By Request – Details To The Feinstein Gun Ban Bill

War On Guns

Many people have been searching for details on the Feinstein Bill.   Here are some of the links that will answer many of the questions.   We’ll be highlighting some discussion topics about it tomorrow:

Dianne Feinstein’s Official Press Release –  CLICK HERE

Dianne Feinstein’s Senate Site Notification Outline of Bill Content – CLICK HERE

Dianne Feinstein’s Senate Site Assault Weapons Ban Summary – CLICK HERE

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Typical Prog Behavior. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to By Request – Details To The Feinstein Gun Ban Bill

  1. Eric says:

    A moron. Straight up; a moron. If someone wants a gun bad enough (if they’re denied in certain areas), they’ll go for the gun illegally. Case in point where a nutjob killed his own family member to get the gun. Oh wait, a democrat doesn’t have a thought process.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Not a moron; a wannabe-tyrant.

      The point of such legislation is not to prevent crime, but rather to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals and suspected criminals, and to lay the groundwork for future confiscation.

      And I’ll let history predict what the intended purpose of that is.

      Like

      • gogaitedgo says:

        Exactly. Seems the insane, regressive commiecrats are insisting on a war.

        Like

      • waltherppk says:

        There is an exemption for the specially privileged class of aristocracy who would be any and all agents of the state, active or retired law enforcement, officers of the court, ect. So the “double standard” is fully in play which devalues the life and security of the ordinary citizen being DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION and DENIED EQUAL TREATMENT under the law. It is the same story for “gun free zones” which are only qualified to prohibit the “ordinary” citizen from exercising their right to keep and bear, while “special” exception applies to exempt the more valuable aristocrats from any such INFRINGEMENT of their own rights. Some people are more equal than others it is plain enough to see. I do not like this entire shitty legal myth that is used to identify and exempt a privileged class and allow them to do about like they please while criminalizing and prohibiting “mere ordinary citizens” from enjoying EQUAL TREATMENT under law. i understand the security issues at courthouses where there may be justifiable reason for having armed bailiffs or doormen and prohibiting everyone on the street from carrying a gun into an already adversarial environment like a courtroom. But the extension of that kind of special exception to make “gun free zones” willy nilly and to generally restrict “ordinary citizens” many other places, while providing a blanket exemption to a “special class” of persons is unjustified and unacceptable. Whatever kind of guns a cop or a judge can lawfully own to protect their own person or their own home should be no different from what the ordinary citizen should be able to have. The government can take its double standard and shove it. Criminals are not going to care what are the gun laws or any other law, and they will simply steal or get on the black market whatever they want in the way of weaponry or any contraband. So all that gun restrictions will do is to make sure that law abiding citizens are more easily outgunned by criminals, giving the criminals the advantage over the law abiding citizen. There is nothing in the second amendment either about keeping guns under lock and key or being made inconvenient to access. Generally a person doesn’t schedule it on their calendar when they think they might need to unlock their gun and have it ready for use because the need arises in a more rapidly developing situation where delay of access to the firearm could have fatal consequences. If a firearm is not quickly and easily accessible then it is of little utility for defense. So there is a lot of being out of touch with reality that is evident in the proposed “gun restrictions” being ventured by lawmakers who would do well to tune in reality. It helps any person to be able to do that when they don’t have a bullet hole through their radio, and it looks like the lawmakers are doing a lot to make sure some elite have full advantage in that while the rest can take their chances on a lower end of a double standard enjoying the short end of a very shitty stick.

        Like

        • Allfal says:

          The idea of exempting groups from the ban seems a smart move on their part. I would look for more exemptions to be added during the debate. This splits opposition to the bill. Already included are active and retired law enforcement, who will be able to continue to purchase standard capacity magazines and restricted weapons after the ban, if it was passed. Just like the 1994 ban, a letter on Dept letterhead allows the purchase of restricted mags or weapons with restricted features. This reduces opposition to the bill from active and retired law enforcement. If they add exemptions for private security agencies, armored car companies, etc, they further split the opposition. Heck, if they stated that current concealed weapon permit holders could continue to purchase and use standard capacity mags and included a law requiring all states to recognize each others weapons permits the same as drivers licenses, they could further demonize the opposition, claiming they were just the “lunatic fringe”. Remember, they are satisfied with just getting some increased restriction. They don’t need to ban them all at once. They are playing the long game and can move to increase restrictions at the next tragedy. We cannot allow any part of this to pass. To bad for them we still claim to be a constitutional republic and not a democracy, it slows them down some.

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            I think that’s a great strategy.

            It would make it all that much easier to overturn the law, on equal protection grounds.

            Like

            • waltherppk says:

              Yeah next they will probably make it so that the exempted class of aristocrats must bear a special title of nobility like Your Most High Exempted Virtuous Honor (sir or mam), or maybe Baron or Baroness or something suitably befitting someone of their Rank and Privilege and Station, and ordinary citizens will have to bow or salute when one of them walks by.

              Like

            • Allfal says:

              Don’t bank on that. H.R. 218 and the LEOSA which updated it created a special class of citizen. Retired law enforcement, which are now able to carry concealed in any state they may visit. It remains law. I had hoped it would lead to national recognition of any state ccw permit. Such bills have been introduced but not passed.

              Australia, when they banned semi auto’s, exempted security agencies while requiring them to store the firearms on site and not allowing security officers to take the weapons home. That was in no way related to the rash of firearm burglaries from security agencies.

              Like

          • waltherppk says:

            Seems what is being done is to change the meaning of the words of the second amendment to read The Right of The Police to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed, instead of The Right of THE People to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed. Restricting a right is definitely infringing that right, and unequal treatment under the law is also unconstitutional under a different amendment, so what is being done is a two for the price of one Constitutional violation.

            Like

            • Allfal says:

              I supported H.R. 218 and the LEOSA. I still believe it can lead to national ccw reciprocity. Instead of trying to eat the whole pie, take smaller bites. We should continue to leverage the success of 218 into national reciprocity for ccw. Instead of looking at it as if you can’t do it, no one should, try looking at it as we succeeded with one group. Now let’s get another approved. Before you know it, the other side is on the defensive claiming each new move is a step to far. That may sound like familiar tactics because it’s what is being done to us.

              Like

    • myopiafree says:

      She is on her own. Other Democrats do not agree with her:

      http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA41TRFG0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

      she is screwed up.

      Like

  2. czarowniczy says:

    How ’bout we just cut to the chase and ban Feistein?

    Like

  3. cajunkelly says:

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-endorsements

    This list of those endorsing this bwitch’s bill is a shocker. Look at all the Jewish organizations endorsing the death of our 2nd Amendment.

    Do any of you belong to a religious organization listed here? Can any of you refute their endorsement of this treasonous maneuver? If *my* faith was listed here I’d be rasing holy hell with my leaders.

    Of course this one made me :shock:
    Islamic Society of North America

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      The “Jewish Organizations” – are a “shocker”. From the experience of NAZI Germany, that banned guns at the wished – they should have learned that lesson. I regret it – if I have offended anyone.

      Like

  4. michellc says:

    Diane Feinstein needs to keep her butt in California.

    I have an idea for all of these communist, if you really care about guns, then have the guts to come knocking on doors personally to take the guns. These people should be tried for treason.

    I had to set a few people straight today, who were gun people, but didn’t think anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle. I told them the only people who have fully automatic weapons are people who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for one manufactured before 1986 and pay $200 per gun for a permit, get fingerprinted and a thorough background check and give the ATF permission to come to your property anytime they please to see if the gun is locked in a proper safe.
    These guns look like military rifles, but they are not military rifles, they don’t fire any faster than any other semi-automatic. Then one of them said well I don’t think anyone needs a 30 round magazine. I asked him why? I can have 3- 10 round magazines and lose maybe 5 seconds if I’m as slow as molasses changing out the clips. Not to mention, the Aurora shooter had a high capacity magazine which ended up saving lives because it caused his gun to jam. He and the woman I was having this discussion with both said I didn’t know that. I told them that’s why people should educate themselves before they form opinions and before they listen to idiots in Washington who labeled semi-automatic rifles assault rifles and are now doing their best to label handguns assault weapons. If you believe in the constitution and if the majority of people start not believing in the constitution then this country is no longer America, then you don’t get to want laws passed infringing on our rights, which were given to us by God and are rights that the constitution guarantees the government can’t take away those rights, just because something sounds scary to you.

    Like

    • maggiemoowho says:

      Gun violence isn’t their problem. They are using that as an excuse to take our guns taken away. It is all about having full power over everyone. Potus can’t have full power and control if citizens are armed. Sadly the 20 children killed at Sandyhook are just a convenient tool for Potus to use to train his sheep. If they were concerned about the number of people killed each year, they would have required background checks for anyone who buys alcohol to make sure they have no prior DUI’s or ban cell phones from all vehicles. 6000 kids under the age of 18 die due to texting each year.

      I understand your frustration, drives me nuts trying to talk sense into the anti-gun people.

      Like

  5. brutalhonesty says:

    http://www.facebook.com/CoalitiontoStopGunViolence

    all they have is their hate and lies…..I got banned for one post “shall not be infringed”..so I kept going back and all they can do is use alinsky rules “isolate marginalize ridicule”…..3 fact posts got me labeled as “crazy”
    and dont dare suggest the fact of the holocaust proves anything…they will just claim “godwins law”

    Like

  6. jordan2222 says:

    Off topic question but I need some good advice: I want to send 4 shotguns and a WWII German sniper rifle to my brother from Florida to SC. None of them are in gun cases. What is the best way to do that?

    Like

  7. maggiemoowho says:

    On the 5 today on Fox, they showed a video of Diane F from 1995 and she herself says she carries a gun for protection.

    Like

    • cajunkelly says:

      357 reportedly

      Reminds me of an old saying about older men marrying young barbie dolls….

      nyet…typed it out but censored myself. I’ll just say it has to do with something she doesn’t have,

      Like

  8. brutalhonesty says:

    liberalims ugh

    http://freebeacon.com/mccarthy-traditional-rifles-easier-for-women-to-use-than-assault-weapons/

    CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.

    Like

    • czarowniczy says:

      Tell that to my wife. I’ve been using the M-16/AR-15 platform since November of 1965 and she’s been using it since I met her in October of 1980. She can use my synthetic-stocked bolt actions but prefers my AR platforms in 5,56, .308 and .50 Beowulf. I hand-built hers: heavier bolt, muzzle brake, heavier buffer and recoil pad, and she can whack the 6″ steel disc at 100 meters with iron sights and at 200 with a 4x scope all day long. Then again maybe she’s on the lip of the prog’s bell curve.

      Like

  9. Sharon says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/dems_looking_to_expose_gun_makers_to_liability_claims.html

    House Democrats on Tuesday proposed legislation that would ease current law to allow people to file civil law suits against gun manufacturers and others in the industry when they act irresponsibly.

    The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), would amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Schiff, that 2005 law gives gun manufacturers, distributors and gun dealers immunity from most civil negligence and product liability actions.

    Like

    • yadent says:

      So, when the progressives have essentially eliminated all private weapons will citizens be then able to file civil lawsuits against police, their departments, cities, counties, states, even the federal government when they(those with weapons—government) fail to ‘respond in a timely manner’ or respond at all to a crime in progress and we, the private citizen, suffer assaults, robberies, rapes, murder? (Of course not although it could be a boon for attorneys) What many fail to understand/refuse to acknowledge is that unless one is in police custody, Americans have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to police protection. None. You’re on your own until the ‘authorities’ arrive….in some locales possibly even being arrested yourself for inappropriately defending yourself or loved ones.

      Like

      • myopiafree says:

        The OTHER effect of “confiscation”, is that there will be a public DEMAND for a huge police force – because the public will have NO DEFENSE AGAINST “ARMED THUGS” that will have no problem obtaining THEIR WEAPONS. This will produce “special police force” – authorized by some “agency” of the Government. This is essentially what happened in Germany AFTER Hitler obtained his “enabling” vote from the Rieshtag, because there was a “fire”, and Hitler had to “protect” the German People.

        Like

  10. lovemygirl says:

    WOW! I just tried emailing my Rep and it says I am outside of his district (based on zip code) and I am not, is there a hacking operation going on? I’ll call tomorrow but I knw he is my Rep, I have met him, supported him and participate in Town Halls. Is this Obama’s kids shutting us out with their “tech”?

    Like

  11. myopiafree says:

    It is clear that Diane wants to totally “gut” the 2nd Amendment – by “back-door” and illegal means. That is her sworn agenda. If the 2nd Amendment “goes” the 1st will not be far behind – in my opinion. Here is the message:

    MESSAGE FROM RAND PAUL
    ++++++

    Dear fellow Patriot,

    My jaw hit the floor.

    After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, I can only describe this radical scheme as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

    The gun-grabbers are going for broke, doing everything they can to “cash in” on the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

    They’re targeting EVERYTHING — rifles, shotguns and even handguns — and every gun owner and gun purchase is to be catalogued and tracked by the federal government.

    That’s why it’s absolutely critical you act IMMEDIATELY.

    As you’ll see, I’ve enclosed a special Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive INSISTING your Representative and Senators vote against this radical scheme.

    Won’t you please sign it TODAY? There’s no time to waste.

    President Obama’s Administration is announcing it will “push forward quickly” on gun control — and Vice President Joe Biden is promising it will be a “done deal” in a matter of weeks!

    If passed, Feinstein’s Gun Ban would:
    *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns!

    *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one “military characteristic” — which could mean just about anything that makes a gun “look scary;”

    *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

    *** Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and fingerprinting — treating law-abiding citizens like criminals;

    *** Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining a permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.

    That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

    The ban on “transfers” means you and I can forget about ever handing down one of these guns to our kids and grandkids.

    Worse, it could mean widows become instant felons if their husbands owned one of these banned magazines or firearms!

    And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same — outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

    Then Senator Feinstein will be able to achieve her publicly stated goal:

    “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

    I can hardly even think about what a DISASTER for our country it would be should President Obama, Senator Feinstein and their anti-gun pals succeed in ramming this monstrosity down our throats.

    This is exactly the WRONG move for our country — for our liberties and for our safety.

    Now I know THAT’S something you’re not hearing from the anti-gun propagandists in the national media.

    But the truth is, increasing gun sales in America in recent years has led to lower crime rates.

    The same is true all over the world.

    Studies show countries with low rates of civilian firearms ownership are the most violent. Countries with high rates of civilian firearms ownership are the safest.

    Just look to nearby Mexico if you want to see an example of the gun-grabbers’ idea of utopia. Effectively ruled by violent drug gangs in many areas, Mexico is a cesspool of rape, violence and murder.

    If you and I want to keep the Second Amendment freedoms we’re so blessed to enjoy as American citizens, it’s absolutely CRITICAL you and I act IMMEDIATELY.

    That’s why I’ve agreed to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight back to stop this Gun Ban and help lead the fight AGAINST the gun-grabbers.

    They’re tough. They’re principled. And they know how to win.

    They know the ONLY way you and I win this fight is if my colleagues here in Congress understand that voting for gun control will mean the END of their political careers . . .

    And they’re busy mobilizing pro-gun Americans all over the country to make sure Congress gets that message loud and clear.

    Like

  12. Kim says:

    I have never heard of these “smart guns”. I can already imagine the propaganda to be used. http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/now-is-time-to-stop-smart-guns.html

    Like

  13. Bongo says:

    I have a Ruger Rancher .223 rifle that is not on Diane’s “ban list” due to its wooden, one piece stock and ten bullet magazines. I also have a Winchester 12 guage pump shotgun I can hand feed from my hunter’s vest rapidly enough to prevent anyone from rushing me and stopping me from firing it.

    If I was a potential mass murderer, I could use either weapon to kill as many or more people as any of the other recent killers. There are probably millions of guns like these in the U.S. If a deranged individual cannot get his hands on a semi-automatic rifle with cosmetic “military style” features, he will find other guns to commit his mass carnage. These “gun control” laws are worthless to prevent future mass shootings. They only punish law abiding citizens and turn them into criminals.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s