls today regarding a few articles and I think it's necessary to make myself clear: I fully support the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment and I don't support any abridgment to that right.

I will fight any attempts to weaken our 2nd amendment rights. I do not believe that limiting assault weapons nor magazine capacities is appropriate under the Second Amendment. Furthermore, I do not believe that taking such steps would have any practical effect on limiting gun violence.

I was very clear on these points throughout the interview with the Salt Lake Tribune. However, as happens too often, the story took one observation I made about the usefulness of high-capacity magazines and turned it into a headline that did not reflect my actual views.

Not everything you read in the press accurately reflects my positions and I will stumble sometimes as well. Thanks for all the outreach, and I'll try to respond to each of your messages.

Best Wishes,

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 29, 2012, 01:07 AM
Supernaut, thanks for the update. I'm still curious what his "one observation I made about the usefulness of high-capacity magazines" was supposed to mean.

SuperNaut
December 29, 2012, 01:15 AM
Yep, and his "other things" comment has definitely attracted my attention.

mljdeckard
December 29, 2012, 02:59 AM
(My post to congressman elect Stewart. He is my congressman, and I have spoken to him about these things personally.)

Congressman Stewart;

I am posting this mostly out of due dilligence, but I think that it's an important enough issue that it deserves a comment.

Many in the gun community are acting defeated, as in, due to recent horrible events, we are facing inevitable new restrictive gun laws. I am trying to calm people down, telling them, the majority of the members of congress in both parties respect the origins and intent of the Second Amendment, and will not allow the rights of Americans to be trampled because of what a crazy person chooses to do.

I know you know this. I am proud to be able to tell people; "I don't need to worry about my representatives from Utah, including our lone democrat, because they aren't at all in confusion about the desires of their constituents, and they know better than to allow themselves to be bullied by those who think that restricting our rights would make us safer."

The call for new gun laws may have fizzled by the time you take office. But I think that a lot of your constituents, myself included, would be reassured to hear a statement from you, clarifying your unequivocal support for our Second amendment rights. In whatever forum you feel appropriate, I would like to hear your affirmation.

Sincerely,

Mljdeckard, Stansbury Park, UT

(Subsequent replies)

Chris Stewart Check my most recent post on the page. In short, I don't support any abridgement to the 2nd Amendment and your right to bear arms.
4 hours ago

Yes sir, I did, and it was exactly what we needed to hear. I honestly think that this isn't nearly as big as Sen Feinstein wishes it was.

(His statement on the main page)

Chris Stewart
4 hours ago
Hey friends!

I've received a lot of phone calls today regarding a few articles and I think it's necessary to make myself clear: I fully support the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment and I don't support any abridgment to that right.

I will fight any attempts to weaken our 2nd amendment rights. I do not believe that limiting assault weapons nor magazine capacities is appropriate under the Second Amendment. Furthermore, I do not believe that taking such steps would have any practical effect on limiting gun violence.

I was very clear on these points throughout the interview with the Salt Lake Tribune. However, as happens too often, the story took one observation I made about the usefulness of high-capacity magazines and turned it into a headline that did not reflect my actual views.

Not everything you read in the press accurately reflects my positions and I will stumble sometimes as well. Thanks for all the outreach, and I'll try to respond to each of your messages.

Best Wishes,

mljdeckard
December 29, 2012, 03:00 AM
(Not sure how that double-tapped, I don't think it was originally.)

bds
December 30, 2012, 10:10 AM
Interesting details in Gallup's new poll - http://news.yahoo.com/polls-show-movement-toward-stricter-gun-control-major-214208055.html

At the same time, however, most respondents (51-44 percent) say they’re against any law making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.” And a very large majority (74-24 percent) opposes greater restrictions on the possession of handguns.

The bottom line in Gallup’s new polling?

“Americans favor new legislation to limit gun sales, presumably to help prevent the kind of gun violence that became all too familiar in 2012,” writes the polling organization’s Lydia Saad in an analysis. “This is seen in increased support for making the laws covering the sale of firearms more strict, and for passing new gun laws.”

There’s a significant caveat, however, Ms. Saad continues: “Views toward banning semi-automatic guns or assault rifles are unchanged, and – possibly reflecting Americans' desire to defend themselves given the rash of high-profile gun violence – a record-high 74 percent oppose preventing anyone but the police or other authorized officials from owning a handgun.”

Queen_of_Thunder
December 30, 2012, 10:43 AM
One thing to always remember. The first words spoken are the true feelings of the individual and apology for what was said are usually a tatic to remove the speakers from the message their words put them in. Yes there are times when an individual is truly sorry but those instances are few and far between. In the case of politicians they are like bobbers on a windblown lake as they will say whatever they need to say to keep them afloat as in sill in office.

mljdeckard
December 30, 2012, 01:07 PM
No. I had spoken to Congressman elect Stewart about this before the primaries personally, I knew that he was being portrayed incorrectly and out of context.

michaelbsc
December 30, 2012, 02:55 PM
Sure, this has "no chance" of passing. But I can predict that soon before this comes up for a vote in Congress, we will see another, perhaps even more horrific, massacre of innocents, and Congress will cave.

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102294/Riding-the-Crime-Wave.aspx

The media feeds on itself and its own preconceived biases. So they'll report pea shooters to get this if they smell victory.

Anyone who thinks we can ever go back to sleep is not paying attention.

ndh87
December 30, 2012, 09:23 PM
I vote for the south to secede again

barnbwt
December 30, 2012, 09:50 PM
Now, with the proliferation of the Internet, the blurring of entertainment and news... the potential for “ride the wave reporting” has increased exponentially.

"crowd-sourcing," anyone? :rolleyes:
Very intersting article, Michael, politicians certaintly love their crusades against those who can't vote back, don't they? Now that everyone over 18 is allowed to vote, there's only one scapegoat left...

Needless to say, if people would just take it upon themselves to defend their own stupid lives, none of these dumb "violence proposals" would be felt necessary

TCB

I vote for the south to secede again
Go watch Lincoln--not for the message/politics, but for a lesson in what measures our government is willing to take to ensure its supremacy in this land. This nation has never fought harder than to put down its own unruly citizens. As a Texan I sympathize with Southern Dissatisfaction, but please do not speak lightly of Secession.

Tommygunn
December 30, 2012, 10:12 PM
I vote for the south to secede again

Yea..... 'cause THAT worked so well the first time.....................!:scrutiny::scrutiny::confused:

herkyguy
December 30, 2012, 10:59 PM
secede and watch your whole world crumble around you....everything you've built, bought, and worked so hard for will go right down the drain...burned, confiscated or stolen.

not the correct course of action by any stretch of the imagination.

contact your state and federal representatives. be a responsible gun owner. take friends shooting. educate.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 30, 2012, 11:28 PM
Go watch Lincoln--not for the message/politics, but for a lesson in what measures our government is willing to take to ensure its supremacy in this land. This nation has never fought harder than to put down its own unruly citizens. As a Texan I sympathize with Southern Dissatisfaction, but please do not speak lightly of Secession.

Not to mention that the whole North/South thing is ridiculously outdated. The issues that caused the first Civil war to fall upon mostly North/South state lines don't apply anymore. If one must look at it geographically, these days it is far more closely related to population density. Those who live close together in cities trending more towards the left. Large government agencies and social programs are a part of every day life. Everything from police to garbage men, superintendents of apartments, cabbies and buses, etc. They live in a world where no one knows how to survive without a massive net of other people and programs keeping each other alive an functional. So they relegate guns to the "security/police" aspect of that net. Not something for regular people to concern themselves with.

People who live farther away from the cities tend to be more liberty-minded because they see themselves more as individuals and must live life on their own. Fewer safety nets, less police, more reliance on doing and fixing things themselves. Guns are seen as a tool for normal life, whether to protect your family, recreation, or getting rid of pests on your property. Even people in suburbia are closer to this than if they were in a large city.

If you look at any state, north or south, the cities will typically be more left-leaning and more in favor of gun control or government control of life in general. Some states are more like that overall, but in general, political stances fall very close to population distributions.

michaelbsc
December 31, 2012, 12:30 AM
IF that were their goal, you might have a point. The trouble is, that's not their goal.

Hooray! The truth is out. Who said it's a propaganda battle a few pages ago?

What I was ranting about some days go was forcing a renegotiation of the goal.

Prior to the NRA news conference I kept saying, and wrote to the ILA suggesting, was that the NRA needs to go to various government and NGO organizations that deal with mental healthcare, and offer to twist Congressional arms for funding research into violence, teen crime, early diagnosis and treatment, etc.

The medical community - for the most part - views us as Neanderthals. And they are on the side of the grabbers. Not all of them, but a lot. Remember the thread some months ago about just owing guns being a condition alerting mental instability?

But all of these agencies, the National institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, plus others, are chronically short of one thing. Money.

The NRA is perceived as having lots of Congresscritters in its back pocket, and those Congresscritters have funding strings. I don't think LaPierre really has as many congressional offices under his thumb as the media makes out, but the NRA is no slouch.

If funding starts pouring into those pockets because of the gun community then the perception of the gun community will begin to change inside the medical community. Those directors are just politicians like everybody else in Washington.

So the professional community will begin jawing about "fixing the right problem" as well. After all, the last thing they want is for funding to blow away.

Listen people. This is not a stupid plan.

MB

bds
December 31, 2012, 07:58 AM
Update from "Fox News Sunday" - Dianne Feinstein vs Lindsey Graham (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-feinstein-graham-newtown-gun-control-20121230,0,5949953.story)

"What she is proposing is a massive intervention,” Graham said. “Gun sales are up, and crime is down. You’re not going to be able to stop mass murderers with no criminal record just by taking my AR-15 and making me pay $200 and get my fingerprints and say I can’t buy another one.

"The best solution to protect children is to have somebody there to stop the shooter, not get everybody’s gun in the country."

...

Appearing on NBC’s "Meet the Press," President Obama, who supports an assault weapons ban, said such measures could only be enacted if the public puts pressure on Congress.

“We're not going to get this done unless the American people decide it's important,” Obama said.

“And so this is not going to be simply a matter of me spending political capital," Obama said. "One of the things that you learn, having now been in this office for four years, is the old adage of Abraham Lincoln's -- that with public opinion there's nothing you can't do and without public opinion there's very little you can get done in this town.”

Obama said he would make a series of proposals and put “my full weight behind it … but ultimately the way this is going to happen is because the American people say, ‘That's right. We are willing to make different choices for the country and we support those in Congress who are willing to take those actions.’ And will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance.”


This is from Feinstein who "values" self-defense and concealed carry? - http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did
"I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me."


Even Harry Reid praised guns in 2010 - http://mrctv.org/videos/harry-reid-praises-guns-2010-i-carried-gun-every-place-i-went
In 2010, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) joined NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre for the grand opening of the Clark County Shooting Park and praised guns for their protective and recreational use.

"When I was the chairman of the Nevada gaming commission, I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went. So I know guns and what self defense is. But for me, guns are more than that ... in fact the most important part of guns ... is the recreational aspects of guns."

Well, we have a lot of bad people after us in our cities and homes - shouldn't we deserve the same need for self-defense and the desire to pursue recreational use of guns?


So as President Obama expressed, continue to write/email/call your lawmakers and let them know how you feel and what you want.

Interesting details in Gallup's new poll - http://news.yahoo.com/polls-show-movement-toward-stricter-gun-control-major-214208055.html

At the same time, however, most respondents (51-44 percent) say they’re against any law making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.” And a very large majority (74-24 percent) opposes greater restrictions on the possession of handguns.

The bottom line in Gallup’s new polling?

“Americans favor new legislation to limit gun sales, presumably to help prevent the kind of gun violence that became all too familiar in 2012,” writes the polling organization’s Lydia Saad in an analysis. “This is seen in increased support for making the laws covering the sale of firearms more strict, and for passing new gun laws.”

There’s a significant caveat, however, Ms. Saad continues: “Views toward banning semi-automatic guns or assault rifles are unchanged, and – possibly reflecting Americans' desire to defend themselves given the rash of high-profile gun violence – a record-high 74 percent oppose preventing anyone but the police or other authorized officials from owning a handgun.”

Checkman
December 31, 2012, 10:36 AM
Well I've signed all the petitions, wrote my reps (they're all very solidly pro 2nd Amendment), sent a donation to the NRA (member since 1998 & Lifetime member since 2010) and posted the info about Feinstein and her AWB proposal on a couple other sites to ensure folks know what's going on. Now it's a waiting game and that's always the toughest part. But it's unavoidable. Cross your fingers if you've done everything else that you can. No I haven't run out and purchased an AR at those stupidly overinflated prices.

If you enjoyed reading about "Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!