Feinstein AWB proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.

71Commander

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Messages
2,335
Location
Headin back to Johnson City
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - March 14, 2005)
S. 620. A bill to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer, along with Senators WARNER of Virginia and DEWINE of Ohio, the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005. We are joined by Senators SCHUMER, MIKULSKI, DURBIN, CLINTON, BOXER, LEVIN, DODD and REED, who are original cosponsors of this critical legislation.

This is the same basic legislation that passed by the Senate last year as an amendment to a bill designed to provide blanket immunity for gun manufacturers. However, once that amendment passed, the underlying bill was defeated, in part by its own sponsors, after the National Rifle Association applied intense pressure to Members of this body.

Thus we saw the ideological and extreme view of the National Rifle Association, when they sacrificed their most desired legislative priority--gun immunity legislation--because the Senate had approved the assault weapons ban and two other amendments that would save people's lives: closing the gun show loophole, and requiring trigger locks.

Although President Bush had said he supported the assault weapons ban, he refused to personally engage to help this legislation get signed into law, and the ban expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, these weapons are now once again proliferating through our neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States.

That is why, today, I am introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005. This legislation mirrors the legislation I authored in the Senate and then-Congressman SCHUMER authored in the House in 1994.

As was done then, the legislation I am introducing would: ban the manufacturing of 19 specific types of military-style assault weapons, as well as a number of other guns based on a simple test to determine whether the guns were hunting guns or weapons of war; prohibit the manufacture of large capacity ammunition magazines--clips, drums and strips of more than ten rounds--because it is those large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can make a semiautomatic assault weapons so very deadly; and continue to exempt 670 hunting guns entirely, and it is also important to note that the ban would continue to ``grandfather'' in every gun that was made before 1994. So no innocent gun owner would lose a weapon. There will again be no confiscation component to the bill.

This legislation is not perfect. There are comparisons that were made to get it passed last time around, and since its previous enactment there have been many concerns raised about the need to tighten or alter the definition in order to make the prohibition more effective. I am open to working with my colleagues to ensure we enact the best legislation possible, but we need a first step--at a minimum Congress needs to reinstate the original assault weapons ban.
Unfortunately, we are already seeing the impact of the lapse of this law and we should not let another year pass without reinstating its protections. We know the ban worked. Supply went down. Prices went up. The use of these weapons of war in gun crimes had fallen consistently since the ban passed.

[Page: S2655] GPO's PDF

According to Department of Justice data, the proportion of these assault weapons used in crime fell more than 65 percent since the ban took effect. And these statistics are backed up by report from the Brady Campaign.

The analysis in the Brady study was performed by Gerald Nunziato, who for eight years served as the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's National Tracing Center--a man who know first hand what these numbers means.

The study found two key things:

First: ``Assault weapons banned by name in the Federal Assault Weapons Act have declined significantly as a percentage of guns ATF has traced to crime, and in absolute number of traces, since the Act was passed. Had this decline not occurred, thousands more of these banned assault weapons would likely have been traced to crime over the last 10 years.''

In other words, the assault weapons legislation signed into law ten years ago successfully dried up the use of banned assault weapons in crime. Second, arguments have arisen that despite this evidence, the ban has not really worked because gun manufacturers would simply produce copycat guns that have the same killing power as assault weapons, and use these guns in crime across the country. I agree that gun manufacturers have tried everything they could to circumvent the ban and this concern is something that may need to be addressed. But let's look at what the Brady study said about this issue.

Second: ``The gun industry's efforts to evade the Federal Assault Weapons Act through the sale of `copycat' guns has not substantially undercut the positive effect of the statute in reducing the incidence of assault weapons among crime guns.''

In other words, even though determined gun manufacturers tried to evade the ban, they were not successful and copycat guns did not replace banned guns in equal numbers, at least when traced to crimes.

In many cases, and when dealing with many issues, I continue to find that what is most compelling is not just the statistics, but rather the real people affected by the policies we debate. It's those men, women and children that are the reason most of us come to work everyday. I'm here today to talk about this issues because of the devastating effect these guns can have on families in our neighborhoods, office buildings, street corners or schoolhouses across the country. I have said before that this issue really came home to me on July 1, 1993, just over 11 years ago, when Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-DC9 assault pistols capable of holding 30- or 50-bullet magazines. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered eight people and six others were wounded. His victims were not soldiers or even enforcement officers. These people doing everyday jobs in an everyday place. A place forever tainted by the bloodshed caused by one man and his assault weapons.

And 101 California was just one of many shootings by grievance killers, discontented employees or even schoolchildren--shooting that shows us that nobody is safe when these guns are in the hands of the wrong people. Yet five months ago, the federal ban on assault weapons expired, and once again new guns like the TEC-DC9 are allowed on our streets. The ban expired despite overwhelming public support to renew it--71 percent of all Americans support renewing the assault weapons ban, as do 64 percent of people in homes with a gun. And it expired despite overwhelming support from law enforcement and civic organizations--nearly every major law enforcement and civic organization has supported a renewal, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the list goes on and on.

Sadly, the ban expired despite the stated public support of President George W. Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft and despite the support of a majority of United States Senators--52 of us voted to renew this ban just this past March. Despite all of this support, this past September the American people were lift unprotected and made less safe. And make no mistake--when the ban expired the guns began to flow. And when the guns began to flow the safety of our communities was put in jeopardy.

One advertisement that ran in gun magazines is from ArmaLite, a company that makes post-ban rifles. ArmaLite offered a coupon for a free flash suppressor for anyone who bought one of their guns before the ban expired so that, once the ban expired, the gun could be modified to its pre-ban configuration.

The ad even states that, ``It is not legal to install this on a post ban rifle until the assault weapons ban sunsets.''

This is the kind of thing we can continue to expect--companies once again producing deadly assault weapons, high capacity clips, and dangerous accessories we worked so hard to stop almost ten years ago.

The original assault weapons ban was passed before September 11, 2001, with focus on the use of these military weapons by street criminals and gangs. But in the intervening years we have come to appreciate the significance of the threat posed by foreign terrorists. We know that al Qa'ida and other shadowy terrorist groups may plan to attack us here, at home, using these very weapons. A training manual found in Afghanistan made clear that al Oa'ida has seen the threat posed by these weapons. In fact, some of these guns are the very ones being used against our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Simply put--these weapons are not just a law enforcement problem. They are a homeland security and counterterrorism problem. We need to take action to ensure that AK-47s and other such assault weapons cannot simply be purchased by a terrorist operative in preparation for an attack in the United States.

I am deeply disappointed that despite support of the American people, support of the Congress, and stated support of the President, the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire this past fall.

It is past time to stand up to the NRA and instead listen to law enforcement all across the nation who know that this ban makes sense and saves lives. It is past time to listen to the studies that show that crime with assault weapons of all kinds has decreased by as much as 65 percent since the ban took effect almost ten years ago.

The bottom line is that across this nation everybody knows this ban should be law. Law enforcement, mayors, cities, counties, three former Presidents, and even George W. Bush himself have said the ban should be renewed.

This time I hope, for the safety of all Americans, President Bush, Majority Leader FRIST and Speaker HASTERT will help re-enact this important legislation.
 
and it is also important to note that the ban would continue to ``grandfather'' in every gun that was made before 1994. So no innocent gun owner would lose a weapon.


Umm, what about the guns made or modified after the death of the previous piece of used toilet....err legislation? So it would seem to mean that every gun made after 9/13/2004 is now illegal. Unless I am not understanding the meaning.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Second: ``The gun industry's efforts to evade the Federal Assault Weapons Act through the sale of `copycat' guns has not substantially undercut the positive effect of the statute in reducing the incidence of assault weapons among crime guns.''

Are these people really so dang dense as to believe this dribble? I know it has all been said before, but its the same freakin gun with different dressing!! If you take a camero and add a spoiler and hood scoop, it is not still an Camero?

There's more but, I better stop now because it isn't THR material.
 
I would like to know why that lady pursues the gun thing with such a passion.
It could very well be that the gun lobby continues to bloody her nose.
It seems to me that there are more important issues to be dealt with by our lawmakers.
Feinstein is up for re-election in 2006. but with Kali being the demo stronghold that it is, we can only hope.
Regards, Zeke
 
I'm am sooo ashamed of my elected officals... between Congressman Moran (aka Congressman MORON) and Senator Warner... :banghead:
 
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsquat. What a load of twisted statistics/logic. With the number of new pieces of legislation being introduced, it looks like the new "anti" tactic is to have so many bills in play as to dilute NRA and GOA efforts to the point of being ineffective. Some are bound to slip by.

Question: Is there a legal means of ousting crackpot legislators, nationally? Or are the rest of us at the mercy of the sheep in the anti states? (sorry, I slept through civics class.)
 
No, you are at the mercy of California. And that is why I get so upset everytime some THR member tells a good, gun owning Californian to leave the state. You will continue to see DiFi bring things like this up as long as California is so liberal. And she isn't trying to change the laws here, she is trying to change your laws!!! Fortunately for you right now, there is a majority of Congress that doesn't agree with her. You better hope that remains the same in 2006, otherwise, welcome back AWB or worse new and improved AWB II like the one that saves so many lives in the PRK. :barf:
 
And that is why I get so upset everytime some THR member tells a good, gun owning Californian to leave the state. You will continue to see DiFi bring things like this up as long as California is so liberal. And she isn't trying to change the laws here, she is trying to change your laws!!!

I left California two years ago. This was after exporting two EBRs that I refused to register after SB-23 became law.

When AWB '94 expired, I was able as an Idaho resident to immediately order a Bushmaster complete lower receiver and build my AR. I couldn't do that in California.

It is so nice to show my Idaho CCW to a FFL dealer and as a result be able to take immediate delivery of a handgun.

It is so nice to be able to go to a gun show, pay cash for a weapon, and not have to find a FFL to handle the transfer.

Pilgrim
 
Notice how Feinstein refers solely to a study by the brady bunch. Now there's an unbiased study, you can be sure. What about the govts. own study that showed there was no positive effect on crime that could be traced to the AWB94? She "conveeeeniently" left out any message of that study.

Anyone who writes to their Congress members (House and Senate) regarding this tripe from FineSwine, needs to remind them of the governments own study. Who do they believe, their own study, or a study done by some anti gun organization? We need to hammer that home and put this thing 6 feet under before it's given a chance to take even its first breath.
 
The dems are just pissed because there is no way they could ever get this stuff passed. She can complain all day as far as I am concerned it won't do her any good if she doesn't have the votes.
 
"The gun industry's efforts to evade the Federal Assault Weapons Act through the sale of `copycat' guns has not substantially undercut the positive effect of the statute in reducing the incidence of assault weapons among crime guns.''

Wait a cotton pickin minute, wasn't she also saying in some other tripe that because the gun industy was cheating the law by making all these "copy cats" there was more crime.

Anyone know where that is?
 
the ban would continue to ``grandfather'' in every gun that was made before 1994.

I don't think they can do that (keep the original ban date). That would be ex post facto, or after-the-fact, i.e., can't make laws that make actions that happened in the past a crime. Remember that it is as though the original ban never existed, so all weapons manufactured after 1994 are not restricted anymore.

Not that she wouldn't try...
 
Proactive Reactionary wrote:

who actually listens to her anymore? besides people on the far left...


Well, she got enough spineless senators to listen to her back in March of 2004 to get the renewal of the AWB attached to another bill, the gun manufacturers lawsuit exemption bill. The pro gun folks then had to kill the gun manufacturers lawsuit exemption bill to make sure the AWB didn't pass. So she does get more than 50 Senators to listen to her with regards to the AWB. At least she did a year ago. I wouldn't take her lightly. Pigs are one of the smartest animals around, even though they ain't pretty and don't care if they get dirty rolling in poop and mud. Why do you think we call her FineSwine?
 
oh please, what politician, aside from one with an actual backbone and respect for the constitution, is going to stand up to a AWB ban proposal?

politicians are on par with lawyers, spineless scumbags who do whatever it takes to fatten their own accounts and guarantees they'll have a job after the next election.

who outside of politicians listens to her? as i said, besides people on the far left, i dont think even moderate Democrats listen to her.

of course she is but one reason why i hope california slides into the pacific ocean. boxer is another reason, as is hollywood.
 
Don't waste your time with DeWine. He's RINO through and through....after many letters/emails/calls to his office, he stood up during the debate for the attachment of the AWB to the immunity bill and said that "not one of" his constituents had contacted him to speak up against the AWB. LIAR!
 
I would like to know why that lady pursues the gun thing with such a passion.

1. That's not a lady.

2. She's a shameless socialist parasite. She knows she can never shove socialism down the throats of free Americans, but must first reduce us to the status of serfs.
 
In some ways, I love seeing stuff like this. It tells me the Democrats not only do not have a clue about the country but will not learn and will not win elections. This is just grandstanding. Nothing more than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top