Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
How will people know a gun is registered? That's if it becomes NFA.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
 
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.
.
 
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
 
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.
 
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."
 
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/
 
Hopefully, we can negotiate it to something less than this cluster. Good news for that plain-Jane Mini-14 I was looking at, though :).
 
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.
 
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
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Feinstein goes for broke according to NRA-ILA

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.”
 
and if some part of this passes

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
The anti's, proggies, liberals - 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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top