Feinstein slated to reveal gun ban legislation in Jan.

Jan. 7, 2013

By Katy Grimes

200px-Gun_pyre_in_Uhuru_Gardens,_Nairobi

When the 1994 federal assault weapons ban was signed into law, it was a reaction to a horrific act of violence. The resulting law regulated certain semiautomatic weapons and large ammunition magazines.

The law was allowed to expire in 2004, but not everyone was happy about it.

With the recent school shooting in Newtown, Conn. still fresh in the news, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., seized the opportunity to reintroduce the legislation banning certain weapons, but this time, made it far more stringent.

1994 assault-weapons ban — then and now

Adam Eisgrew was Senator Feinstein’s counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993 to 1995 and worked on the original weapons ban bill. He recently wrote about the 1994 assault-weapons ban and Feinstein’s proposed 2013 legislation in the New York Times:

“The bill had three main components. The first was a list of well-known, deeply feared guns that were banned by name (like Uzis). The second banned the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features (like a forward handgrip). The third and most critical section was Appendix A, which listed every single hunting rifle and shotgun in use at the time — there were hundreds — that didn’t run afoul of the features test in the second component. Those firearms were unequivocally exempted from the bill.”

Eisgrew advocates for making the new assault-weapons ban stronger in the light of the Newtown shootings.

“If we want to reimpose a permanent assault-weapons ban and restrict high capacity ammunition magazines, let’s include a new list of exempted rifles and shotguns used for recreational shooting in a new Appendix A (updated annually) and actively solicit input from the shooting community to make it work.”

Proposed legislation

On Jan. 22, Feinstein will formally introduce her new legislation, a much more sweeping bill than the last, and more stringent than any previously proposed legislation banning weapons. Second Amendment defenders characterize it as “a firebomb.”

Last week Vice President Joe Biden, who is heading a presidential task force on gun control, “guaranteed” sweeping legislation would be passed by the end of January.

If Feinstein’s legislation is any indication, many are saying that up to 75 percent of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50 percent of all long guns and with anything that looks like a military-style weapon.

Gun owners would undergo a six-month license application process to keep existing AR-15s and other automatic weapons, have to be fingerprinted and undergo a background check by the FBI.

Summary of legislation

Here is a summary of the legislation as posted on Feinstein’s website:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

4. 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.

5. 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.

44 comments

Write a comment
  1. Hondo
    Hondo 7 January, 2013, 16:51

    I say do what Bill Clinton proposed in the 90’s. Armed guards in every school. We can’t afford it but I’m pretty sure there is no shortage of qualified former police and military who will be willing to volunteer their services.
    In the mean time, home school your kids. Get them out of those liberal designed free kill zones they call public schools.
    Hondo…

    Reply this comment
  2. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 7 January, 2013, 17:27

    Didn’t she come into office from a shooting?

    She should be thankful!

    I hate this woman. She is what is wrong with our country: her whole generation.

    Reply this comment
  3. us citizen
    us citizen 7 January, 2013, 18:46

    Nuke Sacramento and Washington DC……………..much faster and quicker than any gun.

    Reply this comment
  4. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 7 January, 2013, 19:18

    DF makes some excellent proposals. If the Republicans block it in the House, there’s always the option of reclassifying current assault weapons under Title II of the National Firearms Act. That way they’d have to be registered and taxed just like an old fashioned machine gun if anyone wants to keep one legally.

    Reply this comment
  5. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 7 January, 2013, 19:57

    Sure Hondo–Go ahead and home school your kids. That way you won’t have to worry about them getting into trouble, out in world. They will be social introverts for the remainder of their lives.

    Reply this comment
  6. Homeschooled
    Homeschooled 8 January, 2013, 06:02

    “Social introverts”, SeeSaw? Oh, you mean like all the home-schooled kids in my family: all in college at age 17, all in the top 1% of scholastic rankings, all top-notch musicians (winners in every competition they’ve entered in CA for the past 10 years, soloists with adult orchestras, one currently prepping for the Van Cliburn), engineers (space shuttle mission control, Pentagon top civilian engineering award), authors, actors, dancers, mountain climbers, marksmen… So, how exactly how do you define “social introverts”? Anyone who doesn’t fit your mold of publicly educated liberal morons working at fast-food joints for the remainder of their lives?

    Reply this comment
  7. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 8 January, 2013, 06:15

    SeeSaw: That old saw about homeschooled kids being introverts has long been disproved. Look up Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Edison.

    — John Seiler

    Reply this comment
  8. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 08:38

    I love Diane—– I fully support the ban—-

    Reply this comment
  9. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 08:39

    I have 2 home schooled kids– One is an introvert for sure– the other not so much….

    Reply this comment
  10. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 8 January, 2013, 08:46

    I have 2 home schooled kids– One is an introvert for sure– the other not so much….
    ==
    Have you indoctrinated them yet 😉

    Reply this comment
  11. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 8 January, 2013, 10:19

    As usual, the gun banners refuse to acknowledge the fundamental human right of self defense. They prattle on about letting people keep their Elmer Fudd guns (for now anyway). THE SECOND AMENDMENT ISN’T ABOUT HUNTING WASCALLY WABBITS.

    There is no constitutional guarantee for sport hunting. There is a constitutional guarantee for ownership of commonly used militia weaponry by the law abiding citizenry. Don’t believe me? See U.S. vs. Miller (1939) or better yet, try actually reading The Bill of Rights.

    @ Skippy,

    Been reading the hysterical blather over at HuffPo again? I know how you authoritarians worship The Dear Leader and wish he were unconstrained by law but your suggestion is completely crackpot (as usual). Obummer doesn’t have the statutory authority under NFA or the 1968 Gun Control Act to add millions of semi-autos to the NFA Title 2 list. IF HE DID, HE (OR THAT IMPEACHED DISGRACE BILL CLINTON) WOULD HAVE DONE SO ALREADY.

    Besides, just as in Crazyfornia, most people will not register their weapons under such a draconian scheme because they know that registration leads to confiscation. SOUNDS LIKE A RECIPE FOR EPIC FAILURE FOR YOU AUTHORITARIAN GOONS. By all means, try your massive unconstitutional gun grab if you really want to create millions of regime opponents with unregistered militia style weapons and a really bad attitude about The Dear Leader and his pathetic and evil minions. Nothing would destabilize and marginalize the current regime faster than a massive illegal gun grab like you suggest, so I hope The Child Killer In Chief takes your crackpot idea seriously.

    The gun control issue is an important one for many reasons but among them is this – IT TENDS TO FLUSH OUT THE FASCIST THUGS AMONG US IN ALL THEIR REPRESSIVE UGLINESS!

    Reply this comment
  12. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 11:06

    LOL Poor Dysphoric!

    Miller is a waste of a cite little buddy! The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, (which never happened!!!!!), so the real issues of the case were NEVER adjudicated.

    LOL— I love non lawyers playing law!!!

    Reply this comment
  13. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 11:11

    Dysphoric— Have a look at District of Col v. Heller at 554 US 570. They dispatched any juice you may want to pretend Miller had! Sorry little fella!

    Done! God that was easy!

    Reply this comment
  14. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 8 January, 2013, 11:32

    Just having a little debate, homeschooled. Don’t get excited! You are to be congratulated for raising your kids the way you see fit. I have five grandchildren who were all schooled publicly, and they’re pretty nice too. My three CA grandchildren are students at, Claremont Graduate University, UCLA, and Chapman U.

    Reply this comment
  15. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 11:38

    SeeSaw– and I have 2 others who went to public school— one is now an engineer and the other a history teacher! Both ways can be good or bad. It all depends mostly on how much parental support there is and how hard the kid works!

    Reply this comment
  16. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 8 January, 2013, 11:41

    I agree JS. I know some good kids who were home schooled. Just giving some blow-back to the one who insinuates that parents should home school their own children, or they will be scarred out there in the world.

    Reply this comment
  17. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 8 January, 2013, 11:50

    Dysphoric— Have a look at District of Col v. Heller at 554 US 570. They dispatched any juice you may want to pretend Miller had! Sorry little fella!
    ===
    OMG you are dumber than a TV Perry Mason! Teedy did you go to Concode Online LS…Well Teddy??

    District of Col v. Heller at 554 US 570 STRUCK DOWN a firearms BAN in the DOC. Struck it down.

    Read and learn fool;

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/07-290.htm

    Reply this comment
  18. Sonoffar
    Sonoffar 8 January, 2013, 12:10

    Why do we insist on relegating the 2nd Amendment to the right of the Citizen to hunt or shoot at beer cans? We all know, but many refuse to acknowledge, that the 2nd was placed in the Constitution so that the citizenry would have the means to change a tyrannical government. There own government.
    The founders seemed to realize that down the road the government they were establishing might determine to fix itself into a position of complete and full ruler-ship, much like the King and government they hoped to replace. We have that government now with the exception of a designated king.
    Citizens need to be as well armed as their potential adversaries and they need to be aware that any government bent on disarming them is that adversary!

    Reply this comment
  19. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 13:17

    Poodle Clown— I know what the holding was little buddy— but it certainly is not dictum when the Court refused to extend Miller protection in the way Dysphoric suggests!

    Poor Poodle!

    Almost 0 for 15 ™!

    So Close!

    Reply this comment
  20. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 13:24

    LOL—- Poodle tries to use the docket to explain the ruking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OMG LOL BFF— Poor Poodle!

    Reply this comment
  21. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 13:30

    Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess.

    Reply this comment
  22. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 13:31

    Hurry! Type NOW !!!!!

    Reply this comment
  23. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 8 January, 2013, 14:01

    Outrageous, Sonoffar!! Our government is not, and will never be, tyrannical, and we the citizens will never stand for anarchy! If you currently have the opinion that you are living under a tyrannical government, why aren’t you looking at brochures!!

    Reply this comment
  24. Donkey
    Donkey 8 January, 2013, 15:29

    SeeSaw, you would have made an excellant Tory back in the day.

    Our goverment has been waging a war on the American citizen since the advent of the war on drugs. Since the late 1980’s our government increased the number of citizens placed in modern dungeons by a factor of ten. You can parade your “my government right or wrong” mantra all day long, but at the end of that day we still have the largest Prison Industrial Complex(PIC) on earth. With only 5% of the worlds population we have over 25% of the worlds prisoners. Ask Doug Zerby’s family if our system is not tyrannical! Ask the families of the people in Mexico, murdered by the weapons that Obama and Holder supplied!

    As the son of a combat wounded Dad that fought in Europe, I often wondered how an educated people like those in Germany became the blood thirsty bruts that caused my Dad to go to war. Then I read the words of people like you and it is clear that those that feed at the public trough are the first to defend a corrupt and tyrannical system of government. As long as the spoon is placed in your mouth you will allow your fellow citizens to be abused. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  25. Ted Steele, Navigator
    Ted Steele, Navigator 8 January, 2013, 15:30

    Poor Duncey!

    Reply this comment
  26. Sonoffar
    Sonoffar 8 January, 2013, 15:47

    @SeeSaw, I suppose we need to define “tyrannical”, when refering to our government..

    Definition of TYRANNY
    : oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government

    In common usage, the word “tyrant” carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of an “oligarchy” over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.

    Throughout history, oligarchies have been tyrannical (relying on public servitude to exist) or relatively benign. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich for which the exact term is plutocracy, but “oligarchy” is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by bloodlines as in a monarchy. (all from wikipedia)

    I have not seen anyone, but you, refer to anarchy in this discussion. The enforcement of a Citizens rights as detailed by the United States Constitution is an act of patriotism and Certainly NOT anarchy. In fact that is the sole purpose of the United States Government.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Reply this comment
  27. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 8 January, 2013, 16:26

    The founding fathers attempted(and obviously suceeded) to start a improved gov t that would not repeat(all) the mistakes/wrongs of the European Monarchy, Feudal, etc. systems. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about any gov t gravitating to tyranny. We certainly can disagree with them, but one should pause, think about the collective intellectual horsepower and courage of them. I don think any of us can hold a candle to their genius. Personally, it is humbling.

    Reply this comment
  28. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 8 January, 2013, 18:01

    Sean– I just finished McCullough’s tome on John Adams– it is humbling. I think he was the brightest and most moral of the lot. I assure you though that if they were alive today they would have little to do with todays’ tea baggers– they were much brighter.

    Reply this comment
  29. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 8 January, 2013, 18:41

    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies ™ says:

    I just finished McCullough’s tome on John Adams– it is humbling.

    ==
    Teddy, the only “tome” you have ever finished is “Where’s Waldo”
    http://crawlinboston.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/waldo-logo-copy.jpg

    Reply this comment
  30. Donkey
    Donkey 8 January, 2013, 19:06

    Teddy Steals, the Founders would have much more in common with the average Tea Party citizens than a RAGWUS trough feeder like yourself.

    To spark your memory, the Boston Tea Party was over taxation and the war that ensued was to rid our nation of parasites in government! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  31. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 8 January, 2013, 19:17

    Teddy Steals, the Founders would have much more in common with the average Tea Party citizens than a RAGWUS trough feeder like yourself
    ==
    Teddy just got owned!!!!!!

    But Teddy is King Trough Feeder 😉

    Reply this comment
  32. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 8 January, 2013, 21:38

    You have no reason to take up arms against our government, Sonofarr. If you do that, you will be guilty of anarchy.

    Reply this comment
  33. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 9 January, 2013, 06:49

    LOL Duncey— the Boston party was over taxation without representation little buddy– hardly the case here in the US. Read a little history. The modern tea baggers hate immigrants, which the former tea party mostly were, hate the poor, and have a machine gun fetish. LOL. Thanks for playing. Next contestant please.

    Oh— Poodle…..or should I say Puddle, you think
    “Where’s Waldo” was a long book? Ouch, maybe one of your parents could read it to you. 0 for 14 ™!

    Reply this comment
  34. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 9 January, 2013, 06:51

    Sanoffer? Who are you going to shoot with your guns little buddy?

    Reply this comment
  35. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 9 January, 2013, 15:47

    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies ™ says:

    Sanoffer? Who are you going to shoot with your guns little buddy?
    ==
    I volunteer TEDDY!

    Reply this comment
  36. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 9 January, 2013, 20:41

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz
    mmmmmmmm
    spooky….
    But I always wonder about this dim wits who envision armed internal conflict, building 7, Roswell aliens etc etc etc…

    Reply this comment
  37. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 9 January, 2013, 22:33

    Teddy, go back into your shack!

    Reply this comment
  38. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 10 January, 2013, 07:06

    Poor Poodle— still wearing his tin foil hat! It covers his canine skull— where I live in comfort.

    Reply this comment
  39. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 January, 2013, 08:08

    Shack Teddy, back to the shack. I picture you living (and acting) like the Unabomber 😉

    Reply this comment
  40. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 10 January, 2013, 19:04

    Anarchy is the wrong word. But taking up arms against your elected government is considered treason in some quarters.

    Reply this comment
  41. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 January, 2013, 20:26

    But taking up arms against your elected government is considered treason in some quarters.
    ==
    Exact same words the British said at the Boston Tea Party.

    Reply this comment
  42. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 10 January, 2013, 21:31

    LOL– Another day and another school shooting in America—- we love violence——I wonder how many more big/mass killings we need before the assault weapon tipping point? I say about 10 or 15 more——we have a good stamina to ignore them….mmmmmm……nice……

    Enjoying watching Piers Morgan dismantle yet another right wing kook tonight! Good TV!!!

    Reply this comment
  43. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 11 January, 2013, 00:06

    We’ve had this conversation before, Donkey. I have told you how I feel about incarcerating people who are no danger to other human beings. And, I have also told you, before, that you are not the only citizen who has relatives who fought/died in our wars. And you may not question my patriotism for this country!

    Reply this comment
  44. boyer68
    boyer68 24 January, 2013, 06:13

    Can any liberal here define an “assault weapon”? I didn’t think so. Seems the defination is: Anything that looks sinister, or generally, anything I don’t like. What did the AR-15 say to the liberal? A: It’s because I’m black isn’t it?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Cal State illegally promotes Prop. 30 tax increase

Sept. 20, 2012 By Jennifer Kerns California State University backers of Proposition 30 are violating state law by sending out emails pushing

Dem incumbents’ sneaky ploy

JULY 1, 2010 By LAURA SUCHESKI California incumbents have started to pony up cash to protect their seats from bipartisan

A High-speed math problem

JUNE 24, 2010 By JT LONG A month after a report by the California State Auditor warned of possible delays