Details of Dianne Feinstein’s Upcoming Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Begin Leaking

Everyone saw this coming. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic Senator from California and co-sponsor of the USA PATRIOT Act extension, has been rumored to be meeting with ATF officials in the past few days and trying to come up with an outline for her next attempt at passing a new assault weapons ban. It seems like she does this once a year anyway, but in the wake of the Obama re-election people are on high alert for anything gun control related. And this time, it seems like all that practice of introducing failed legislation is leading to a more disturbing version of the bill…

David Codrea at the Examiner received the following tip from a source inside the NSSF:

I just heard that Sen. Feinstein’s attorney is meeting right now with folks from FTB and ATF legal (Eric Epstein [legal], Todd Martin [Legal] and Earl Griffith [FTB] and others) to discuss a new SAW ban, that she would want to start pushing through as soon as (if) Obama gets reelected.

- – No pistol grip allowed
- – No HC Mags
- – No grandfathering
- – No sale permissible if in possession

That is all I know right now

The saving grace of the last assault weapons ban was that guns and magazines produced before the ban were exempt from the legislation, meaning that if you had a gun old enough you could ignore the AWB and use your gun as it was designed instead of the AWB compliant hobbling.

Apparently Senator Feinstein’s current plan would not only further restrict the permissible features (by removing the ability to have a pistol grip at all) but effectively requires all owners of AR-15s and AK pattern rifles to modify their guns immediately or be criminals. Doesn’t matter that the gun was legal when you bought it, if you haven’t modified your rifle to comply with the new AWB you would be a criminal.

First and foremost, I’d recommend that the Senator give my article on assault rifles a quick read so that she understands exactly how insane her proposal is in modern America. Then again, I’m pretty sure that rational arguments and statistics aren’t factoring into her blind hatred of everything firearm related.

I see you there, being incredulous of my statement that she blindly hates guns. And to you, I quote the woman herself:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.

The good news is that this has exactly 0% chance of passing right now. None. At all.

As I said yesterday, the midterm elections are going to put a damper on anything the newly re-elected president wants to do in terms of stuff Republicans hate for at least the next two years. And since the president is the head of the party, even if she introduces it there’s a good chance that he won’t be using any of his rather small pool of political capitol on a new AWB instead of an economic package.

Also good news for gun owners: only about 2% of bills she has ever sponsored or co-sponsored have been passed, which puts her in the bottom 10% of the Senate in terms of sponsorship of successful bills. Considering she’s been there since 1992, that doesn’t seem very promising for anything she writes to actually be passed.

Finally, even IF she introduces a bill, AND it passes the Senate, AND it makes it out of committee in the House, it still needs to pass the Republican held House before it makes it to the president’s desk. All of which is highly unlikely. Chances are, just like most crackpot bills, it will die a quick death in a Senate committee.

In short, while its scary, Senator Feinstein’s assault weapons ban proposal is probably going to be a wet squib in terms of gun control. However (and this is what I LOVE about this situation) the mere specter of an assault weapons ban will do more for “assault weapons” sales in the United States and ammunition sales than any other force known to man. Her efforts to ban guns will put them in the hands of more Americans than ever.

Dianne Feinstein: Firearms saleswoman extraordinaire.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

132 Responses to Details of Dianne Feinstein’s Upcoming Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Begin Leaking

  1. avatarSeb says:

    “The good news is that this has exactly 0% chance of passing right now. None. At all.”

    That’s about it; but makes for good news and entertainment nonetheless.

    • avatarRwolf says:

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest American Militias?

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

      Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

      Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

      The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

      During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

      NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

      You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

      Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

      Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

      • avatarIraqVet says:

        May these government psycopaths all hang one day for their collective treason and other violations of our Constitutional Inheritance, and may we live long enough to see it happen.

    • avatarMJNellett says:

      If Feinstein wanted to stop the REAL slaughter, (56 MILIION and counting) she’d put an abortion ban up for consideration! By the way, notice in the photo that she has her finger on the trigger of the AK she’s holding! Moron

      • avatarTim Fema says:

        My 13 and 11 year old daughters both immediatly noticed that Senator Feinstein was not looking where she was pointing and had her finger on the trigger. I wonder if she checked the chamber to see if it was clear.
        If you are going to handle guns and talk about them, you should follow basic safety rules.

        Maybe we should pass a law that states, “If you have never shot a gun, you can not be a Senator.”

  2. avatarbontai Joe says:

    I wouldn’t have believed it was possible, but you illustrated a positive point coming from her insanity:

    “However (and this is what I LOVE about this situation) the mere specter of an assault weapons ban will do more for “assault weapons” sales in the United States and ammunition sales than any other force known to man. Her efforts to ban guns will put them in the hands of more Americans than ever.”
    I never thought of that possibility, thanks!

  3. avatarRoss says:

    If it were to ever pass I guss little old me is going to be a crimal, well a change is as good as a vacation

    • avatarpat says:

      I would completely ignore the law regarding my home weapons but would probably stay with the 10 round mags for concealed carry as the last ban revolutionized tiny handguns of all calibers which ended up a great thing ironically. A Springfield M1A with a 10 round mag in the hands of patriots can still do a real number on corrupt gov/cop/military powers in any case, though it was really designed for the 20 round mag.

      • Think positively; a 1911 magazine holds a mere 7 or eight rounds of .45 goodness……

        • avatarpat says:

          My s&w 627pro 4″ 357 magnum revolver holds eight rounds and is my nightstand gun, so I understand your point that many guns dont need to be high cap to be highly effective. Such guns sure aint negative (except for the BG). Most shotguns are under 10 rounds as well.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Even if Congress passed such a law, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because of Article 1, Section 9:

      “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

      It is entirely legal (in terms of federal law) right now to purchase, possess, and bear military style semi-automatic rifles as well as “high-capacity” magazines for those rifles. A new law that suddenly deems it illegal to possess these objects which a person acquired and possessed legally prior to the law’s enactment is an “ex post facto” law.

      So at the very least, Congress would have to drop the “no grandfathering” language. After that, there would be grounds for 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendment challenges.

      • avatarTSgt B says:

        Well, uncommon… I wholeheartedly agree. However, we need look no further that the infamous “Lautenberg Amendment”, which violates the ex post facto prohibition of Art. 1 section 9 of the Constitution. It has been ignored, and even UPHELD, by the courts.

        My position is this: since “government officials” from Obama on down, have decided that the law(s) don’t apply to them, the THEY DON’T APPLY TO ME. EITHER. If Obama c an pick and choose which laws to obey or uphold, why can’t We, the People, do the same?

        • avatarpat says:

          I agree that gov picks and chooses what they want applied to them and not the common man. Sadly, this would make me curtail what I carried to fit the letter of the law because the common man does not possess their levers of power. I will not change my home defense, however, and will only put the ten round mag in after pulling out the twenty and hiding it and then calling the police to report that I was in fear of my life and that somebody broke into my home and I had to defend myself….please hurry. Haa ha ha ha

  4. avatarDonnie says:

    I’d give her some $$ for that ak she’s holding in the picture. But only if it comes with that super dangerous, murderous device known as a drum magazine.

    • avatarBrad says:

      Aaannnd, wait for it…… Her finger is where? On the trigger. Cause that’s what you do with one of those things, you pull the trigger, even if you don’t want to, especially if it’s pointed at the gun control nut next to you.

      • avatarMOG says:

        Her finger on the trigger, and her head firmly up her a**.

        • avatarchristian trent Perry says:

          i just absolutly love to see polititions who dont know the barrel from the butt talk about how dangerous it is to hold guns worng.
          violation:
          1) pointed at ppl
          2) finger on the trigger
          3) mag is in the gun
          she should be banned from even looking at a gun again

        • avatarTim Fema says:

          My 13 and 11 year old daughters both immediatly noticed that Senator Feinstein was not looking where she was pointing and had her finger on the trigger. I wonder if she checked the chamber to see if it was clear.
          If you are going to handle guns and talk about them, you should follow basic safety rules.

          Maybe we should pass a law that states, “If you have never shot a gun, you can not be a Senator.”

  5. avatarJoe Grine says:

    I’ve been saying for quite some time that any new AWB would be a “turn’-em-in” ban with no grandfather clause, and so I’m not surprised by this statement.

  6. avatarJoe Grine says:

    Diane Feinstein is back at the top of my “liberals I wish were dead” list.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Would you settle for “banned from holding public office”? Because I’d be happy with that.

      • avatarChris Dumm says:

        Ever since I lived in CA (a wonderfully long time ago now) she’s been at the top of my “wish she could join Randy Cunningham/Dan Rostenkowski in Federal Prison” list. If only…

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          A short prison stay of, say, a year and a day accompanied by a felony conviction would certainly accomplish the desired result.

          For the record, I quite like living in California. The Bay Area is an awesome place to live and work… for everything except 2A rights. I’d rather live someplace that I love, and work diligently to change the things I detest, than to move the family somewhere else in protest.

        • avatarDraven says:

          She *should be* in prison, or out of the senate. See, she apparently bought her grandson a .22…. in another state (MD, iirc). From an FFL. Now, either she a: broke federal law in doing so (said gunstore could not ‘fulfill the requirements of her home state’ by filing a DROS with the CA DOJ); or she b: is not a resident of CA and instead resides in that other state (once again, MD, IIRC) and cannot possibly represent CA in the senate.

      • avatarpat says:

        I would settle for a ban……but I would be happy if she were dead.
        Yeah, I’m not real happy with the country destroying election results, especially up here in Seattle, Wash (you can probably tell by my tone). Maybe 20 Trillion will be the magic number for collapse while she wastes time and money on……nothing, as the demographics indicate we are toast…..a preppers paradise (eating foul tasting freeze dried food).

    • avatarMark says:

      I would normally say Diane and her kind should simply move to a communist state where they would fit in, but now that The United States is gone and we’re living in Obamastan, I’m left wishing they had concealed carry and a functional version of The Bill of RIghts in Australia…

    • avatarMichael C. says:

      She is dead. That thing we see in the picture is just pure desire to control others wrapped up in that leather known as Diane Feinstein’s skin.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        She is the perfect example of why we need term / age / term+age limits. She’s been in there 20 years and is 79 fraking years old. She’s so horribly out of touch with reality that no one can take her seriously.

  7. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    We all know she is an idiot!!! Her statements and proposals have proven that time and again. But How In The Hell can she even propose a AWB when she doesn’t even know how to handle the rifle properly???
    Case in point….look at the pic….finger on the trigger and pointed, more than likely, at one or more persons. The weapon is not the danger, it is her stupid ass not knowing how to handle it properly!!!!!
    We should be able to file a lawsuit for unlawful prosecution, bias and discrimination against her for proposing a ban on something she knows nothing about and is obviously making up bull about.
    Her actions and statements would support the lawsuit.!!!
    I don’t live in her state and I feel sorry for those gun owners that do, but what an idiot she is!!!

      • avatarBrad says:

        Speed, it’s simply indicates their level of ignorance. They can’t be bothered to learn about that which they seek to ban. Their superior intellect has allowed them to determine what’s best for you and I. No research or familiarity needed. She and her ilk are what scare most when I think about it. Elitists at their best doing what they do best, thinking for the masses.

    • avatarRobert says:

      Unfortunately you can’t sue a member of congress for proposing stupid bills. It is part of the separation of power built into the Constitution. You might be able to sue her if you were in that room agaist CA gun laws now that would be fun :)

  8. avatarIndyEric says:

    SMH – terrible trigger discipline.

    • avatarMr. Obvious says:

      Shhh – I see finger on the trigger and the safety is off. We’re one pull of the charging handle away from an accident that corrects this problem.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        You can bet your last gun that her security detail ensured that the firing pin had been removed from the action and (possibly) the clockwork guts pulled from the drum before she was allowed to touch it.

        Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if that gun’s bolt had already been TIG-welded into place…

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Actually, back in the day when she carried, she was trained in firearms handling courtesty of the SFPD. So she should know better.

  9. avatarJeff O. says:

    Someone needs to learn gun safety…finger on the trigger.

    I’d be scared, but I lost all of my guns in an unfortunate metal foundry accident.

  10. avatarMr. Grimm says:

    I had to laugh at that photo. Safety off & finger on the trigger.

  11. avatarAharon says:

    Nick, nice article. It is good to know that DiFi’s record puts her at the bottom 10% for the passing and sponsorship of Senate bills. I don’t know what the future will bring in terms of gun legislation. I do know that most political and social concerns for the values of voting white men is hardly a concern of elected officials. Guns might be one of the few exceptions.

    DiFi does look like a caricature Chicago gangster in that photo wearing her pinstripe suit. All she needs is the fedora hat to complete the look. I wonder if DiFi is so San Francisco out-of-touch-with-reality that she dressed that way on purpose or if she was unaware of the association? In the past DiFi has claimed the SF police trained her in the use of guns after someone shot out the windows of her house one night. If so, she did not learn proper finger-off the trigger placement.

  12. avatarpk in AZ says:

    Here’s an idea feinfu**……..

    As long as you’re meeting with the ATF, why don’t you ask them WHY THEY MURDERED BORDER PATROL AGENT BRIEN TERRY?

    Worthless POS!

  13. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    And I forgot to add this…. If she truly feels that removing the pistol grip will help then she needs to take that AK and an AR out to the range and, with someone competent enough to do so, remove the pistol grips from both weapons and fire 1 full 30 round magazine through each, oh and throw in a 12ga shotgun too just to give her the all around test, and see what kind of injuries she will sustain from firing them without the proper equipment.
    After that if she still wants the pistol grip removed then she can be held financially responsible for any injuries sustained by compliance with her requirements based on the fact that she caused an unsafe firearms issue.
    Now I know it won’t really happen but would love to see her try shooting them w/out the grips.

  14. avatarIng says:

    Feinstein is exhibit A in the case for congressional term limits. On the other hand, term limits might have replaced her with someone effective enough to be dangerous.

  15. avatardin says:

    look at that face: it’s obvious that she just needs to get laid. I nominate mikeb90210.

  16. avatarMauser says:

    I don’t have a lot of respect for her, but we should at least spell her name correctly. I believe her first name is spelled ‘Dianne’

  17. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    Absolutely! What we need is “politician control”.

  18. avatarRokurota says:

    My favorite Feinstein quote? This one: “I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

    That’s right. Diane Feinstein had (has?) one of those rare California concealed carry permits. She’s one of us!

    • avatarOHgunner says:

      As most hospitals are no firearms zones, I am assuming that she just admitted to the commission of a felony. Arrest that woman!

    • avatartdiinva says:

      I was going to point out that Fienstein is a CHL holder. Want to bet that she doesn’t use a California legal magazine?

      • avatarMark N. says:

        She is no longer licensed, and she ceremoiously turned in her gun. As of September a year ago, there were no CCW holders from San Francisco County

  19. I wonder whether even by the logic of gun control advocates, the so-called assault weapon is seriously the best target. How many crimes are committed with this category of firearms (I know it’s actually hard to define)? I would seriously like to know, if anyone does know. I do know that here in France the media reports a growing problem with AK type weapons being used in Marseilles, for example. One also hears of paramilitary ‘training’ taking place in various “citées” in France – using Airsoft weapons (for now). I am a gun owner in a country where guns are heavily regulated. There are basically no problems here caused by regulated gun owners. But plenty of problems with guns. I rather like the idea that there might be a way of keeping guns away from criminals, the deranged and the idiot. But is this possible? I don’t by any means want to pick a fight with the American cousins, but is there an argument that is perhaps less absolutist than the one I hear here so routinely? I am not convinced that complying with the restrictive gun laws here in France is such a terrible burden. Surely in the case of potentially dangerous items, there is some case for regulation? Even if poor Mrs Feinstein is evidently clueless and indeed a danger since your picture shows her involved in behaviour that would get her kicked out of our club in a New York minute.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      President Obama noted in the last debate that gangbangers aren’t using AK and AR type weapons, but rather handguns. The murder rate for all rifles is in the hundreds, according to the FBI crime statistics (available on line). That’s the stupidity of the whole effort–even if successful, it will have literally no statistical effect on the problem of violence in the United States. It seems to me that these rifles are simply a target of opportunity; it is easy to argue that these are not hunting weapons and that nobody “needs” high capacity magazines and semi-auto firing capabilities. Once you’ve banned one type of weapon, removing other “evil” guns is easier. It’s either that or the fact that people find them scary because they are most closely associated with war rather than hunting or other sports shooting activities.

      • avatarchris says:

        Support Ron Paul. He is for the second amendment like no other politician, and supports that citizens should have weapons to defend themselves and their property as well as defend themselves from a tyrannical govt and not to just hunt with. Also, when asked about civilians having automatic weapons he said something to the effect of”what does its rate of fire matter?” On a side note he is for downsizing the fed to only the powers the constitution gave them, and give more to states under the 10th amendment and state sovereignty. That would end federal welfare and the ” war on drugs” He said welfare can be done better at the local level through state gov’s and churches. The constitution does not give the feds the right to ban drugs and that should be up to the states. He makes too much sense for main stream media. His ideas on those two federal money pits would probably “balance the budget”

  20. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    I wonder if she’s willing to accept responsibility for the enormous expense of life and property associated with inciting the next civil war?

  21. avatarJoseph says:

    What I don’t understand is why she’s still in office…I would say she is a perfect example for a set of maximum number of terms in congress like the president has… Besides why do we keep allowing someone like her a fascist Mussolini want a bee have access to any form of power above running a KFC? Have people forgotten that we can have members of congress as well as the president recalled/removed from office legally??? Or have we just become that lazy and sheepish to blindly follow whoever is in office, mayors, sheriff’s, govenaires, etc… All public offices can be fired by the public and replaced.

    • avatarAharon says:

      DiFi is still in office because she lives in and represents San Francisco and much of California where there are more modern loonie liberal fascists than conservative pro-gun voters. Ironically, some progressives in SF and Berkeley refer to DiFi as a DINO and while it could be considered an observation of her appearance it has more to do with their belief that DiFi is a republican underneath the skin.

      • avatarDrewN says:

        Nobody with as much personal wealth as DiFi is truly a democrat. She’s been riding the gun control platform since the Milk/Moscone killings got her into the mayor’s office in the 70′s and seems determined to ride that horse into the ground. Good news is she was born in 1933, so she can’t have too many more terms in her, thank god. I’ve been voting against this woman since I turned 18, to no avail obviously.

        • avatarAharon says:

          I remember the night that DiFi and Boxer were elected. I was walking through Berkeley. All these liberal women were running around smiling and hugging each other talking about how wonderful it is and how great it will be for America. I knew those two were bad then as it is now. Back then, I was more of a liberal.

          Years later I would walk past her home after completing my walk through the Presidio. I wanted to leave some materials from the JPFO on her doorstep such as the DVD ‘Innocents Betrayed’. The DVD covers how all the 20th Century Genocides were preceded by gun registration and confiscation. I figured leaving the DVD would get me into legal trouble in commie SF so I avoided doing it.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “All these liberal women were running around smiling and hugging each other talking about how wonderful it is and how great it will be for America.”

          LOL. isn’t that pathetic? it reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

          and the infamous 2008 woman crying in the crowd “he’s the messiah…” (couldnt find the video for the life of me).

          Lenin said something about “useful idiots” and his point was further validated by Samuel L Jackson’s youtube “wake the f–k up video”.

          This rebuttal was priceless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Actually, Feinstein’s real base of power is Southern California, especially the San Diego area. She’s VERY friendly with the defense industry down there.

        Outside of gun control (her easily visible rabble-rousing PR stuff) she’s actually a hard-core military/industrial insider who’s on all of the key intelligence and defense committees. You want someone to blame for enabling both GWB and Obama’s expansions of presidential powers using war-on-terror justifications, she’s going to be at or near the top of the list, along with a couple of Republicans who run in the same circles.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          exactly. if any liberal thinks she is a true liberal than they are sorely mistaken. if only we had real liberals in our office…:(

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      Joe,

      I voted for Emken, but it didn’t pan out. I know she wouldn’t win, but I’d rather pee on an electric fence than vote for Feinstein.

  22. avatarTS says:

    “However (and this is what I LOVE about this situation) the mere specter of an assault weapons ban will do more for “assault weapons” sales in the United States and ammunition sales than any other force known to man.”

    Time to promote the specter…especially to my wife. :)

  23. Finger off the trigger libtard!!!

  24. avatarbub says:

    i live in the fly over country. ms feinstein needs to take care of ca and leave the rest of the country alone. if i wanted to live with crazier gun laws i would move to ca, but i don’t. what’s most important to know about the liberals’ view of gun policy is they don’t want you to own guns, period.

  25. avatarMichael B. says:

    Pro-gun progressives, what is your strategy? I don’t get it. You vote for a man who is against your rights and then secretly hope everyone keeps electing Republicans in the House to avoid him signing a new AWB?

    The hell kind of sense does that make? What are you doing to change your own party?

    • avatarReagan says:

      I disagree with the premise of the question. Can you name one thing that Obama has done to date that has substantively affected gun right? Or even theoretically affected gun rights? In what way can he be said to be “against my rights”?

      (edited for subject/verb agreement)

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        Because he hasn’t done something yet that means he won’t or doesn’t want to? Am I not to take him at his word? He wants to do something about “cheap handguns” and wants another AWB. He said as much in the debates and it’s also in the party platform.

        So far all I’ve gotten from you guys is essentially: ‘Oh, he’s just lying! Don’t worry about it. Even if he isn’t the GOP controls the House anyway.’

        Voting for outspoken anti-gun progressives and then hoping the GOP retains ownership of part of Congress doesn’t seem like a wise long term strategy at all.

      • avatarBlake says:

        The illegal long gun registry. Wasn’t even a law passed by Congress, rather, the president issued one of those fabulous executive orders. But hey, Obama doesn’t aspire to be a dictator at all, Obama just wants to make sure the trains run on time.

        I’m sure you’re okay with the long gun registry, because it only affects a few border gun shops.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Executive Orders have been in use throughout our history. They are used to interpret and apply often vague Congressional policies enacted into law, laws that often direct the executive branch to pass the regulations necessary to put the law into effect. The illegality of the reporting requirement in the four border states is subject to dispute. The trial court ruled in favor of the government, in a case heard in the federal district court in Texas. An appeal is pending. I’ve perused the briefs, and its pretty technical stuff. To put it another way, the reporting requirement is not currently “illegal”. The issue there, as in all such cases, is whether the EO is within the scope of the powers delegated to the executive by Congress. ATF/DOJ claims it is, others contend otherwise. We will see.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          MarkN, I respectfully disagree that the reporting requirement is not illegal. There’s at least one very important statute on the books (FOPA?) which explicitly makes this illegal.

          The real issue here is whether the law is enforceable vs. the entity in apparent violation, and whether the various rules about who can override whom permit a given entity to ignore a law or regulation. I may be an Obama supporter, but in this case I think the administration is 100% in the wrong and the EO is in direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law. I’m fully in support of seeing this struck down by the courts, and seeing some clear affirmation of the limits of Presidential authority.

      • avatarDJ says:

        He appointed two rabidly anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Have you actually researched that for yourself, or are you just repeating what you’ve heard? Because I just spent 15 minutes reading through each Justice’s profile, and Elena Kagan has yet to vote on a single gun-related case brought before SCOTUS.

          http://www.ontheissues.org/Elena_Kagan.htm
          http://www.ontheissues.org/Sonia_Sotomayor.htm

          Until a Supreme Court Justice has a track record on a particular topic, they are not at all predictable in where they’re going to end up on an issue. Case in point: Chief Justice Roberts on the Affordable Care Act.

        • avatarDJ says:

          Kagan is the one who drove ROTC off campus during her tenure as a college administrator. Think it’s safe to say based on her track record she’s no friend of the 2A.

  26. avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

    Senator Feinstein has got to be getting Gun/Ammo Manufacturer cash big time through the PAC and lobbysist channels.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I know you meant that to be funny, but I think she actually does get a very significant proportion of her support from defense-industry suppliers and their PACs.

  27. avatarPascal says:

    This

    “Also good news for gun owners: only about 2% of bills she has ever sponsored or co-sponsored have been passed, which puts her in the bottom 10% of the Senate in terms of sponsorship of successful bills. Considering she’s been there since 1992, that doesn’t seem very promising for anything she writes to actually be passed.”

    is what pisses me off. So, given she basically does crap, why did she get voted in again? She provides little value to anyone but yet, gets another ride to DC for what reason?

  28. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Here’s the thing, my 30 round Magpul magazines work quite well in my AR. A metal 10 round magazine I bought worked for about 5 minutes and then every other round started to jam. So the “high capacity” magazine is the only one that works properly. You can’t ban these things or my AR will be an expensive paperweight.

  29. avatarsanchanim says:

    Well I am going to crawl out from under my rock here in California and chime in on this.
    While her ideas are radical, and shocking to many of us, let’s not under estimate this person. Many discount her abilities because she is from the left coast, and an anomaly.

    She sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and also the subcommittee for defense. She carries a lot of weight around the hill. While I don’t think she could twist the arms of GOP members to pass something “THIS STUPID” through the house, let me give you a different agenda.

    By sitting on the two above mentioned committees, she manages to help the US sign on with the UN small arms treaty. We know this will happen, and the Senate will sign off on the treaties. Now under the above mentioned committees she then gets the idea, of certain types of weapons to be a safety issue. Ok we could call it a threat to national security, but my guess would be to push a small agenda. But it is enough.

    So the AWB doesn’t get any traction in the house, so what! She hands of her “findings” to Obama who like with the long gun registry, creates an AWB ban which I am sure would include things like bullet buttons and the like. That is then signed by executive order by the president, and mandates are given to the ATF.

    So there you have it…. The ATF now gets to go hog wild arresting people, and getting all those mean black guns off our streets, because you know it is a safety issue. The US marshals, and FBI would be involved too. So it goes against FOPA, like that even gave the President pause?

    If this were to happen, we would be watching the transformation of this country all right! It would be the transformation from a soft tyranny to a hard one. Some will probably show up and relinquish their rights as citizens, but my guess is many won’t. My only question before the bloodshed begins is will the states stand up for their citizens? California won’t, but what about places like Idaho, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, etc? My speculation is that this will not go into effect until at least two years in to Obama’s next term, but who knows…

    • avatartdiinva says:

      There is no way that the Senate will ratify the small arms treaty. it only taked 34 Senators to block it. There are at least 34 Senators who vote against any treaty. I doubt you could get 50 Senators to vote for it.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Well, crap. I should have scrolled down to your post before I left my comment upstream of this one.

      BTW, well said… except for the conspiracy theory of a nationwide long gun registry created by executive order. Yeah, not gonna happen.

      Let’s not lose sight of the fact that outside of wackjobs like Feinstein, most Democrats understand that national gun laws are one of the electrified “third rails” of national politics. Her own party is going to allow her to get PR value out of this, and then her idiocy dies a quiet death in a back room.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Nope, doesn’t work that way. That is not how rule making happens at all. The President cannot reate authority to ban guns out of thin air–there has to be a law for him to do so. There is no authority under any curent law for mass confiscation of any weapons not used in a crime, including but not limited to fully automatic weapons.

  30. avatarAugur says:

    Sometimes I wish that one of these gun-grabbers would get stabbed and have a note on them explaining how the weapon doesn’t matter, if someone wants to kill you they will do it with whatever they have… guess you should have had a concealed weapon. Not to say I support blind violence, but some people really are just blind or plain stupid.

  31. avatarMercutio says:

    Ah, dear old “piano Legs”…. as she was fondly known when she was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors…..

  32. avatarAnon in CT says:

    I was in my LGS here in CT, and the owner told me that folks are trading in pistols and hurting rifles for credit towards buying black guns.

  33. avatarTim says:

    The administration is fighting this on two fronts. They are using Diane and her cronies to see what they can push through the legislative branch and then you have the UN Treaty that started moving forward again immediately after the election.

    The treaty is the big unknown. The Obama administration has been pushing the SCOTUS to rule if treaties can break the bonds of our Constitutional protections. Why do you think he’s doing this while working to push an anti-gun treaty through the UN? That’s because if they get the treaty through the UN and the SCOTUS says that treaties can trump the Constitution — poof, gun ban without having to go through the House. Yes, the Senate has to pass a treaty by 2/3rds vote, but do you really trust the neocons in the Senate to stand fast and oppose such a treaty?

    I don’t.

  34. avatarMark N. says:

    A total ban and requirement to turn in all these rifles is simply not going to happen, first because there are not the votes, and second because it would be unconstitutional unless the government also pays for all those guns and magazines at fair market value. So we are talking a multi-billion dollar law. For a law that will not remove .223s or 5.56s or 7.62s from the inventory of legal firearms. We just end up with a bunch of rifles that look like M1s with ten round mags. Will the government really pay billions of dollars for a “feel good” law that will have no effect on violence? Is Congress that irrational?

  35. avatarAaron says:

    Isn’t not allowing grandfathering illegal?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      There’s an extremely high bar to outlawing stuff that is currently in widespread legal possession — but it can be done. Much more practical at the state level (see: CA ban on .50BMG firearms) but if an appropriate Federal regulatory framework exists it can be done nationwide (see: Federal criminalization of LSD, marijuana).

      IMHO, there’s no way in hell the Feds will retroactively outlaw existing firearms or accessories. Their power to regulate via the Commerce clause primarily empowers them to regulate the sale/transfer of products as of the effective date of the law being enacted. That’s my understanding, at least.

    • avatarThe Stig says:

      No, see Mark N.’s comment above. The government could force you to turn them in (or destroy them) under the 5th Amendment’s taking clause, but they’d be required to give just compensation (fair market value) for them. This as he correctly points out, would be very expensive even if they only gave each gun owner a fraction of the true fair market value.

      More importantly, it would almost undoubtedly run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

      • avatarRalph says:

        The feds don’t have to take ‘em. All they have to do is tax ‘em. According to Chief Justice Roberts, the feds can tax anything. Would you pay, say, $1000 a year for a pistol grip?

  36. avatarJ- says:

    Thats right, make the most popular center fire gun in America illegal to possess. Does she realize that if this ban was passed and enforced, it would sent some 50 million otherwise law abiding people to prison?

  37. avatarithink says:

    i honestly think that only thoose slide fire stocks should be banned. we’ve got idiots putting them on saiga 12′s and saiga .308s, someones bound to get hit at somepoint from all that high-recoil lead going downrange.

  38. avatarChuckN says:

    To throw a little cold water on everyone:

    Since there are obviously enough knuckleheads to reelect
    the ‘Bamster I’d wouldn’t place all my hopes on the midterm
    election to stem the tide of craziness.

    Just saying.

  39. avatartdiinva says:

    I’ve got a suggestion for those of you who believe the Feds are coming after your guns. You are not going to go down fighting so since you are going to cave don’t waste your money on new guns. Divide your collection into three parts. First select the two guns that you are going to keep. Go hide them. Then take the most valuable guns and sell them to some suckers or some real bad asses. Hang on to the rest and give them up when the cops come for them. They will give you a pat on the head for being a good citizen.

  40. avatarGS650G says:

    DiFi is a lot older than me, I look forward to reading her obituary some day.

  41. avatar"Dr." Dave says:

    Molon Labe.

  42. avatarJames says:

    How old is she? She was like 83 when I was 10….I’m 37 now!

  43. avatarBHirsh says:

    “The good news is that this has exactly 0% chance of passing right now. None. At all.”

    Unless, that is, they attach it to “must pass” legislation, which is a pro forma tactic by both parties. Don’t forget, that’s how we got CCW in national parks. That sword can cut both ways.

  44. avatarRalph says:

    The good news is that this has exactly 0% chance of passing right now. None. At all.

    Uh, no. This particular bill may have zero chance of passing now or ever, but a reboot of the Clinton AWB, with it’s grandfathering exceptions, is 50-50. It can be tacked onto legislation that we need in order to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” and it will pass or the House Republicans will be blamed for the next recession. But the time to do that is only now. Once the fiscal cliff is avoided, there’s no more compulsion for the House to compromise. So the thought that the AWB is off the table right now is exactly opposite of realpolitik.

    The status of the NRA and Republicans also enters into the equation. The NRA gained nothing in this election and lost $11 million. The Republicans lost two seats in the Senate and possibly a couple in the House, along with the Presidency. Both the Republicans and the NRA have been terribly damaged by this debacle while the Dems have been reenergized.

    if Obama wants a gun ban, he’ll get it. It won’t be any more unpopular than Obamacare, and he got that.

  45. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    Rwolf,

    Excellent thesis, and very sobering. The U. S. government has used NAZI/Stasi Germany as a model for years, from their tyrannical legislation to model after to even copying their weapons technology, and most recently the hiring of the former East German Stasi spy chief, Marcus Wolff, by the DHS. I don’t know if Americans will ever wake up from their trance-like state.

    Semper Fi

  46. avatarJames says:

    What a dumb bitch.

  47. avatarMOG says:

    Gun?? I ain’t got no stinking gun!! Legal fronts of organized crime, and petty criminals, would love to have a total ban, and she, (as well as other rabid gun control advocates), is hell bent on earning her under the table wages, disguised as campaign contributions. A moment of silence for all those that have died at the hands of unopposed homicidal psychopaths.

  48. avatarNavyVet says:

    “the mere specter of an assault weapons ban will do more for “assault weapons” sales in the United States and ammunition sales than any other force known to man”

    I was at my local gun dealer today and witnessed this in action. All AR’s were sold out and one happened to arrived by UPS while I was there. I watched and it was literaly purchased no sooner than it had been delivered. I was paying for my merchandise and asked the guy at the register if they had been making alot of AR sales? He just laughed and said “Its a waste of our time taking them out of the box to display them anymore” Way to GO Feinstein!

  49. avatarTim Fema says:

    My 13 and 11 year old daughters both immediatly noticed that Senator Feinstein was not looking where she was pointing and had her finger on the trigger. I wonder if she checked the chamber to see if it was clear.
    If you are going to handle guns and talk about them, you should follow basic safety rules.

    Maybe we should pass a law that states, “If you have never shot a gun, you can not be a Senator.”
    Eddie the Eagle could teach her a thing or two.

  50. avatarAlfred g says:

    What this country really needs attention to is not believing the media and its political bias handed down to them from the government.theres too many libatrds worried about what “new things”they can demonize,this obama “feel good”legistration or executive order he plans to make will just pass like a fart in the wind.theres too many americans who live by the 2nd amendment our here to just stand by and watch this happen.his decisions still will not change crime the way it stands in the country. Our president should grow a pair of balls and back our constitution and not “talior-fit”laws as he sees.i do feel for the children and teachers at sandy-hook elem. And the grieving parents,but if proper security was set in place of school institutions none of these events would of happened. It seems like our goverment waits for tragities like this to use it as an excuse to give law abiding citizens the shaft. Theres tons of responsible gun owners that lock away thier weapons but the idiots are doing all the killings.

  51. avatarShotgun Billy says:

    Hey Dianne. “KISS MY ROYAL, MAINE ASS”. Oh, and you too Chuck.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.