Diane Fienstien legislation....

darthtang aw

Active Member
Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
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.
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
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
It'll be a dog an pony show for sure. In the big scheme of things it means very little. You're either going to ban items from the public that are designed to kill (or protect) or you aren't. It's like asking the genie, nicely to please get back in the bottle.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

This would not classify under the ban, yet is equally as capable as the ar-15.
Legislation that does nothing. Tax payer dollars wasted and government incompetance at its finest.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I wonder how many people would be stupid enough to register their firearms if that legislation was passed?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21525/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-is-political-suicide-for-democrats
Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban is Political Suicide For Democrats
Mark Kogan
in
Politics,
Guns
7 hours ago
Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban is Political Suicide For Democrats
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, gun control — and the wider Second Amendment debate — is expected to remain a simmering topic both in national discourse and for politicians to address.
After a year filled with a number of high-profile mass shootings ranging from the Oak Creek, Wisc., Sikh Temple shooting to the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre and most recently the wholesale slaughter of children at Sandy Creek Elementary in Newtown, Conn. and shooting of volunteer firefights in Webster, NY, some political movement and action is inevitable.
The NRA has been the biggest conservative voice in the debate, advocating for increased armed security in schools and public places, a “more guns for the good guys” theory which I soundly rejected last week as the misguided ravings of a lobby thoroughly in the pocket of gun manufacturers rather than American citizens.
On the left, the response has been somewhat more muted and disjointed. President Obama established a commission chaired by Vice President Joe Biden to look into the issue of gun control and promised action. On the congressional side, California Senator Dianne Feinstein committed to bringing a new assault weapon ban to the Senate at the start of the next Congress.
Senator Feinstein has posted a preview of the bill on her website. If the final language of the law actually says what that summary claims, the Democrats are in for a political blowout that will do nothing to advance the ball on meaningful gun control while costing them untold political capital.
The bill promises to stop the 1) sale, 2) transfer, 3) importation and 4) manufacturing of military-style assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also allegedly calls for a ban on all weapons capable of holding a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity (which includes many standard issue police handguns).
The bill, as it stands, is an exemplary demonstration of what political suicide looks like.
In one sweeping stroke, Feinstein intends to instigate the pro-gun lobby, alienate the majority of Americans who oppose re-instating a federal assault weapons ban, and run head long into a constitutional battle, all without even the faintest hope of bill passage.
While the bill sounds great on paper if you’re playing to a politically progressive base, it will do little if anything to actually address gun violence in this country.
In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific models of semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
After a decade in existence, the bill did little more than cost Democrats the control of Congress.
A 2004 study by the National Research Council found that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” A report from the Department of Justice and the National Institute for Justice concluded that the ban had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.”
The ban was able to reduce the number of assault weapons used in the commission of crimes, but the number of assault weapons used in the commission of crimes was so low to begin with that the minimal effects of the ban were outpaced by gun crime committed with perfectly legal firearms.
These studies point to the real underlying issue – namely that gun crime in America is a problem of culture more than anything.

Efforts to address issues of gun violence have to focus on pragmatic, bi-partisan solutions rather than politically divisive and practically ineffective legislation.
Newark Mayor Cory Booker laid out a fantastic case for immediately effective reforms that do nothing to ban or restrict the legal sale of firearms. His calls for pragmatism fell on largely deaf ears.
There is no reason that federal background checks should not be universally required for the purchase of firearms. There is no defensible justification for why 75% of states are able to ignore mental health checks for firearms purchasers. Not requiring individuals to report lost or stolen firearms hampers legitimate enforcement efforts by making it more difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal guns and should have been addressed years ago.

All of these issues can be addressed quickly and effectively without requiring wholesale prohibition of whole categories of firearms. Reforming and enforcing the laws already on the books receives popular support and ensures that gun control can be made more effective without attacking the rights of legal gun owners.
Any federal assault weapons ban is almost 100% sure to fail passage on the floor of the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Even if it were to somehow secure passage, the political blowback would almost certainly be immense – a serious consideration for the many red state Democratic senators up for re-election in 2014. Taking such a risk on an ineffective and divisive approach when more practical and realistic fixes are already on the table smacks of bone-headed politics and outright political ignorance.
Might a strengthened federal assault weapon ban drastically reduce gun crime? Of course, there’s always the possibility that this law would be different than past federal and state efforts (both Connecticut and New York, site of the most recent shootings with assault weapons, have assault weapon bans in place). However, committing to such an extremely polarizing approach to gun control will condemn the Democrats to relive history and suffer tremendous political backlash without any hope of realizing any practical benefits.
If the Democratic leadership has any sense, they will bench Feinstein’s bill and take up a down-to-Earth and immediately effective package of reforms that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. It’s long overdue that our politicians learn that reform comes from the pragmatic middle rather than from the crusading fringe.
Charts courtesy of the Washington Post's Wonkblog and Ezra Klein. The full article can be viewed here.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393910/diane-fienstien-legislation#post_3505576

This would not classify under the ban, yet is equally as capable as the ar-15.
Legislation that does nothing. Tax payer dollars wasted and government incompetance at its finest.
Careful now, they probably just missed that one on this go around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///t/393910/diane-fienstien-legislation#post_3505578
Yeah but the mere sight of that gun wont make the left wingers fill their drawers so it's OK.
It could if you dress it up. :)
 

bionicarm

Active Member
You people sure spend a lot of time and energy worrying about losing something you plink with once every other month (in Quills case, more than 3 1/2 years). If you shoot more than that, then you have WAY more discretionary income than I do!
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393910/diane-fienstien-legislation#post_3505646
You people sure spend a lot of time and energy worrying about losing something you plink with once every other month (in Quills case, more than 3 1/2 years). If you shoot more than that, then you have WAY more discretionary income than I do!

Yeah, little things like having our rights ignored and our property confiscated tend to annoy us non sheep.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
You people sure spend a lot of time and energy worrying about losing something you plink with once every other month (in Quills case, more than 3 1/2 years).  If you shoot more than that, then you have WAY more discretionary income than I do! :rotfl:
Yeah I aint losing that much sleep over it personally. What would this piece of legislation realy serve to accomplish? To drive the sales of other weapons up that are virtually, equally capable of the same thing? A lot of good thats going to do to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and the crazies.
I hope it does pass at this point. Then we'll get some folks in there who make a little more sense and it will all get lifted again one day down the road. It's a vicious cycle we live in.
 
Top