Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Justin, Dec 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    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.
     
  2. vtail

    vtail Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    339
    Oh, is that all?
     
  3. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    It's late, and I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

    This looks like pretty much our worst nightmare.
     
  4. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Hastings, Michigan
    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.
     
  5. RBid

    RBid Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    640
    Location:
    Wilsonville, Oregon
    That is more aggressive than what I expected.
     
  6. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    I told ya...
     
  7. HDCamel

    HDCamel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    796
    Location:
    Virginia
    If this passes. I'm out.
    Seriously.
     
  8. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    "Accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature" Like, say, a trigger...
     
  9. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  10. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,297
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    What ^^^do you mean you are out?
     
  11. Flopsweat

    Flopsweat Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    280
    That's exactly how the Brady Bill got passed. Nobody thought it had a chance. Please take this seriously. Contact representatives. Be heard.
     
  12. sidheshooter

    sidheshooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    NW
    She's flipped her lid. Killed in the egg, as written.
     
  13. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    You're probably right. It's just shocking to see it actually in print like that.
     
  14. ATBackPackin

    ATBackPackin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    Valley Forge, PA.
    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.
     
  15. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Location:
    USA

    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.
     
  16. sidheshooter

    sidheshooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    NW
    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.
     
  17. JBrady555

    JBrady555 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Panama City, FL
    "•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?
     
  18. sidheshooter

    sidheshooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    NW
    ^^^Hell, it could be any semi auto with night sights or a rail, as written.
     
  19. JBrady555

    JBrady555 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Panama City, FL
    I think we should all just move and take over costa rica or something.

    Just kidding.
     
  20. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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.
     
  21. TAKtical

    TAKtical Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    654
    Location:
    North east ohio
    Im not moving to costa rica. Id be happy to escort some anti's to the border though.
     
  22. Sheepdog1968

    Sheepdog1968 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,518
    Location:
    CA
    It sounds so extreme that it might push some who are on the fence in congress to vote no.
     
  23. Dr_B

    Dr_B member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    822
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, east of Washington but west of
    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.
     
  24. JBrady555

    JBrady555 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Panama City, FL
    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.
     
  25. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,484
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page