Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law

[we are not amused]

I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

Excellent post! And, yes, I have noticed that too!

Too many people are assuming something must be done, and seem willing to cut separate deals for themselves.

While we need to know what the enemies of the 2nd Amendment are up to, we need to stand firm against them.

Look, let us be honest here. There are a lot of people on this site who don't really believe in the RKBA.

And by the way JustinJ, I, for one, am in the fight against Government overreach, and trampling of our 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

But this is a gun forum, and I try to limit my political opinions to gun control on it.

But we are getting off subject.

I think that the simple over reach of this bill will doom it to failure.

But we need to let our elected Representatives know. And we need to stand together.

Don't forget Ben Franklin's warning, "We must hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately."

 

[SilentStalker]

Thank you for all of those that have written their congressman. This is something we must do. However, I would like to address the point that I think most of us need to be more stern in our letters. In others words, instead of being all nice about it we need to blatantly tell them that any legislation enforcing any of these proposed bans or any ban of any kind will be met with resistance. That will get them thinking. I am serious about this. The time for being nice about it is over. We need to stand our ground and speak with a stern voice that this will not be tolerated.

 

[KMatch]

Indeed. Also, is the mini-14 on or off this time? And what about rimfires? Are 10/22s in ATI stocks going to become "assault weapons" this time?

"Fixed magazines over 10 rounds" was mentioned. So, that rules out TONS of 22s as assault weapons.

 

[LiveLife]

But doesn't Cali already have a ban on 10+ mags?

Only for the law abiding citizens ... the ban doesn't apply to the criminals and never will.

The 10 round magazine restriction will only hurt the law abiding citizens defend their lives as home invasion robberies often involve multiple robbers.

 

[we are not amused]

So how will her "proposal" help the home owners defend themselves against multiple intruders?

I don't think she gives a tinker damn about them. The way she looks at it is, they can call the cops and let them handle it. Even if it means that the home owner is dead, it beats letting him defend himself.

 

[JustinJ]

And by the way JustinJ, I, for one, am in the fight against Government overreach, and trampling of our 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Great, but most people are only concerned with liberties that they specifically value. If that truly isn't you then i applaud you.

Regardless, wanting to know more specifics of the bill is not indicative of only being concerned about continued availability of the guns one currently owns.

 

[jrdolall]

Anti-gun compromise is an oxymoron.
I will give you an example of their type of compromise.
I demand that every member of THR immediately send me $1000. I expect that some of you may balk at this proposal although it makes perfectly good sense to me. I mean that you guys have plenty of extra cash to buy guns and ammo so why not give me part of that money for a worthy cause(me). Okay, since this seems unreasonable to some of you regressive people I am willing to compromise and you only have to send me $400. I can "compromise" my way all the way to $1 each and show people who believe in my "cause"(mainly my family members) that I was willing to compromise all the way from $1000 to $1 so who is the one willing to give up the most?
Compromise at it's finest and I am up a few thousand dollars.

 

[JustinJ]

Only for the law abiding citizens ... the ban doesn't apply to the criminals and never will.

The 10 round magazine restriction will only hurt the law abiding citizens defend their lives as home invasion robberies often involve multiple robbers.

You've completely missed the point. The post was citing a story of multiple attackers as a need for 10+ mags but the defender in said story was most likely using a weapon with a 10 or less capacity.

 

[LiveLife]

The police chief of our city publicly stated the department lacks the resources to sufficiently respond to all 911 calls if the home owner is in immediate danger.

I have seen this sentiment repeated by many other city/county LEOs.

If a home invasion robbery takes place with one or multiple robbers, you are on your own to defend your life and the lives of your family. Police cannot help you at that moment. Gun/magazine restrictions will not help the home owner.

 

[hso]

While the Whitehouse.gov petitions are just to bring an issue to the attention of White House staff there is a basic broad petition that has gotten the needed signatures to pass through the first "gate" for attention. This "No AWB" petition should be signed by all THR members, as well as any other firearms site member, to show the number of people interested enough to say no to this proposed AWB.

 

[Skribs]

Good call HSO, will sign when I get home.

 

[TanklessPro]

And how would this new law have stopped the Newton disaster?

It would not have. If this was law before Newton, the only difference would be the $200 bucks that would have been paid. That shows that 26 lives are worth 200 bucks in the libs eyes, what hypocrites. They don't care about anything except their public image.

I pray this doesn't pass.

 

[roadchoad]

I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

The scarier thought is that beyond the anti-gun and pro-gun crowds, there is a whole group of what I call non-gun people who feel the same way. They do not own, use, or interact with guns in any way, so an AWB will not affect them personally. They could care less what law passes. Those are the ones whose ear we need to bend.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

The scarier thought is that beyond the anti-gun and pro-gun crowds, there is a whole group of what I call non-gun people who feel the same way. They do not own, use, or interact with guns in any way, so an AWB will not affect them personally. They could care less what law passes. Those are the ones whose ear we need to bend.

Personally, I think it's scarier that you see that attitude here more than with non-gun people. Non-gun people generally don't make as big of a deal about the Constitution and rights as we do. And yet, despite all the talk of defending rights and liberty, there are FAR more "Just don't ban what I like" attitudes on THR than I would have expected. Pages and pages of multiple threads of supposed liberty loving gun owners saying that they would be OK with banning certain types of video games, or would consider accepting a ban on "military style" rifles as long as their particular type of favorite guns don't get touched.


Yet again, as was true long ago, we must hang together or we will surely hang separately.

 

[Logan5579]

I'm seeing a lot of posts on here that say that this has no chance of passing or its DOA because it is too extreme. Well extreme is what the anti-gun crowd does best, and to underestimate your opponent may get you an unwelcome surprize. I'm glad that so many are writing their reps and making our voice heard, the loud left surely has their outlet (the mainstream media) and we have to counter that by every means we have at our disposal.

The congresscritters are vote driven and if we generate enough volume even the ones on the fence may think more about leaning our way. That being said, write your reps if you haven't already. Try to stay away from form letters and use your own words, be polite but firm, and use your spell checker. Some of the people you contact may think we're savages already and we don't want to re-enforce any negative stereotypes.

 

[LiveLife]

there is a whole group of what I call non-gun people who feel the same way. They do not own, use, or interact with guns in any way, so an AWB will not affect them personally. They could care less what law passes. Those are the ones whose ear we need to bend.

The Democrats and liberals I work with were against gun ownership in the past until the crime rate increased in our city in recent years with increasing number of violent home invasion robberies by multiple criminals who often raped and killed the home owners.

Over the years, they openly purchased guns and began to speak in support of gun ownership and cited right to self protection. They even asked us conservatives to teach them to shoot and I welcomed the opportunity to educate them in the virtues of gun ownership and safety training. Now, increasing number of them have joined the ranks of CCW holders.

While we disagree on most of political issues, we found common ground on gun ownership and right to self-protection as crime doesn't discriminate whether you are a republican or a Democrat. We are all at risk of being victims and if police cannot provide the timely and proper protection for us, we should have the right to self-protection.

 

[TennJed]

I have a Stupid question, but what sort of timeframe does things like this entail. When will we know for certain if this is to pass or fail?

 

[hso]

The old saying "Ask for a swimming pool if you want to get a bathtub" essentially means you should start from an extreme position to negotiate from there to near where you want (and you might end up better off than you thought). We see this as people dicker over a gun all the time. "That's awful steep. Will you take $$$", "Didja see A, B, C and D? Do ya know how this gun A, B, C? I'll take $$$$$.", "I don't need C or D and B doesn't matter to me. Will you take $$$$.", "Ok, but ..." We have to be careful that we don't get taken in the deal. Same here.

The best would be if we could kill this poisonous piece of garbage, but we have to beware of the deal makers that could want to show that they've heard the cries to "do something" and that they don't sell us out.

 

[LiveLife]

More the reason to support the NRA so they can better lobby the lawmakers.

 

[Dave Workman]

From Justin:

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Horse's what?

I would argue that you need a quick lesson on equine anatomy, or a visit to an optometrist, perhaps.



But of course, I may be mistaken. Perhaps I will get it straight as I write about it. Already posted on The Gun Mag

And here's my take on Examiner, which is a bit more analysis:

http://www.examiner.com/article/han...-sen-feinstein-wants-them-all?cid=db_articles



The idea of forcing people to register their sporting rifles under the NFA is alarming a lot of people.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

When will we know for certain if this is to pass or fail?

January 3, 2015

 

[jrdolall]

The issue is already beginning to fade from the front pages after only two weeks as new issues are grabbing headlines. That does not mean it is over but public sentiment that was sky high right after the CT shooting has already begun to moderate as the immediacy has died. Just check out the headlines on your favorite Homepage or your local newspapaers. Gun issues are still there somewhere but nothing like last week.
Fiscal Cliff issues are probably more improtant to most people than are gun rights questions right now. Stay on your Congressional reps and make them answer you. be sure they know where you stand and make sure they know you will talk to their voter base if they feel differently.

 

[gopguy]

I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

I think a lot of folks who don't have an AR or AK but own pistols and shotguns that are effected are going to be surprised to learn they own "assault weapons". We all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

I also note beyond a NFA 1934 style registry that we would NOT be able to transfer these items. Forget passing them to your kids or selling them. Get involved gang. If you are not a member of NRA or GOA its a good time to rectify that. Let those folks on Capitol Hill hear your voice!

 

[AlexanderA]

I also note beyond a NFA 1934 style registry that we would NOT be able to transfer these items. Forget passing them to your kids or selling them.

Notice that there is an internal contradiction in the proposal. This:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
•120 specifically-named firearms....

Compared to this:

•Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
•Background check of owner and any transferee;

Since we haven't seen the legislative language, I have to assume that the NFA transfer procedure would be an exception to the blanket prohibition on transfer. This would be an added incentive to register. What they're trying to do is drive unregistered weapons underground. You might decide not to register a weapon that you have, but it would become unusable (because it could not be taken to a range, or be seen anywhere in public) and worthless (other than on the black market). Meanwhile the registered ones would spike in value, as we saw with machine guns after the 1986 registry freeze.

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

Sure, this has "no chance" of passing. But I can predict that soon before this comes up for a vote in Congress, we will see another, perhaps even more horrific, massacre of innocents, and Congress will cave.