just got this email from the nra my thought is crazy bitch is asking for so much it will never pass




Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill




Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. 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 carries 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 1944 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 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. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”



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 (relatively 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 intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. 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.



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 here 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: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

good

she went all out



I'd be more worried if she pushed something that was a "minor change"

Gotta put everything in there, so you can "compromise."  It gives the media the story line they need to peddle this BS.

Even most liberals know this shit has no hope of passing.

Seriously? There's like 5 thread about this floating around just today...

Do people even read before posting anymore?

No, but I know some gun shops will print it out on a poster to increase sales

To be expected, the public will then see a compromise as acceptable. The line in the sand has been drawn.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Well lets see...

This was on GD page 1
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1410263_Proposed_AWB_Bill_by_Feinstein.html

And this on page 2
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1410931_NRA_ILA_Special_Alert_Email_Recieved__A_MUST_Read.html

She forgot the line to register matches. Deaths from arson are on the rise. Along with banning the hi-cap boxes of matches they sell at costco....pre-loaded at that.

If she had purposefully tried to design a bill destined to fail from the very start, she couldn't have done a better job.

Most of it will pass if not all of it. Flame on, it's what I think will happen.

Throw enough shit against the wall and some of it is gonna stick!!!!!!

This and ibtl

Reaching beyond the ole AWB should backfire, but I don't see how anyone can be confident we don't get screwed.  I know healthcare was not largely popular among the people and we got it rammed down our throats.  I've never seen media, celebrities and politicians so united on one thing.  We know gun legislation has been an Obama agenda.....we will not have 4yrs of inaction.

Yep.

When are the progun organizations going to start using this tactic instead of always being on the defense?

I love how she claims it was effective while simultaneously saying that manufacturers just changed cosmetic features to get around the ban.

So there was no decrease in the availability of these weapons or magazines during the ban, but it was effective in reducing crime. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

FDF

regardless of popularity, the Dem's had both houses of congress, as a result of blowing their political load on health care/free fuck pills, they no longer control both houses of congress and as a result no matter how super awesom of an idea they think they have, unless a bill is truly bipartison there is zero chance of a slightly dem senate bill passing a heavy republican house.

if they did not get themselves voted out because of healthcare, they would still have both houses and the presidency and this bill could of been an option. fuck, their little game, pretty much dealocked congress for a decade. not say that thats a bad thing, but just that they blew their load early and have nothing left

I'm not even going to give her the credit of being cognitive.

no compromise.  pass it as it is written, or don't pass it at all.

When you have legislators, elected representatives, that come out and say "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it", this is what can easily be expected.

I seen it at two shops already. To be honest it can't increase sales as damn near everything listed is sold out.

The dupes are really getting to be too much around here.  

What is an example of a "“semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine"? For some reason I'm drawing a blank here.

broomhandle

Dupe X3

It is a basic tactic in the art of negotiating. Ask for more than you want and accept more than the minimum you need.

Despite what everybody thinks of Feinstein(I do hate her and what she stands for) she is no dummy she is a seasoned politician who knows her way around Washington.
To underestimate her and people like her will only prove our downfall. Stay vigilant.

oh, clearly if the bad guys in Indiana Jones have it, it must be dangerous. bullwhips next?

Meh.  I think they should.  I think EVERY gun owner should see this, and see it regularly, as a reminder of what we are up against.   Whether it passes or not, whether part of it passes or not, make no mistake.  These people want to take EVERY gun from you.   And you should understand that, and fight the bastards at every turn.

I see too many people discounting Feinstein as a kooky old bitch with the same old legislation.   She is.   But the political climate RIGHT NOW is more receptive to this crap than it has been in years.   Read it.  Understand it.  And FIGHT IT.   Smack this shit back at her so hard her dentures bounce off the inner wall of her anus.    If we can do that, then we have assured that this is a dead issue for the foreseeable future.   If we let it get any traction at all, we will be playing defense for years to come.

And exactly how is that supposed to happen?

Look how much of this crap is cosmetic.  Nothing on the actual function of the gun.  If it looks evil it must be.  These fucking bitches are so use to doing face lifts, they think it will work on a weapon.

But she looked at pictures, twice.

I'm thinking we should make up a picture of a gun that would pass her look test but still function aa semi auto.

This is the same old Overton Window tactic of getting what they want.   They really want to pass just a mag ban for now so they ask for this crazy ban then "compromise" back to what they really want.   I can't figure out why we haven't used the same tactics.   We should say we are going to push through a bill that would define "arms" as just that.   According to the 2nd Am. individuals can own any arms they choose, you want an F-16 and a couple howitzers, its covered by the 2nd.   When the libs go nuts then we can "compromise"  back to dumping the NFA.

 

X2.

Seems like "our side" never makes any outlandish proposals with the fallback position as what we really want.  Of course, trying to talk to the libs over their clamour is next to impossible.