No mention as to whether she will forgo all armed security for herself
(The Blaze) Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein promised to on the first day of new the Congress introduce legislation that would ban so-called assault weapons and certain types of ammunition.
Now, the Californian senator has posted a summary of this legislation that would be introduced in 2013, showing more details about the provisions that she would hope would be included. And it doesn’t just have to do with what she calls “assault†weapons.
Here are a few bullet points on the guns that would be banned from sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing:
- 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
Those who have acquired weapons recently under the pretense of being “grandfathered†in under prior laws see mention in Feinstein’s provisions as well. It requires these weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act that will include collecting the following information…..
Hmm, one military characteristic? One could argue that since it shoots bullets, it has a military characteristic. And she has only provided a summary of the legislation, so no one knows which guns are included.
The legislation would re-institute the 1994 assault weapons ban, but change it from “a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.”
It also
- 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
Wait, it leaves most guns legal? Ah, there’s a catch: If you own a grandfathered weapon, you would need to undergo a background check, register the serial number, and, hey, look, have your photo and fingerprints taken and kept on file. Just like they would with a criminal! No mention in the summary of her legislation would consider the need to register any magazine which takes more than 10 rounds.
She also mentions several studies in the summary, which includes a letter to the editor and a Washington Post story, but, interestingly, she leaves out the CDC sponsored study which noted that there is “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
Now, all you Democrat voters who are for people, er, gun control, will you all voluntarily give up your guns?
I think if we go forward with a photo ID, with fingerprints, it should be called the Voter ID Act of 2013, and expanded to include all registered voters.
If you have to specifically name a gun to make it legal, then it means no new guns would be legal.
It would seem to ban ALL guns with a detachable magazine. Even the 4-8 round Marlin .22 LR where the small magazine is inserted in to the stock from underneath.
And, even more startling, is the creation of the always pushed National Gun and Owner Registry.
This WILL cause a national revolt.
Or link the ID to a national “shall issue” CCW law. Most folks would have no problem giving up their photo and fingerprints for a CCW.
In my state, and I’d bet in most, we already have to give up a fingerprint and background check for a CCW. And that is used to get a national background check. However, that is still a local check and nothing is registered federally. You are not placing yourself on a register of people who either own a gun or are “requesting” to own a gun from the feds.
Right now, the CCW is a request for a CCW permit alone. You don’t necessarily have to own a gun.
But, if they want to make a permanent federal list of photo and all other IDs and tie that to gun ownership federally, or to grant PERMISSION to purchase a gun …… then I’d bet many people would have problems with it. I know I do.
Another thing to note in this proposed bill, it forces a federal background check for ANY transfer of a gun. This overrides the foundational law of “personal business”. One thing that was acceptable for gun-show background checks was that only the dealers were required to conduct the checks. If you wanted to sell your gun to someone, or give your gun to a relative or friend, you were exempt based on natural law of the right to conduct personal business.
That now seems to be eroding away as well.
Something gives me the feeling that once Ol’ Dianne introduces this bill the rest of congress will look at it, say “yeah, sure, uh huh” then shelve it of toss it in the round file next to the speaker’s desk. Just think, there was a real reason they let the original AW ban expire, and that was because it didn’t work and it’s been proven that “assault weapons” were never even used in more that a few murders anyway. Seems to me there are a lot of other important issues that congress should be tackling anyway.
Ohh.. psschaw. what other important matters are there? Nothing much else is going on.
Feinstein’s law bans guns with adjustable stocks and “thumbhole stocks.”
In one fell swoop, Feinstein has declared the gun the Olympic Rifle Team uses as being illegal.
This bill is not about safety. It is about the appearance of doing something without worrying about whether that action is effective or not.
Next up, the banning of “heat seeking bullets.”
Oh wait.
bbwwwaahahahahaa