Feinstein’s onerous gun ban

| December 27, 2012 | 60 Comments

Yup, gun control writ large is coming to the Senate floor, boy-os. Feinstein has published on her website what she intends to present to the Senate come January. She wants to specifically ban 120 weapons and reduce the “military characteristics clause” from the 1994 bill from two to one – in other words just having a bayonet lug, flash suppressor or pistol grip by themselves will get a gun banned. And she’s including “thumbhole stocks” for the first time.

Handguns are included in the ban, specifically if they’ll accommodate a magazine larger than ten rounds.

Think you’re grandfathered? Yep, you are. But;

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

In other words, they’re coming for your guns – why else register them? And what sheriff wants to sign a piece of paper certifying that you won’t commit a crime at some point in the future? I’m pretty sure that I went through a background check when I purchased my guns. And then again when when I applied for my CCW license. Fingerprint? You mean like a criminal gets fingerprinted? Like that?

Thanks to Old Trooper for the link.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (60)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NHSparky says:

    And yet Holder’s “Just-Us” Department is making it easier for immigrants to get hold of weapons.

    Does this mean that cute little .17 HMR I saw at Kittery Trading Post the other day is on the slate of potentially “banned” weapons? WTF for?

    Seriously, this woman would be funny if she wasn’t so dangerous. Uh, DiFi? I’ll give up my guns when you give up yours and your armed bodyguards, toots. And get those booger hooks out of that AK trigger guard, dumbass.

  2. CAs6 says:

    Man, I hope she gets rid of all those icky, evil, self-aware “high-capacity ammunition feeding devises (sic).”

  3. FatCircles0311 says:

    Screw these people until they die. Aren’t there enough Rublicans in office to stomp the utter living piss out of nonsense like this?

  4. FltMedic says:

    Like we didn’t know this was gonna happen the second we had seen the coverage on the news…..

    Never let a crisis go to waste as the lobs love to say and do….

  5. FatCircles0311 says:

    oops, my comments wasn’t a threat directed to anyone. I worded that incorrectly.

  6. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    She’s been working on it for longer than a year. That’s nice. Among the authorities cited on her website for bad, bad guns is a freakin’ letter to the editor! Okay, the plan is to get as much distance as possible between Sandy Hook and a vote, rather like the Benghazi strategy of drawing it out until people say, Ben who? Personally, between Superstorm Sandy and Sandy Hook, I think Feinstein should include a ban of the name Sandy.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    In other words, she wants to get rid of any weapon that shoots bullets.

    So flamethrowers and ninja stars are still okay.

  8. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @3 and 5. I say screw them after they die, too–in a Murtha kinda way!

  9. H1 says:

    If she is so disposed towards ending these “tragedies” how about adding an amendment to the bill with the same requirements for the mentally ill?
    That would be an interesting discussion about “rights”.
    And poison pill this abomination.

  10. John11B says:

    this garbage better be left to whither and die on the vine. these fools aren’t even scraping the bottom of the barrel on common sense or logic. they just love telling people what to do.

  11. PintoNag says:

    Fiscal cliff + gun ban = ????

  12. Old Trooper says:

    @10: This is why I let my NRA membership lapse. When they endorsed this witch, they lost my membership dues. I wonder if they are rethinking their endorsement right about now? GOA (Gun Owners of America) and NGR (National Gun Rights) are going to get my money long before I fork over a red cent to the NRA. I noticed that she said “specific firearms by name”, but didn’t include those names on her website post, so I guess we’ll have to wait until the bill hits the senate floor before we know all the details. She, also, mentions shotguns that have removable magazines………my old Stevens .410 bolt action has a removable magazine; so does that fall under her ban as well?

  13. Glas says:

    Sorry Sherrif, I sold my AR years ago.

  14. Let’s take a look in her house for guns. Will she and her husband do the same? No. This is for the pesants…no swords or bows.

  15. Claymore says:

    For those who aren’t sure what she’s doing, here’s a clue:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

  16. Old Trooper says:

    She wants all guns registered. we know what the next step after that is. If you don’t, just look at the UK, Canada, and Australia for the answer. Of couse, in this instant information age, they may get 1 or 2, but by then, the rest of the country will know and all hell will break loose. i read a survey of cops on the street, concerning confiscation, and they all said that they won’t enforce it for 2 reasons. 1- they aren’t willing to be put in a position to be “cannon fodder” to those Americans that aren’t willing to have their guns confiscated. 2- they don’t agree with confiscation on Constitutional grounds.

    So; is DiFi willing to show up and try and confiscate your firearms, herself? She’s not that brave.

  17. UtahVet says:

    This won’t even come to a vote in the Senate. I’ll bet money on that right now. Not to mention that any bill that wants to become law has to travel through the House as well. But it will be good for gun sales. I bet everything on her list sees record profits this year.

  18. Claymore says:

    The point of this bill isn’t for it to be passed…which she knows fully well it won’t…the point is to move the line of scrimmage to where the left can kick it into the uprights later. She’s starting at an extreme position and with the likes of McCain and others, she will get something akin to the AWB with a few tweaks, then dare the House to not pass it. If it goes through, they’ll let that simmer for a few more years (or until another whack-job shoots up a school) and then she or others of her kind will push for more on their list.

  19. Tequila says:

    So Madame Feinstein in effect wants to ban our Olympic shooting team. Just do a search for the competition rifle used in their shooting events and you’ll see what I mean.

  20. Anonymous says:

    OT,

    I don’t think the NRA ever did, nor ever will endorse Dianne Feinstein. What made you think they did?

  21. Powerpoint Ranger says:

    20 was me.

  22. Old Trooper says:

    PPR: You’re right. She hasn’t been endorsed by the NRA (I think it was something I read in an old NRA magazine, where she was with Harry “pickle” Reid at some shooting range and she was blabbing on about how she had her carry permit and that was back when they had been all chummy with Harry “pickle” and I must have confused that with an endorsement from them), my bad. Still, I don’t like the NRA and their endorsement process. LaPierre had a perfect chance to screw Gregory to the wall and he let it go, on Meet the Press. I may look at it, later, but for right now, I’m sticking with GOA and NGR.

  23. Comrades in Arms:

    I went to Senator Feinstein’s official web site and sent her a polite e-mail.

    Her immediate response was to indicate her office could not respond to anyone who didn’t reside in California, and therefore, I would get no response.

    Mox nix.

    If I get a “response”, it’ll probably be soldiers, federal agents, or police smashing through the door of my room at zero dark thirty in the wee hours before dawn’s early light.

    Xin loi.

    Here’s essentially what I wrote – – – IF I can remember it all:

    “I realize this e-mail may be a waste of time and effort, BUT, regarding your announcement of proposed legislation outlawing civilian copies of military weapons, has anyone on your staff considered the horrendous loss of life on BOTH sides, if this legislation is attempted to be enforced?

    It was this very same issue which began the American Revolutionary War on the morning of 19 April 1775 when seventy-seven inexperienced men and boys defied the largest, most powerful, best trained, and best equipped army in the whole wide world.

    Our right as individuals to keep and bear arms does NOT come from our government, but is an UNALIENABLE right that each individual is born with.

    The primary purpose of our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America, and Amendment II, is to impose strict limits on the powers of our federal government.

    The primary purpose of Amendment II to our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America is to guarantee the people, whenever necessary (such as now), will always have the practical means to rise up in bloody armed rebellion against our own government.

    That is why ordinary citizens MUST have weapons that are equivalent to the ones used by soldiers and police, whom we may be forced to fight against.”

    That is more or less the content of the e-mail I wrote to Senator Feinstein.

    Thank you, and – – – ,

    NOLLAIG CHRIDHEIL AGUS BLIADHNA MHATH UR ! ! !

    (Pronounced, “Nol-leek Kree-yell ah-gus Blee-ah-nah Vah Oor”, that is Scottish Gaelic, literally meaning, “Christmas Hearty and Year Good New!”)

    John Robert Mallernee
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Gulfport, Mississippi 39507

  24. PintoNag says:

    @23 John…great email. Great post.

    You may want to go stay with a friend for a little while. You can always repair your house.

  25. UpNorth says:

    Yeah, I don’t think that Di-Fi will get the law enforcement community on board with confiscation. After all, their own private guns will also be confiscated.
    Meanwhile, it appears that my deer rifles would be banned under her plan, along with my semi-auto pistols. I would hope that Di-Fi will put her money where her mouth is and be one of the first to come for someone’s guns.

  26. Comrades in Arms:

    Ain’t it just plumb grrrr-REAT to be living in a genuine police state, cowering in fear?

    I don’t remember for sure, but I reckon I’ve asked these questions before, and I reckon I’ll be asking them again and again, to wit, – – – :

    Who REALLY won the Cold War?

    Who REALLY won the Second World War?

    If the Nazis and the Communists were REALLY defeated, then WHY have we copied their methods and become just like them (to include preferences based on race and deciding who is fit to live, i.e., abortion and euthanasia)?

    Thank you.

    John Robert Mallernee
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Gulfport, Mississippi 39507

  27. Ex-PH2 says:

    @26, is that a rhetorical question, or did you really want an answer?

  28. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    All my weapons were purchased from legitimate, licensed fire arms dealers and are duly registered and my background duly checked. I was duly certified and licensed to carry concealed weapon, a certification I no longer need here in Az, and like my Amex card, I never leave home without my .45! F¥CK THAT PIGGED BIT€H! Having had a secret security clearance while in, the US Gov’t knows all they need to know about me. Since I haven’t done anything stupid since I got out, okay…okay I was never caught, nothing has changed.

  29. bman says:

    So we are remodeling a customers basement and he comes in and says “you might want to be carefull tearing out the sheetrock on the west wall.” Guess what was stashed away in the wall?

  30. martinjmpr says:

    I posted this in another forum but it’s worth reposting here.

    I don’t think it will see the light of day. The anti-gun groups have a very bad habit of over-reaching and it always costs them dearly.

    I think it’s because they believe their own propaganda. They genuinely believe that most gun owners are ignorant, backwards rednecks. They genuinely believe that only a tiny minority of gun owners owns “black rifles” or “hi capacity clips.” They also believe gun owners are dumb enough to buy into their BS.

    Think about this for a moment: The 1994 ban didn’t actually “ban” anything. Every single weapon that could be sold before the ban, could be sold after the ban as long as certain “offending” features were removed (like bayonet lugs or folding/telescoping stocks.) And the law allowed anybody who had a pre-ban weapon to keep and freely transfer it. Finally, the 1994 ban had a “sunset” provision that made it go away in 10 years – which is pretty much unheard of for most criminal laws.

    In 1994, when that ban was passed, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and we had one of the most anti-gun presidents in our history. We had 3 or 5 major media outlets that were all anti-gun (the major networks, plus PBS and CNN.) There was no WWW, no Blogosphere, no alternative news sources to speak of except maybe talk radio which was just starting to take off. Social media as it exists today did not exist then.

    What I’m trying to say is that in 1994, with every possible advantage, the 94 “AWB” was the best the anti gunners could do. That was their high water mark.

    Now, we have the Republicans in control of the House, a huge alternative media (internet, talk radio, social media, etc), not one but TWO supreme court decisions affirming the right of individuals to own arms, and a very large, very active opposition movement (the Tea Party and it’s affiliates.) And in this environment, they want to push a more restrictive gun ban than the one they were barely able to squeak through in 94 when they held every card in the deck?

    Yeah, good luck with that.

  31. PintoNag says:

    @30 The problem is, we keep breeding better bees.

    (If that reference is confusing, read about the development of the killer bee. You’ll get the connection fairly quickly.)

  32. VTWoody says:

    As far as fingerprinting, in MD when you buy a handgun, they fire two rounds and send them off to storage. Evidently they can match the firing pin mark and/or the grooves left on the round in the event of a crime and brass is found.

  33. Jim Scrummy says:

    Glad I don’t live in the peoples republik of merryland (or DC).

  34. martinjmpr says:

    @32: Unless of course the criminal in question uses a revolver and throws the empty brass into the trash far from the crime scene….

  35. martinjmpr says:

    …or swaps out the firing pin. ;)

  36. PavePusher says:

    …or swaps the barrel…

    Or just run a few hundred rounds through it.

  37. Mr. The Wolf says:

    Sen.DiFi- let’s try your proposal in CA first. If you can get that type of ban passed , and prove it will reduce crime, as well as actually reduce the number of arms, then let’s discuss it nationally.

    Not gonna hold my breath on this working for CA ever.

    BTW, Anyone get a list of what weapons got turned in for grocery vouchers in CA this week? Somehow, they separated ‘assault weapons’ from ‘rifles’.

    WTF is their diff there???

  38. PALADIN says:

    One thing that Dianne Funnystein is forgetting…there’s a thing called the rule of Law…ya know the Constituion ?
    I predict her little bill will go where it belongs , deep sixed in the trash !

    These bastards WILL NOT usurp the rule of Law.
    Time for people to stand up and say enough is enough !
    If enough people do , these Liberal bastard tyrants will back down.
    This is’nt China…..or Cuba ! It’s the USA damnit !
    Democrat Party = no better than a damn Communist or Nazi !

  39. Ex-PH2 says:

    300++ million legally-owned guns

    45+ million households with guns

    No wonder the far left side of the fence is afraid of gun owners. You might not be sheep, after all.

  40. Rindvieh says:

    Limiting the freedoms of law abiding responsible loyal Americans will not solve any crime problem; but then i think Feinstein’s and her allies ultimate goal is limiting freedom not reducing crime

  41. Jim says:

    The obvious answer to the question of why any of us “needs an assault rifle” is found in the preamble of the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” Says it all right there. We “need” assault rifles. With high capacity magazines and lots of ammo.

  42. Jim says:

    Heck, the Second Amendment is the SECOND after the right to assemble, the right of free speech and the right to chose our own religion. It’s not the 12th or 13th, it’s so important it’s the SECOND!

    Our right to own guns isn’t an after thought by the founders and I’m certain if I showed a M4 to George Washington he would know exactly what it was and probably ask me to give him a demonstration.

  43. NR Pax says:

    @42, that’s a good way to look at it. We people just need to be controlled a little bit more to bring on the golden age of a perfect society.

    But reality tends to laugh at people like that.

  44. B Woodman says:

    IF such a “law” is passed, in spite of all common sense (which isn’t all that common these days), it will be promptly ignored, turning what was millions of law abiding gun owning citizens into millions of
    criminals. Got jails?
    And good luck with getting the local po-po to enforce the law. I think the majority of them see the handwriting on the wall and will refuse to cooperate.
    I think that since this will be a federal “law”, only the federal agencies (BATFEces) will feel froggy enough to jump. And it is they who will start AmRev II.

  45. Ex-PH2 says:

    News report this morning: Chicago murder rate for 2012 is 500, up 17% for the first time since 2008 (512).

    Number of murders by guns not reported. Did I tell you guys about the Chicago cop that shot a dog sniffing his leg while the cop was talking to the owner?

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20251373/chicago-cop-shoots-puppy-with-world-champion-lineage-exclusive

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/puppy-shot-by-chicago-cop_n_2245215.html

    Some cops simply should not have guns.

  46. Machelle says:

    Michigan requires fingerprinting for a CCW.

  47. BK says:

    Back in 2009, there were a number of House Democrats that signed a letter to Eric Holder saying they didn’t want his office (or the administration) to pursue the reinstatement of the 94 ban. I think Eric Massa was the biggest-name signatory to that. Good luck finding a copy now…I’ve noted that the AP will archive many links, but not ones that support a counter narrative to the current Democratic zeitgeist. I saw the same thing with the reporting on the (entirely unrelated topic) Veterans jobs bill, where early copies had quotes from the Legion and VFW’s verbal shrugs, but redacted those in favor of “aghast” quotes from the IAVA jackwagons.

    I don’t think it is a stretch 1994 ban played a factor in the loss of some blue-dog Dem seats during Gingrich’s ascendancy. The Senate will vote as the Senate will vote – they’re not vulnerable to midterms in the way the House is, but I imagine you’ll see even Democratic opposition to a renewal of the ban if it should get to the House.

    It’s political suicide to run as a Democrat in Pennsylvania outside of Philly and talk about any kind of legislation like Feinstein is touting. I can’t believe we’re the only state with that paradigm. I’ll be interested if Bob Casey, Jr. votes for this. He just won reelection, so he’s probably insulated in the near-term if he should. But we’ll see.

  48. MAJMike says:

    Not now, not ever.

    I will not retreat.

    I will not submit.

    I aim to misbehave.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *