Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law

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,...............

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.

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.

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.

JustinJ said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

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.

This is Senator Feinstein! What did you expect?

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.

I just hope this doesn't draw attention to the fact that the tax stamp fee has never been adjusted for inflation.

Wrote both senatros and my congressman just now. I even added my governor since this proposed ban would violate our state constitution as well.

I just hope this doesn't draw attention to the fact that the tax stamp fee has never been adjusted for inflation.

Click to expand...

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

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 ...

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Derek Zeanah said:

This makes me very angry.

Click to expand...

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.

Unfortunately, this administration and his comrades in Congress have literally passed laws under a "don't read it until after it's passed" rationale.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

wow

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

Just a guess, but probably similar to the UN's list

What is almost as scarey...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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