Feinstein Introduces Weapons Bill

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...t-weapons-ban/

"Our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again, and again, and again in our country," Feinstein said. "Weapons, designed originally for the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat, are replicated for civilian use."

She said the bill she and her colleagues are introducing would bar the "sale, transfer, manufacture and importation" of assault weapons. It would also ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Pretty much what had been reported would be in it. Bans not just the making of "assault weapons" but transfer as well, which means when you die the gun goes to the government. Slow motion confiscation.

The 10 round mag ban is on all guns not just assault weapons.

Yeah, it's weak gun laws. Guess Chicago needs to toughen theirs with the runaway crime. Oh, wait.

She is a crazy zealot, and a hypocrite who has armed security but wants us to be SOL.

I am surprised that she is not afraid that one of the security forces will go bat crap crazy and put about 10 rounds in her head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

I am surprised that she is not afraid that one of the security forces will go bat crap crazy and put about 10 rounds in her head

---

Apparently as long as it wasn't 14 she'd be fine. :banghead:

I don't think it has a snowball's chance of passage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Apparently as long as it wasn't 14 she'd be fine. :banghead:

---

Silver. They have to be silver.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_697732.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanISSELisdaman

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_697732.html

---

I saw that earlier. I always assume that's the way it will be now. Sad, huh?

It's confusing what is exempted and what isn't. I need to read the full text b/c the media is so clueless.

One exemption is for former LEOs. Of course I'm fine with retired law enforcement being able to carry and have any gun they want, but I'm not sure why that gives them that right and not anyone else in Feinstein's mind.

I'll need to look at the details, but haven't got time right now and not sure it's relevant. Feinstein will ask for everything she thinks she has any shot of passing or thinks can be used as a chip to get those things passed. Within the scope of the assault weapons ban it's about banning particular guns and 10 round magazines, both of which I'm dead against. If this gets to bills on background checks and such that's different, but I know what she wants on the assault weapons bill.

Oh, and her exemption of "x number of guns" is an insult to our intelligence. There are 300 million guns in the US, many are a century old. You could exempt 10x that number and still basically disarm the citizenry, limiting them to breech shotguns and revolvers. There must be 20,000 different models of those two guns alone, so exempting "2,000 guns" is meaningless. I've got a book of Smith and Wesson guns and revolvers are over 300 pages of it.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/politi...tml?hpt=hp_bn3

Every gun technically has one military aspect as every gun is designed to kill

W/o reading all of it appears any sem auto would be banned including shotguns.. She is full of bs

I have yet to read a text of this particular bill but I have no objection to trying to increase penalties on straw purchasers. I worry though that it will still manage to punish dealers or ask them to read people's minds or be in trouble. I say that b/c far too many on the anti-gun side clearly see the gun industry from top to bottom as an evil, and have thus far lumped them in with those who use guns for violent or criminal ends. If it didn't I would be surprised it would have 7 nay votes. I'll try to find it.

The assault weapons thing itself is just typical stuff. Yes semiauto shotguns would be impacted in some ways for sure, like the Saiga 12, but it also bans pistol grips on all shotguns, auto or otherwise. At least that was in the last version I saw. Somehow pistol grips make guns infinitely more dangerous to the public safety. Not sure how exactly, but they do apparently.

Feinstein’s bill would ban the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features.

“I don’t know why anyone would object to drying up these weapons over time,” Feinstein said. “While homicides in this country are down, mass killings are not … the time has come America, to step up.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...#ixzz2N068pIFM
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Gee, I wonder why we think these "common sense gun control" measures are really just steps in a long term effort to ban guns. Maybe b/c they keep admitting it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I have yet to read a text of this particular bill but I have no objection to trying to increase penalties on straw purchasers. I worry though that it will still manage to punish dealers or ask them to read people's minds or be in trouble.

---

The idea that additional punishments will deter criminals is preposterous. I'd bet money on the bill containing something in it that will harm Joe Citizen or Joe Firearms Dealer.

Found bits and pieces Keith, but I'm cautiously optimistic. 3 definitely pro-gun Senators didn't vote for it in committee but said it was b/c of some specific language they thought could get worked out in the full Senate and they'd be able to support it.

I'm worried about what responsibilities it puts on dealers and on gift/family purchases. The rules are already murky and confusing on both of those fronts. We can't read minds, and the 90 year old guy who bought the shotgun for his grandson at our last auction really doesn't need to be sent to jail for 25 years. NSSF will have the best info on the lay of the political land, will try to get it from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Found bits and pieces Keith, but I'm cautiously optimistic. 3 definitely pro-gun Senators didn't vote for it in committee but said it was b/c of some specific language they thought could get worked out in the full Senate and they'd be able to support it.

I'm worried about what responsibilities it puts on dealers and on gift/family purchases. The rules are already murky and confusing on both of those fronts. We can't read minds, and the 90 year old guy who bought the shotgun for his grandson at our last auction really doesn't need to be sent to jail for 25 years. NSSF will have the best info on the lay of the political land, will try to get it from them.

---

We can hope this is not some of the "You have to pass it to read it" legislation.

Agreed Keith, and I'm hoping the NSSF is able to explain it to enough people if the language is wrong. If it is the House won't pass it and the Senate may get another lesson in filibuster.

The NSSF has never had a PAC prior to this latest frenzy, but they created one. They've been battling at the state and local level to try to educate and represent the industry itself. They're the group who will most represent the dealers and address the legal details, and I know they've been trying to cover all the bases.

I'm going to remain optimistic but very cautious. I very much want the ATF to start going after criminals who try to buy guns illegally, and also those who buy guns for them. The last thing I want is a criminal with a gun, but it's surgical work from a legal standpoint and Congressmen, despite being mostly lawyers, have a chainsaw level intelligence when it comes to legislation.

Quote:

---

but it's surgical work from a legal standpoint and Congressmen, despite being mostly lawyers, have a chainsaw level intelligence when it comes to legislation.

---

The business I am in deals with government regulations on a daily basis and the words above should be immortalized in bronze and displayed prominently at the doors to all legislative meeting rooms. Legislators propensity to draft laws in a one size fits all mode is a drag on the citizens of this nation.

Universal background checks will have very limited impact on criminals getting guns. Criminals don't buy guns from FFL businesses, they steal them or buy them on the street.

By all means go after the straw purchasers and those who knowingly sell guns to criminals; but some proposals are over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Universal background checks will have very limited impact on criminals getting guns. Criminals don't buy guns from FFL businesses, they steal them or buy them on the street.

---

The DOJ report I linked elsewhere a while back, will do it again, shows that 40% or so of guns used by criminals in prisons came from family and friends, most of those stolen from them. Those who were given is a case where someone gave or loaned a gun to a person with a very high liklihood they knew the person was a criminal and/or was going to use the gun in a criminal way. They knowingly aided a criminal in the commission of a criminal act with a firearm. We expect them to now go down the local dealer and PAY for a background check before they loan that gun to him? They were willing to hand a gun to a criminal but now will for some reason think twice?

The law on straw purchases and aiding criminals with provision of guns is more than sufficient to prosecute such people and thus deter them. To the extent a 25 year sentence threat won't do it, a background check requirement sure won't make it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

The DOJ report I linked elsewhere a while back, will do it again, shows that 40% or so of guns used by criminals in prisons came from family and friends, most of those stolen from them. Those who were given is a case where someone gave or loaned a gun to a person with a very high liklihood they knew the person was a criminal and/or was going to use the gun in a criminal way. They knowingly aided a criminal in the commission of a criminal act with a firearm. We expect them to now go down the local dealer and PAY for a background check before they loan that gun to him? They were willing to hand a gun to a criminal but now will for some reason think twice?

The law on straw purchases and aiding criminals with provision of guns is more than sufficient to prosecute such people and thus deter them. To the extent a 25 year sentence threat won't do it, a background check requirement sure won't make it happen.

---

What is really troublesome is the lack of prosecution for present laws. A felon possessing a firearm is already illegal, straw purchases are illegal, criminal facilitation is illegal, aiding and abetting a criminal act is illegal, intentionally lying on the background check form is illegal. They need to focus on prosecution, starting at the top with Eric Holder and his gun walking scheme.

When I was a youngster my uncle loaned me an old 16 gauge Winchester model 37 that had been my grandfather's to use to hunt squirrel and rabbit with. Under new proposals there would have had to have been two background checks, one when he loaned me the shotgun, and a second when we returned it to him. My father-in-law left me an old shotgun when he passed away, under the new proposed laws there would need to be a background check. In a rural culture this becomes an unnecessary infringement upon the people.

Federally we do not need a lot of laws restricting firearms. Allow the states to make choices that are appropriate for their populations. What is good for the people of Kentucky is not going to be appropriate for all people. What is appropriate for New York City is not what is appropriate in smallish hamlets with little LEO presence.

I have no problem with background checks at gun shows but am totally opposed to the same checks for sales between individuals which is only designed to take away more individual freedoms plus make it so hard on individuals to sell or trade guns with another person that they will give up the sport or having a gun personally. This isn't about safety, this is about another step in doing away with the 2nd amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

I have no problem with background checks at gun shows but am totally opposed to the same checks for sales between individuals which is only designed to take away more individual freedoms plus make it so hard on individuals to sell or trade guns with another person that they will give up the sport or having a gun personally. This isn't about safety, this is about another step in doing away with the 2nd amendment

---

Dealers already have to do checks at gun shows. It's the "individual to individual" sales at shows that are the issue.

The problem isn't the shows or the checks, it's that there is no clear definition of who should be a dealer. There are guys who go to shows regularly who aren't "dealers" and buy and sell guns for profit but don't have to do the checks. If the guys who are constantly going to shows and have 4-5 tables full of guns had to be dealers they'd have to do the checks and this "gun show loophole" would go away. If there's a loophole, it's not the shows themselves, it's the lack of a bright line test for needing a FFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Dealers already have to do checks at gun shows. It's the "individual to individual" sales at shows that are the issue.

The problem isn't the shows or the checks, it's that there is no clear definition of who should be a dealer. There are guys who go to shows regularly who aren't "dealers" and buy and sell guns for profit but don't have to do the checks. If the guys who are constantly going to shows and have 4-5 tables full of guns had to be dealers they'd have to do the checks and this "gun show loophole" would go away. If there's a loophole, it's not the shows themselves, it's the lack of a bright line test for needing a FFL.

---

The easy fix would be to establish a bright line test; but then the feds that want sweeping gun control could not complain about the "gun show loophole" and lose a lot of impetus behind legislation that has been proposed.

I usually attend the local gun shows and the vast majority of guys who are selling are dealers. There are a few guys I see with two or three tables at the shows, but they always have the same guns, year after year. These are a couple of old guys that have some high end antiques, pre-64 Winchester model 94 rifles, old Colt .45 revolvers, Browning Sweet Sixteen, etc. I doubt they sell more than a couple of these a year. Not a lot of people are gonna fork over what they are asking for them.

Keith the numbers I've seen show that non-dealer show sales are small, and more important to the debate the DOJ study I cite shows very few criminals are obtaining guns at shows. That's not where they go to get guns, in big public venues full of people who in general think we should reintroduce public hangings as a criminal punishment.

There are a lot of guys though who, though small in volume, definitely are buying and selling to make money on them who don't have a license. I'm not saying they shoudl all get them, just that we need to be clear who needs one and who doesn't and get away from the "intent" part no one understands or can define. that would make sure there isn't a "loophole", but as you said so well, it's just a great sound byte statement that makes it sound like thousands of people are untraceably selling vast numbers of "military weapons". I'm sure they envision mullet wearing hayseeds or drug dealers.

It's not a big loophole, but it's the only one at a gun show or much of anywhere else that isn't on the ATF's enforcement side.

The single biggest benefit IMO of the Left controlling the media is they get to control the language. They're "assault weapons" not "Modern sporting rifles", "gun show loophole" not "insufficient ATF enforcement". They win the war of words b/c they control the words through the media.

One thing I do see at gun shows is off duty LEOs. I've got a HS classmate that is a LEO and I see him at gun shows more than I have seen him elsewhere since we graduated from high school. One thing I notice from attending the relatively small local shows is that the same vendors generally attend the shows. Dealers sell several weapons at inflated prices, but overall there are not that many firearms sold. On the other hand there are loads of accessories that are sold at shows.

Keith IMO there are very few actual transactions. I've joked many times with people that men shopping for guns is like women shopping for shoes. Lots of window shopping, lots of chatting about styles, not a lot of actual buying going on. Also lots of guns get bought to go into safes like many ladies shoes go into closets for storage.

When I got back involved in guns I went to a couple and concluded very quick it was no place for us to market other than to put out fliers for auction events. Most dealers and non-dealers asking too much, as are those bringing guns to sell. You can find some fair deals in there, but I bet 5%-10% of the guns physically at the shows transact, maybe fewer. At least based on what I see in Lexington. Some of the big dealers have 200-300 guns on display, no way they're selling more than 40-50 in a show and IMO it's way lower.

They are there to build a clientele as much as actually selling guns that day. Heck, a big percentage of the booths aren't guns anyway.

Senate panel approves expanded background checks on gun sales

Washington (CNN) -- A Senate committee approved legislation on Tuesday that would expand background checks covering all U.S. firearms sales, part of a federal gun-control push prompted by December's school massacre in Connecticut.

The Judiciary Committee decision by a party-line vote of 10-8 cleared the way for the Democratic-crafted background check measure to be debated and put to a vote in the full Senate.

Less clear is the fate of a proposed ban on military assault rifles proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. The panel put off a vote on that plan, but is expected to revisit it as early as Thursday.

There is little expectation Feinstein's proposal, which President Barack Obama backs along with expanded background checks and other steps, will win congressional approval due mainly to stiff opposition from lawmakers aligned with the politically potent National Rifle Association.

I consider it a good sign it was a party line vote. with no Republicans crossing it shows there isn't much if any bipartisan support. I'm hoping some kind of filibuster maneuver buries it or Reid himself does given his need for NRA support.

I'm fine with expanding the laws to make sure criminals don't get guns, but this a) has nothing to do with Newtown and b) isn't the way to do it. The way this is set up it's designed to be unenforceable, which then justifies coming back asking for registration.

Right now it's illegal for a dealer to use NICS unless they are selling a gun. one simple change is to allow dealers to run checks for people who may want one run before selling to someone. A simple voluntary system. That's a no brainer to get through and at least allows people who may have a question about someone who is not family or a neighbor to have an option to check. Not designed to be a "solution" but it does allow for some checks that we'd want to see run and would get no opposition. Could have already been in place and working.

Gun shows will often have guns priced above the MSRP, and when you run onto a dealer that sells them at normal retail prices they are doing a constant stream of business, making lots of background checks, etc.

Early on Reid said he would allow every senator to make amendments to any bill brought to the Senate floor. Allowing all amendments to be added would guarantee that the bill would not only lose, but lose big on a final Senate vote.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ready to submit weapons ban bill:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...sault-weapons/

Fixed the link Dan.

I like that guy. Feinstein's answer was "I've been in the Senate 20 years" as if that's some kind of qualification and as if it answered the question. Such a great insight into Feinstein and her "I'm smarter than everyone else" view of the world.

Man would I love to get her in a debate. She could be shredded so easily, and baited into raving like a lunatic easiest of all. Like the "I saw people shot" talking about the Milk shooting. "Yes you did, by a common revolver if I recall correctly. So why are you banning these guns when you know from your own experience that banning every gun you list won't stop a lunatic from killing someone? Why are you limiting magazine capacity when you know first hand it won't prevent the next tragedy?"

"Most important, why are you not so ravenously dedicated to mental health in this country when right before you a man was killed by someone who got off on the 'Twinkie Defense' and didn't even use a gun you are trying to ban? Why have you spent 20 years trying to limit the choices of 300 million Americans when you have admitted you can't get the support to put in a ban broad enough to make any difference, to the exclusion of a 20 year effort to try to address the serious mental health problems in this country that would actually help reduce these events and not infringe on the rights of all Americans to do so? Where did you get your priorities and why do you pursue them when you know first hand your approach wont' do anything to solve the problems you claim to care about so much?" You could have a field day with this woman and her pea sized brain.

would love to get her on the "2,217" guns not banned. You know you're either a liar or moron when you use that kind of "statistic" in this argument. There are probably more than 20,000 models of shotgun alone. You could ban every handgun ever made and every long gun with a detachable magazine and still have more than that on your list of "approved" guns. It could be more restrictive than the bans in Australia and still use that statistic. It's beyond misleading, it's insulting. Yet she gets her panties in a wad when someone asks her a question about why the 1st Amendment is absolute for her but the 2nd is completely fungible as she sees fit?

We're the ones who should be mad at having our intelligence insulted.

Man, to get her and Piers Morgan on the stand for an hour or three each, what a lovely time that would be.

The Milk thing alone woudl be a great sandtrap for her. Go back and get all the votes she's had on big Cali pork projects and votes against mental health spending or votes on that stuff when mental health was cut or not increased, ask why she saw the effects of mental illness on this nation yet prioritized pork project A or B instead of fighting for help for the mentally ill in an attempt to save their lives and the lives of others. Let her bring it up and crush her with it.

Things are gonna get ugly in the Senate over these bills coming out of the committee. The committee is loaded with few people in the middle, and dems in more rural areas are going to have a tough time voting for the same bills that Schumer and Feinstein support.