Feinstein to Intro Gun Ban Bill on January 22 - Polidicks

[quote] Contact your members of Congress and urge them to oppose any "assault weapon" or magazine ban Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)--author of the federal "assault weapon" and "large" ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004--has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill. Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012. According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows: 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 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 1941 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 transfer 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. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill. The Department of Justice study: On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously." "Assault weapon" numbers and murder trends: From the imposition of Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of "assault weapons" has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an "assault weapon" is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE's firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s--all models of which Feinstein's new bill defines as "assault weapons"--rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type. Traces: Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of "assault weapons" in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing "assault weapons" were exempted from the 1994 ban and new "assault weapons" continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by "assault weapons" during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade. Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein will most likely introduce her bill on January 22nd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a "central issue" of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it. And yesterday, a story from The Blaze noted that Obama's point man on gun control--Vice President Biden--has promised that Obama will pass a gun control bill by the end of the month. Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein's 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our "Write Your Representatives" tool here: [url]http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx[/url] Millions of Americans own so-called "assault weapons" and tens of millions own "large" magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about the history of the "assault weapon" issue, please visit [url]www.GunBanFacts.com[/url]. [/quote] [url]http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/1/feinstein%27s-new-gun-ban-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22.aspx[/url] [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] I'm going to replace this with a better article, sec. [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] done

[quote][B]require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act[/B][/quote] For a quick understanding of the NFA.... The background check is done[very similar to the 4473], but you're forced to pay a $200 tax stamp, forced to wait four to six months for a single piece of paper, and each one of your firearms will require this. This is completely unconstitutional, and it breaches the 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

This better not pass or Canada would have better gun laws than the US. :v:

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39115266]For a quick understanding of the NFA.... The background check is done[very similar to the 4473], but you're forced to pay a $200 tax stamp, forced to wait four to six months for a single piece of paper, and each one of your firearms will require this. This is completely unconstitutional, and it breaches the 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments to the United States Constitution.[/QUOTE] [quote]2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote] Note the "well regulated" part. [quote]4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote] What exactly does that have to do with requiring people to register their firearms? [quote]8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[/quote] The 8th amendment protects people from being disproportionately jailed/fined/punished compared to the severity of the crime. That means you can't be fined a billion dollars for robbing a bank, or shot for stealing someone's purse. Has nothing to do with requiring registration on guns.

hi no offense but your source is obviously going super biased

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;39115374]hi no offense but your source is obviously going super biased[/QUOTE] I don't think there are any credible arguments FOR gun control. Its hard to be bias with the truth.

[QUOTE=Omali;39115350]Note the "well regulated" part.[/QUOTE] And how it refers to a militia, and how the Supreme Court has stated that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms unconnected with a militia, and thus how this is a childish, ill-informed, irrelevant argument?

I fucking hate Feinstein. I don't even live in California.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39115379]I don't think there are any credible arguments FOR gun control. Its hard to be bias with the truth.[/QUOTE] as always irony escapes chernarus

[QUOTE=Omali;39115350]Note the "well regulated" part.[/quote] [I]A well regulated milita being nessecary to the security of a free state[/I], [B]the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/B] The bold was later guaranteed by District of Columbia v. Heller: [quote](1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[/quote] [quote]What exactly does that have to do with requiring people to register their firearms?[/quote] Most people wouldn't have an issue if the process was simply, 'Goto local gun-store, registers, done' but how Feinstein wishes to bring in provisions from the National Firearm Act of 1934, which would ultimately mean long waiting periods, as well as seizure of property/material from legal law abiding firearm owners. [quote]The 8th amendment protects people from being disproportionately jailed/fined/punished compared to the severity of the crime. That means you can't be fined a billion dollars for robbing a bank, or shot for stealing someone's purse. Has nothing to do with requiring registration on guns.[/QUOTE] By failing to do the NFA paperwork(which is 6 months of waiting), you are openly putting yourself into trouble with the ATF, and in some respects you could be arrested for a minimum of ten years in Federal Prison. As I said before, most people wouldn't have an issue if it was simple registry of firearms.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39115405]as always irony escapes chernarus[/QUOTE] I take it you support strict gun control? May I ask why? [editline]5th January 2013[/editline] The current amount of restrictions the US has at the moment are perfectly fine, weapons ban lists such as these are made by politicians who think barrel shrouds are a threat to society. A lot the gun control advocates are using the recent shootings to push their personal agenda.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39115387]And how it refers to a militia, and how the Supreme Court has stated that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms unconnected with a militia, and thus how this is a childish, ill-informed, irrelevant argument?[/QUOTE] And the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia V Heller that the DC licensing law was permissible.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39115415]I take it you support strict gun control? May I ask why? [editline]5th January 2013[/editline] The current amount of restrictions the US has at the moment are perfectly fine, weapons ban lists such as these are made by politicians who think barrel shrouds are a threat to society. [B]A lot the gun control advocates are using the recent shootings to push their personal agenda[/B].[/QUOTE] uhh so are "ALL TEACHESR SHOULD HAV GUNS" [editline]5th January 2013[/editline] check yourself before you wreck yourself

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;39115440]uhh so are "ALL TEACHESR SHOULD HAV GUNS"[/QUOTE] Thats a dumb idea, here in Canada alot of schools have RCMP officers attached to schools, who are armed with a Tazor and a Glock. I personally think this is how it should be for most schools, giving teachers a firearm is a bad idea.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39115379]Its hard to be bias with the truth.[/QUOTE] this this is difficult to get my head around how the fuck do you manage it? [QUOTE=laserguided;39115415]I take it you support strict gun control? May I ask why?[/quote] how the fuck does that infer he supports it?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39115495]this this is difficult to get my head around how the fuck do you manage it?[/QUOTE] Aren't you the guy who thinks everybody who owns a gun for self defence intends to kill somebody?

[QUOTE=laserguided;39115510]Aren't you the guy who thinks everybody who owns a gun for self defence intends to kill somebody?[/QUOTE] ok sweety fuck that to one side thats utterly irrelevant [quote]I don't think there are any credible arguments FOR gun control. Its hard to be bias with the truth.[/quote] please explain this bullshit collection of words that you typed

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39115523]ok sweety fuck that to one side thats utterly irrelevant please explain this bullshit collection of words that you typed[/QUOTE] Because there aren't any credible reasons to ban assault weapons, the current amount of gun control is doing just fine.

Oh man here comes Sobotnik to begin arguments that are anti-gun even though he claims he's not anti-gun himself.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39115530]Because there aren't any credible reasons to ban assault weapons, the current amount of gun control is doing just fine.[/QUOTE] [quote]I don't think there are any credible arguments FOR gun control.[/quote] this is a broad statement how much gun control? are you saying that not a single argument exists at all to support the implementation of any form of gun control? [quote]Its hard to be bias with the truth[/quote] this is biased in itself, this is the irony your statement sucks so hard, that the cock goes right into it and wears the appendix as a hat

I think I'll just leave this here. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0[/media]

I honestly doubt it will pass. Practically no republicans are for it and a few democrats are against it as well, numbers are against it.

i don't think we should ban all guns but jesus christ laserguided so according to you i should be able to own multiple heavy machine guns without the government needing to know about it?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39115553]this is a broad statement how much gun control? are you saying that not a single argument exists at all to support the implementation of any form of gun control? this is biased in itself, this is the irony your statement sucks so hard, that the cock goes right into it and wears the appendix as a hat[/QUOTE] I just told you how much control. There is no need whatsoever to have anymore then there currently is.

And on the note of registration; the power to register = the power to tax = the power to revoke or destroy. I wouldn't want to give the government that power cause they are known to abuse it, thankfully in Canada we got rid of our registry. At least 'half' of it.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;39115568]i don't think we should ban all guns but jesus christ laserguided so according to you i should be able to own multiple heavy machine guns without the government needing to know about it?[/QUOTE] I just said the current amount of control is enough, non-grandfathered automatics were banned over 3 decades ago.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39115569]I just told you how much control. There is no need whatsoever to have anymore then there currently is.[/QUOTE] This isn't very fucking helpful. Each state in America has different laws, each country in the world has different laws. Which laws? Which state? What model? What the fuck sort of meaningless statement is "It's fine at the moment"? Do the Japanese have the desired status quo? Do the Swiss have the desired Status quo? Texas? Maine? Kentucky? Oregon? California? Again, your statements make no fucking sense.

This ban is just a simple piece of bad legislation. None of this accomplishes anything meaningful at all. I am confused as to why she even thinks this would actually do anything. I think it is high time that some reporter or other entity goes up to her with a list of all the features that are banned, and ask her exactly what each feature: A: Is, B: does to improve the lethality of the firearm, and C: What the reasoning for that feature being outlawed is. I don't think that I have seen anyone do this, and I bet if they did, she would make a complete ass out of herself, or just go "no comment", destroying what little credibility she had in the first place. It literally baffles my mind how anyone could consider all of the provisions in this bill to be a good idea.

Sobotnik, take your argument to MD

[QUOTE=Omali;39115350]Note the "well regulated" part. What exactly does that have to do with requiring people to register their firearms? The 8th amendment protects people from being disproportionately jailed/fined/punished compared to the severity of the crime. That means you can't be fined a billion dollars for robbing a bank, or shot for stealing someone's purse. Has nothing to do with requiring registration on guns.[/QUOTE] When you own a NFA registered gun you subject yourself to Federal inspections which they will do as they please at any time for any reason, and you HAVE to comply or you get to go to court over it to explain why you weren't able to be there for them to inspect your gun. That's an infringement on the 4th Amendment. If you break an NFA law by buying any NFA gun or device without doing the paperwork, you don't just go to jail, you go to jail for a very very long time. If you build a machinegun (By any definition, which includes tying a shoestring to a gun in such a way as to fire in "full auto") and get caught, it's 20 years or more in prison, not State prison but Federal prison, the big time. That's excessive punishment based purely on building a restricted gun, doesn't matter if you ever used it or had ammo for it, just that you had it without Federal consent. [QUOTE=LordCrypto;39115440]uhh so are "ALL TEACHESR SHOULD HAV GUNS" [editline]5th January 2013[/editline] check yourself before you wreck yourself[/QUOTE] Utah has had legal CCW in schools for awhile now, the schools there are even required by law to allow it.