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. PaisteMage

    PaisteMage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    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.
     
  2. browneu

    browneu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    ohio
    How will people know a gun is registered? That's if it becomes NFA.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
     
  3. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    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.
    .
     
  4. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,056
    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
     
  5. crossrhodes

    crossrhodes Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Northeast Kingdom
    Sucks

    Her and Polosi need to take their government issued depends and retire
     
  6. KLL

    KLL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  7. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    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."
     
  8. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    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/
     
  9. bobbo

    bobbo Member.

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    Hopefully, we can negotiate it to something less than this cluster. Good news for that plain-Jane Mini-14 I was looking at, though :).
     
  10. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    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.
     
  11. morcey2

    morcey2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    Central Utah
    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
     
  12. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    Exactly what I mean. Constitutional carry is the "starting point".
     
  13. Ky Larry

    Ky Larry Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,526
    Location:
    Ky
    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.
     
  14. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,599
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Thanks, I didn't know that, my bad.
     
  15. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    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.
     
  16. cowhrse1

    cowhrse1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    SE Nebraska
    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

     
  17. GA400

    GA400 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    The land of the free
    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: Dec 28, 2012
  18. JBrady555

    JBrady555 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Panama City, FL
    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.
     
  19. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    I hate to say this, but the NRA-ILA analysis is misleading in places. For example:

    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.

    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.
     
  20. David E

    David E Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,455
    IF that were their goal, you might have a point. The trouble is, that's not their goal.
     
  21. kenny87

    kenny87 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    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: Dec 28, 2012
  22. ID-shooting

    ID-shooting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    643
    Location:
    Nampa, Idaho
    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?
     
  23. ID-shooting

    ID-shooting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    643
    Location:
    Nampa, Idaho
    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.
     
  24. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    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.
     
  25. Bobk538447

    Bobk538447 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page