View Full Version : This Just In: Feinstein includes handguns in to-be-proposed Assault Weapons Legislation
bigmyk2k
12-27-2012, 14:02
Find more information at her senate website (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons). (Click for link (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons))
I'm fatigued from being demonized simply because I own a firearm.
Kraven251
12-27-2012, 14:35
I'm curious if she ever gets tired of being ignorant.
Zundfolge
12-27-2012, 14:35
I'm fatigued from being demonized simply because I own a firearm.
I know. If us gun owners were just 1/10th as evil and violent as these subhuman filth say we are they'd all be dead.
Sharpienads
12-27-2012, 15:01
I know. If us gun owners were just 1/10th as evil and violent as these subhuman filth say we are they'd all be dead.
Yup.
NightCat
12-27-2012, 15:48
It was only a matter of time...
The good news is, the more ridiculous shit the add to it, the least likely it is to pass.
Rust_shackleford
12-27-2012, 16:05
So I'm seeing a class 2 type restriction... GO FUCK OFF
BuffCyclist
12-27-2012, 16:34
The good news is, the more ridiculous shit the add to it, the least likely it is to pass.
Sadly no. That means that everyone will "compromise" and give up the ridiculous terms of the bill and pass the rest of it, assault weapon ban and high capacity mag ban being the liklier terms.
blacklabel
12-27-2012, 16:41
I really don't like her
Understatement of the century. Possibly the last century too.
ghettodub
12-27-2012, 16:43
Her and McCarthy...barf...
Already fired off my letters about this
Rust_shackleford
12-27-2012, 17:15
As with the budget watch the GOP cave in. If you are a CONSERVATIVE you need to leave the GOP if this Bill gets through the House.
Circuits
12-27-2012, 20:13
Handguns were included in the original AW ban, too - if they were semiautomatic and accepted detachable magazines that held more than ten rounds.
As with the budget watch the GOP cave in. If you are a CONSERVATIVE you need to leave the GOP if this Bill gets through the House.
Yep. Sadly the GOP has lost their spine (and balls)... they're nothing but a bunch of wet noodles that cave under the least amount of pressure. If we go over the fiscal cliff, it's going to be blamed on the Republicans. If we have some last-minute deal, all the bad stuff in it will fall to the GOP's blame. Same with guns, they'll probably compromise- we'll lose more liberty, more rights, and be criminalized. Seriously, I've written enough letters these last couple weeks that if they do cave, I'm going to see to it that their names go through mud and shit and stop supporting them altogether forever. Right now is the time to stand FIRM... very firm!
So, am I understanding this right? ANY handgun that has a detachable mag (most) that can hold 10 rounds or more, regardless if you have 10+ round mags or not, would be illegal?
keylay31
12-28-2012, 12:33
The really scary part is this:
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
Zundfolge
12-28-2012, 12:56
As with the budget watch the GOP cave in. If you are a CONSERVATIVE you need to leave the GOP if this Bill gets through the House.
If this bill gets through the house then time for politics is over.
bigmyk2k
12-28-2012, 13:04
Ban Trains! They can be used as weapons! (Click for info (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20856644))
Circuits
12-28-2012, 14:09
So, am I understanding this right? ANY handgun that has a detachable mag (most) that can hold 10 rounds or more, regardless if you have 10+ round mags or not, would be illegal?
Existing ones would be grandfathered/registered. Can't sell it, can't leave it to your heirs.
Existing ones would be grandfathered/registered. Can't sell it, can't leave it to your heirs.
So effectively within 50 years or so, they have eliminated all semiauto firearms from legal private ownership. Do they think that will stop the criminals? Buncha morons.
Existing ones would be grandfathered/registered. Can't sell it, can't leave it to your heirs.
Ugggggggggggh.
hollohas
12-28-2012, 14:47
So effectively within 50 years or so, they have eliminated all semiauto firearms from legal private ownership.
Exactly. And that is their purpose. Eliminate them without an outright confiscation. A confiscation would cause a riot...but if they let us keep them, then we'll just go along with it...
The blue collar, middle-ground, hunter, Dem, gun owners will say "see, they aren't banning anything. You all get to keep the guns you have and I can keep MY bolt action. It is only reasonable that we have a registration so we can track the guns in case a criminal uses them." And they will still vote for their Representative that passed it next time around.
I agree the NFA semi-auto crap is a throw away so they can say they "compromised." However, I truly believe they will do everything in their power to at least make it illegal to transfer pre-ban weapons. They do that, and you can say goodbye to guns within one generation.
These anti-gun politicians are smarter than we give them credit for. They know exactly what they are doing. They know that the AWB laws are based on cosmetic features. They do that on purpose so they can target more guns for a ban. Although they made a mistake last time by making it 2 features. This time it will be one feature and will cover A LOT more guns and we'll have fewer loop-holes.
And don't expect any help from the courts. The High court will sway away from 2nd friendly later in 2013. That was the biggest lose of the election. We lost the Supreme Court.
Can someone elaborate on the "military feature" part? Do they have a list of exactly what they look for? What parts of the glock would make it illegal besides the 10+ capacity mags? I appreciate any info/links. Thanks.
Rust_shackleford
12-28-2012, 15:11
Can someone elaborate on the "military feature" part? Do they have a list of exactly what they look for? What parts of the glock would make it illegal besides the 10+ capacity mags? I appreciate any info/links. Thanks.
Glock Magazine fed semi auto capable of holding +10 rounds of ammo. Military features are flash hider, pistol grip bayonet lug, threaded barrel magazines that are detachable ect
Glock Magazine fed semi auto capable of holding +10 rounds of ammo. Military features are flash hider, pistol grip bayonet lug, threaded barrel magazines that are detachable ect
Beyond the magazine, they don't have a bayonet lug, threaded barrel, right? Excuse my potential ignorance on this part of it.
Rust_shackleford
12-28-2012, 15:22
Beyond the magazine, they don't have a bayonet lug, threaded barrel, right? Excuse my potential ignorance on this part of it.
Semi Auto more than 10 rds. The last ban made the 1911 come back a little quicker
Bailey Guns
12-28-2012, 17:18
As with the budget watch the GOP cave in. If you are a CONSERVATIVE you need to leave the GOP if this Bill gets through the House.
And if the bill is killed by the GOP-controlled house will you STFU?
Circuits
12-28-2012, 19:38
And if the bill is killed by the GOP-controlled house will you STFU?
Unfortunately, with lickenpooper in the gov's mansion, and a blue house and senate, CO AW ban is essentially a foregone conclusion. If we're safe at the federal level (at least until the 2014 midterms), but fucked in Colorful Colorado, does that mean we all STFU and take one for the team, as it were?
Tinelement
12-28-2012, 19:45
So as I read it.....
We are basically back to 6 shooters and lever actions??
All good with me! I admire the outlaws of the Wild West.
argonstrom
12-28-2012, 19:46
Unfortunately, with lickenpooper in the gov's mansion, and a blue house and senate, CO AW ban is essentially a foregone conclusion. If we're safe at the federal level (at least until the 2014 midterms), but fucked in Colorful Colorado, does that mean we all STFU and take one for the team, as it were?
That's what scares me the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglpt8hpyg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglpt8hpyg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Bailey Guns
12-28-2012, 20:59
Unfortunately, with lickenpooper in the gov's mansion, and a blue house and senate, CO AW ban is essentially a foregone conclusion. If we're safe at the federal level (at least until the 2014 midterms), but fucked in Colorful Colorado, does that mean we all STFU and take one for the team, as it were?
Yeah, well...we're talking about a federal ban here.
SuperiorDG
12-29-2012, 09:02
[QUOTE=Gunner;817157]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglpt8hpyg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Beat me to it. Good Video.
SuperiorDG
12-29-2012, 11:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglpt8hpyg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglpt8hpyg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Just sent this along using the link in the commits of the video.
Dear Representative,
This is my first time in 45 years of life that I have written one of my Representatives. I have always had faith in our system of government that my one vote was enough to keep my 3 children and family safe and with a future. As an American and business owner I believe that we vote/hire our representative/employees to do a job using FACTS, LOGIC and EXPERIENCE and set them free do that job to the best of their ability. We may sometimes give them advice based on our experiences, but for the most part we have faith in their ability to make the right decisions.
What has motivated me to write for the first time is that I believe that this great county is about step, no jump, away from one of our guiding principles, the right to defined one’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The FACTS show that we are, as a whole, safer if we have the ability and means to protect ourselves. LOGIC even shows this to be so. And EXPERIENCE shows that removing guns from law abiding citizens and unreasonable gun bans does not make society safer.
I lived in the Columbine neighborhood in 1999 and remember watching from my front porch children and parents embracing each other for the first time that horrible day. I will never forget. I was sent back to those emotions of that day with the recent events. I feel it is even more important today to protect our children then it has ever been.
EXPERIENCE shows me two of many things to be true about us, evil will always be a part of our society and that we are very resourceful. The proposed gun bans will not change this about us. If the guns are not there evil with be resourceful. And in fact it will be easier for evil to prevail because the innocent will be defenseless. If your goal is to protect the greatest number of people then do not take away our ability to protect ourselves.
Please for my family do not disarm us with the legation soon to be before you.
Respectfully,
I think this law has to much take.
mosinnagant577
01-06-2013, 16:44
I agree with gunner
CO-SpAr72
01-07-2013, 08:28
Anyone have a firm time tablefor when this legislation might pass? Im assuming a ban on private party sales will be included in the new laws?
SurvivalBlog's view that these have no traction and why:
http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/01/why-civilian-disarmament-in-the-us-is-just-a-statist-fantasy.html
I often have SurvivalBlog readers forward me alarmist e-mails, warning of "total disarmament" of the civilian populace. While there indeed may be plans or schemes to disarm Americans, I don't consider these threats credible. Let me explain why: I would conservatively estimate that there are about 316 million firearms in private hands in the United States. Of these, less than 10% are logged in any formal registry. Perhaps another 30% have Form 4473s filed with the FFL dealers where they were first purchased, but that is a fractured mishmash of records with a quite perishable life span. It is notable that we live in a very mobile society, where most families move every three or four years. And in most states, there are no record keeping requirements for secondary sales of firearms. So to call the accumulation of 4473 forms a de facto registration system is laughable.
A Congressional Research Service report provides these details:
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported in a national survey that in 1994, 44 million people, approximately 35% of households, owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own more than one firearm. According to the ATF, by the end of 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States. That total includes roughly 72 million handguns (mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64 million shotguns. By 2000, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 259 million: 92 million handguns, 92 million rifles, and 75 million shotguns. By 2007, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.
.
.
.
They know confiscation would never work. They know 90% of gun owners will not FULLY comply with mandatory registration. That is what they want. If possession of an unregistered handgun or assault rifle = AUTOMATIC GUILT, then they have successfully criminalized most gun owners who, as of today, have committed no crime. If unregistered = contraband, and all unrecorded transfers are felonious, that is just something they can use at any time against anyone. They intend to make gun owners fear their government and suspect their friends and neighbors. That way, they can label casual groups of shooting enthusiasts "subversives" . . . after all, they are clearly paranoid and were discovered with unregistered firearms.
Next step is a national FOID card required to purchase ammunition, with every transaction recorded. Forget reloading . . . powder will be reclassified as "explosives" . . . anyone remember the "taggant" debacle? Their ultimate goal is to criminalize gun ownership, incrementally.
It looks like this bill will pass with minimal concessions. No more hi-cap mags, all private party sales need to go through a FFL, any grandfathered ARs need to be registered, any handguns need to be registered . . . noncompliance will be prosecuted as a federal felony with zero tolerance and mandatory minimums. But they are not talking about penalties or non-sale transfers (gift/trade/inheritance) at all. They want to sneak those provisions into their 100+ pages of small print. It is insidious. I am expecting the worst. After all, Obama is having Biden and Bloomberg draft the new legislation.
hollohas
01-07-2013, 17:59
They know confiscation would never work. They know 90% of gun owners will not FULLY comply with mandatory registration. That is what they want. If possession of an unregistered handgun or assault rifle = AUTOMATIC GUILT, then they have successfully criminalized most gun owners who, as of today, have committed no crime. If unregistered = contraband, and all unrecorded transfers are felonious, that is just something they can use at any time against anyone. They intend to make gun owners fear their government and suspect their friends and neighbors. That way, they can label casual groups of shooting enthusiasts "subversives" . . . after all, they are clearly paranoid and were discovered with unregistered firearms.
^ This is exactly what I'm worried about. The banners are smarter than we give them credit for. I know MANY gun owners who tell me "black rifles" and standard capacity mags should be banned. And they find the idea of registration perfectly acceptable. There maybe so many tens-of-millions of gun owners in America...We just don't have the entirety of gun owning America on our side. We are the minority on this one folks...
Waywardson174
01-07-2013, 18:05
[Rant1]DEATH TO AMERICA!!![Rant1]
Oh, sorry. Is this not the Feinstein is my favoritist and smartest ever post talk blog?
But seriously, this addition makes this legislation truly impossible to vote for. We should petition her to add assault bats, tire irons, and spoons to the ban. Did you know a CHILD can simply walk into a Wal Mart and just BUY AS MANY spoons as they want. IT'S LUDICROUS.
^ This is exactly what I'm worried about. The banners are smarter than we give them credit for. I know MANY gun owners who tell me "black rifles" and standard capacity mags should be banned. And they find the idea of registration perfectly acceptable. There maybe so many tens-of-millions of gun owners in America...We just don't have the entirety of gun owning America on our side. We are the minority on this one folks...
x2. Children were involved and the government saw their opportunity. A lot of parents are on board along with a lot more "pro-gun" people than I would have guessed. Most everyone's first question is "Why do you need that?". Next question is why does anyone need more than 200 hp? Now if you want more than 200 hp, you have to apply (and pay a tax for fuel consumption) and have valid reason for needing that hp. If not...DENIED! See people's reactions when you say that. There's no difference. Higher hp cars ARE obviously more likely to make you speed and we all know how many fatal accidents there are in this country. So let's reduce the ability of idiots to kill others with their cars. Guns are so easy to single out because of the fear people have of them and no one ever understands why in the world someone would want Satan's tool of death. ;)
The more they add, the worse the so-called "middle ground" that is finally reached will be for us. That's why they're adding everything but the kitchen sink.
As has alredy been stated, they're not stupid.
O2
x2. Children were involved and the government saw their opportunity. A lot of parents are on board along with a lot more "pro-gun" people than I would have guessed. Most everyone's first question is "Why do you need that?". Next question is why does anyone need more than 200 hp? Now if you want more than 200 hp, you have to apply (and pay a tax for fuel consumption) and have valid reason for needing that hp. If not...DENIED! See people's reactions when you say that. There's no difference. Higher hp cars ARE obviously more likely to make you speed and we all know how many fatal accidents there are in this country. So let's reduce the ability of idiots to kill others with their cars. Guns are so easy to single out because of the fear people have of them and no one ever understands why in the world someone would want Satan's tool of death. ;)
I've had people tell me, "There is no 'fast lane'" and "No-one needs a car that goes over the speed limit."
ghettoblaster
01-08-2013, 07:04
So here's what I'm wondering: if I've already purchased the majority of my guns with hi-cap magazines and "AR-like features" through an FFL and they were registered at the time of purchase, am I going to have to go back and re-register them all over again? Seems kinda redundant. I can see why they would do that if they have been private party sales and there was no record of it, but 100% of my purchases have been through an FFL. I know that's not as nifty as having guns that the feds don't have on record, but I've just never gone the private party route before.
So here's what I'm wondering: if I've already purchased the majority of my guns with hi-cap magazines and "AR-like features" through an FFL and they were registered at the time of purchase, am I going to have to go back and re-register them all over again? Seems kinda redundant. I can see why they would do that if they have been private party sales and there was no record of it, but 100% of my purchases have been through an FFL. I know that's not as nifty as having guns that the feds don't have on record, but I've just never gone the private party route before.
If I read it right all of the guns that fall under the ban would have to be registered as NFA items and have a $200 tax stamp for each one. So yes, you would have to register them with the feds or risk penalties if you are caught with one not registered.
The thing to do with a crazy law like this one, if it survives comittee, is to just send it to the floor for a vote. no modifications, no negotiations. Anyone really think that a bill banning handguns would pass? Lets see if the proponents of 'common sense' laws are willing to show their true colors. let the crazy bill fail.
These huge ban everything bills are not the primary concern. It is the little 'reasonable' piecemeal ones. A small bill that only bans magazines above 10 rounds, a small bill that only bans private transfers. Those are the ones that cannot reach the floor.
So here's what I'm wondering: if I've already purchased the majority of my guns with hi-cap magazines and "AR-like features" through an FFL and they were registered at the time of purchase, am I going to have to go back and re-register them all over again.
Actually, the Feinstein Bill wants to limit you to ONLY ONE "assault weapon" (which now includes: M1 carbines, Mini 14, SKS), which will be NON TRANSFERABLE and when you die ownership transfers the government so they can melt it into slag.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.