NRA-ILA on DiFi’s RKBA Full Frontal Assault

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on December 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012 . . .

According to a Dec. 27th posting ( http://tiny.cc/t5l1pw ) on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

  • Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.  The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
  • Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
  •  Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
  • Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:
    • Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
    • Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
    • Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
  • Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
  • Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
  • Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
  • Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
  • Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.  Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

 

Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defensetarget shooting, and hunting. For more information about thehistory of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.

115 Responses to NRA-ILA on DiFi’s RKBA Full Frontal Assault

  1. avatarDrVino says:

    Which “model of the Ruger Mini-14″?…

  2. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    This claptrap has no chance of being adopted as law as written, but the weak knees of the GOP might end up in a “compromise” that still resurrects the onerous 1994 ban.

    It seems the usurpers are pushing for all out civil war if any subterfuge or Exec orders were used to ram this through.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      I am tired of this weak kneed meme. The Republicans control only the House and face a hostile media which aids the Democrats when the public is more aligned with them. If we go over the cliff then the media campaign will destroy the Republican Party in the next election as the press proclaims a return to Bush/Republican tax rates as Obama’s middle class tax cut. The House had no choice except to let some taxes go up.

      This is not the case with gun control. The public remains broadly supportive of gun rights. Those who vote for gun control don’t vote Republican. Some who vote for Democrats will change their vote to R in an off year election. Watch Virginia Republicans paint Terry McCauliffe as an out-of-touch gun grabber next November. The House leadership knows that there is no need to compromise.

      • avatarLance says:

        I agree taxes are one thing a ban this HUGE is another!

      • avatarSteve Ramsey says:

        If the republicans fail gun owners, they will cease to exist as a viable party.

        • avatarLance says:

          100% agree and it would be the death of the GOP if they adopt and pass any AWB threw there House. They know this I find no Republicans supporting this Sen Grassley Hatch and many reps already said NO to a AWB for us gun owners. Support them.

          As for this Its too BIG to pass its a weather balloon for Obama to see if a out right gun ownership ban in the US would have support. The only threat I thought of before we knew of the BIG BIG BIG ban was just to get the 1994 law resurrected IE laws would return to circa 2003. That the only real threat now we know they are going all for broke so I less worry about a passable thing coming.

          But lets support progunners in the House and senate. call and say NO! Kill the ban!

        • avatarMacBeth51 says:

          Who says the Republicans are viable as a party, after the last election, and the shenanigans that preceded it? Did Romney really act like he was trying to win the election, to you?

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Romney identified the problem early on. 47% of the electorate doesn’t pay taxes. That means the Democrats only need 3+% of the rest of the country to win. While not all of the 47% vote (D) the Democrats only need 10-15% of actual taxpayers to win at the national level. If people like you came out and voted Romney could of won. Purists just want to follow Pickett up that hill.

        • avatarMacBeth51 says:

          Vote for one gun-grabing liberal that calls himself a De, or vote for another gun-grabing liberal that calls himself a Repug. Big difference

      • avatarpat says:

        It will be an Executive Order if it (a ban) is anything of size or scope.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      It’s not the frontal assault (this bill) that worries me. It’s the other nefarious methods our government is now undoubtably planning. Think Fast and Furious x 1000.

  3. avatarjwm says:

    Fvck her. “Come and take them.”

    • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

      Sadly its not entirely feasible the usurpers won’t. DHS and even obscure govt agencies like Social Security have been quietly arming themselves to the teeth, purchasing millions of rounds of ammo and firearms in the last 2 years.

      Look at your local police depts, most likely they have “uparmored” with new tank like vehicles and SWAT teams.

      One of the reasons prices are high and availability limited are these monstrous purchases, obstensibly for “training.”

      Its not paranoid to see a Constitutional crisis and things getting ugly.

      • avatarCA_Chris says:

        I’ve seen the reports about various departments purchasing “millions of rounds of ammunition.” Their actual purchases only match the training needs of their modest enforcement branches, ie the IRS has its investigative unit and so does Social Security. I think the number for SS from earlier this year was actually in the 800,000 rounds range, which is not much for practice over a year even for a small group of armed investigators.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Please tell me who uses .357 sig hollow points for training.

        • avatarMike in NC says:

          Totenglocke: People who train with OPA (other people’s ammo), that’s who. When people buy their own for training, cheap FMJ becomes the order of the day.

        • avatarAsh says:

          A great number of Government agencies and contract agencies use hollow points for practice and quals (train as you fight) so it shouldn’t be that alarming that they’re not using FMJ.

    • avatarMacBeth51 says:

      Not with your hoohaa

  4. avatarDavid-p says:

    Time to put your boots on its getting deep. She can introduce anything she wants but it doesn’t mean that it will pass. I don’t know if we should thank her for this because it is soooooo far out there it doesn’t stand a chance to pass. There are flip floppers out there that had good ratings with the nra in the past and have stated that they are willing to talk about gun control. Difi,” they said they would talk about gun control, not rape the 2nd amendment”. This is not a ban on assault weapons this is a ban on 90% of guns being bought today.

    Don’t get me wrong it is important for us to make sure we are heard that we don’t want this. Join any or all the pro gun groups you want. Write, fax, phone, and email every member of congress you vote for and even some that you don’t. Tell them to vote NO, it is unconstitutional, and if they do vote for it you will spend the next years making sure a better person will take their place.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      If it doesn’t pass, Drone-Man will do it by Executive Decree. WATCH.

      • avatarDavid-p says:

        Defiantly a chance of that happing but just as likely that it would be brought before the Supreme Court. The last thing they want is a ruling from the Supreme Court saying this is unconstitutional. You see how they have already changed their tune from 2008 when they said no one needs a gun to we understand the need for some pistols and some for hunting. I would worry more about the congressional compromise. Difi is like a used car salesman. Starting at a ridiculous price just so you can walk away thinking you won by buy some watered down, piece of crap.

      • avatarJPD says:

        Sorry, wrong on that one. Executive orders cannot be used willy nilly. There are strict limitations on use. First, the are only granted to a POTUS when used with the direct authority granted him by the constitution. Secondly, only to enforce or administer an existing statute. That is from Congress. Lastly, executive orders are reviewed by Congress and the Supreme Court. Both of those entities can revoke an executive order.

        For further info, see this link:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf

        • avatarDavid-p says:

          Great info JPD. Love it when I learn something new and have a reference for it. See guns can teach you about history, government, responsibility, defense, and engineering. And my wife used to call them dumb. Luckily I still contact our reps under her name too. Lol

        • avatarLance says:

          I agree people are too paranoid on EO. This bill is the one to fight.

      • avatarSwarf says:

        If he does anything it will be because he’s being backed in to a corner by the bloody shirt wavers.

        I think he would have left well enough alone and tackled bigger/more important issues if not for the opportunistic vultures who are currently capitalizing on a tragedy.

  5. avatarscottlac says:

    Say goodbye to that shoulder thing that goes up. It’s a banned feature.

  6. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    DZ thank you for pointing out that nearly all handguns are banned in the proposal. For some reason the NRA is refusing to write about this.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      The NRA might not be saying this up front because they are waiting for the official proposal. We of course are reacting to what we think will be in the bill given the information we have. We won’t know until the official bill text is released.

      I was wondering though. What it the timeline for the public to view the bill text prior to it going to the floor for vote. I am just asking as I have become more politically involved over the last election cycle, and certainly more interested on not just gun stuff but everything the government is or isn’t doing.

      • avatarSammy says:

        “We have to pass the bill, ah, to see what’s in the bill.

      • avatarTom says:

        >>The NRA might not be saying this up front because they are waiting for the official proposal.

        They may leave the statutory language ambiguous and then by less-visibile regulation “interpret” the statute to ban most handguns. The use of vague statutes followed up by draconian regulations has become a hallmark of this neo-fascist administration.

      • avatarthe last Marine out says:

        What makes you think they read the bill’s , some aid may read most of it, was a book written years ago ,” What makes you think they read the laws”,,,this is done in meeting rooms , and orders are given by a party boss, it’s a FACT that already the new TEA PARTY congress members are being kept in the dark or have little to no say… THINK what you will do,It may likely pass. NOW , FEMA has lots of CAMPS all staffed and ready for you … And also what makes you think that these people know anything about anything… My trash man has more smarts! G-ments never were very good as god. We all have a Judgement day! Our comes FAST, maybe before Feb. 2013………

    • avatarscottlac says:

      This whole article came from the NRA. They aren’t refusing anything. They are engaged.

      Here is the same article from the NRA-ILA website.
      http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Thanks for the link…
        Let me clarify, they aren’t holding a national press conference because we don’t have the official text. I am sure if this in fact remains the NRA, GOA, SAF will all be lining up to stop it, buying air time on major networks etc.
        This type of legislation is unheard of in US history. Sure there might have been some things similar at the state level but this is ridiculous.
        If this is what goes before congress, all the supposed FUD people say the NRA is spreading will all be validated instantly.
        If POTUS decides to do this through EO, what recourse do we the people have to stop it?? I am asking honestly, no tin foil hat or anything.
        The idea is laws, legislation need to go through both houses, and there are checks and balances. SCOTUS is the last line of defense. If an EO goes through, unless SCOTUS were to set an immediate hold of any implementation this could be bogged down in litigation for years, meanwhile we will all be criminals.
        In government there is a process. That process was put in place for a reason. When we bypass it, and stop respecting that process then we are truly lost.

      • avatarTommy Knocker says:

        Thks for the correction. Looks like they posted that yesterday. I ‘ve been hoping they pointed out the handgun angle. I pinged their id on social media over the week.

  7. avatarSanchanim says:

    OMG the M1 carbine!!! My dad had one of those in Korea!

    @Dan.. Dude try and put these posts off until later in the afternoon. Cleaning up breakfast off my keyboard!

    This is truly a scary bill. I mean the interpretation could make a large number if not most guns illegal. DiFi is NOT stupid. She has learned from her last bill plus the bullet button fiasco we had here in CA.
    This will hopefully never make it past the Senate, and if it does, those who voted for it need to be made examples of.
    At that point only the house stands in the way. And if any EO’s are made, SAF and NRA, GOA, need to be ready to block it at every level.

    • avatarVaqueroJustice says:

      I am pretty sure that the inclusion of the M1 carbine
      is due to those carbines in Korea that the administration
      refuses to clear for import.

      I am surprised that the M1 Garand wasn’t included.

      • avatarRalph says:

        The Garand is a low capacity rifle and has an internal magazine, while the M1 Carbine has an external mag and high capacity.

      • avatarGuy22 says:

        Dan ~ 6.5 million M1 Carbines were made. US troops started getting them in mid 1942. (not 1944).
        Great little rifle. I have had one not 51 years. Need to get it out and shoot it more.
        I don’t know it it is true but I read the over day the ~ 1,000,000 or so that the USA sent to them during the war still belong to the USA. South Korea did not have the money to buy them. So we lent them to them and still legally own them.
        They aslo have ~ 10 billion rounds of ammo. South Korea has had to pay for the storage for years, and would like to give them back.
        I think CMP should get these. Seeing how they are over 70 years old, everybody in the USA who can legally buy one should have the chance too buy a little piece of history.
        This could generate say $3 ~4 billion in sells. Of course our Gov. would blow that in a day. But every little bit helps.
        That might be why her bill covers the M1 carbine.

        Guy22

  8. avatarMr Smith says:

    I’m worried, no I’m scared. gangbangers are increasing their numbers in our little town, violent crime is on the rise and now we have a government that wants to neuter us leaving our families defenseless. What happened to our wonderful country? What on God’s earth are we going to do to bring back sanity? I’m an old man I worked my whole life, now I’m on a fixed income with a few small caliber guns, I can’t buy an “assault rifle, I couldn’t afford to even shoot it if I had one. I just wanted to live out my years in peace now I fear a war in my backyard.. Mind you a righteous one if it happens, what’s the choice? That or do we prove them right and were just sheep anyway?

  9. avatarRoss says:

    This bill if passed can not be viewed than anything less than a willfull act of Treason by all its signers.

  10. avatarJPD says:

    Here we go again. First, no bill EVER gets through Congress like it is proposed. Next, this is nothing but grandstanding on her part to fulfill different goals. Further her career, make money under the table, look good to grieving families and friends in Connecticut, attempt to force a compromise that does indeed put limits on guns.

    If our vocal gun advocates were any good, they would be directing the conversation at the REAL causes behind these events and away from guns. Unfortunately, few of those advocates, including the NRA, are any good at that.

    So, after months of politicians plastered all over the media, NRA looking like idiots, we will basically get screwed.

    End result….they get re-elected. NRA president still pulls down $970,00 per year in salary, oh yeah, plus all his benefits. No magazines over 5 rounds, nothing in black, or plastic.

    OR:

    Do you guys like paint ball competitions?? Get ready, that will be your only legal firearm.

  11. avatarJeh says:

    Theres no way this will pass…
    Shed be screwing over not only over half of the US population but a large portion of our economy.
    But as long as her ignorant elitist self feels powerful and makes more money Americas downfall is ok am I right? Maybe she can make a new beverage made of tears from the innocent who couldn’t defend their families from intruders.
    She’ll have to go through way to many walls for this to ever pass anyway, id say at best it will be bare bones.
    And if that swine thinks ill give my gun to the government at death shes sorely mistaken, my Ar15 will be burried with me.

  12. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I got something for feinswine to chew on, the potential 100 million dollar CT lawsuit. It appears the attorney is going to allege a duty to protect. If he can proceed shes gotta wonder how that squares up with “you can’t have a good defensive weapon & we don’t give a sh.t if you can protect yourselves,families,children etc, Randy There is only one thing that will make these pricks change their tune, money, Randy

    • avatarKeith says:

      I see your point, but it is likely that such a suit, if successful, would lead to an armed official presence at all schools rather than reducing 2A infringement. The pols are more likely to see a duty to protect as a duty to disarm average citizens. Typical political perversion of duty. Sickening but not surprising.

    • avatarWill says:

      Ummm, one thing does trump money… Power… and they want absolute power… The corruption has already led them that way, and it will continue to do so until their dying day.

  13. avatarTRUTHY says:

    Hopefully the party of “Hell, No!” will continue to be the party of “Hell, No!”

  14. avatarguzzimike says:

    “Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.”

    So if someone puts one of those slanted forward handgrips on his levergun (do a Google search for “cowboy asssult rifle” to see what i mean) that has 11 rounds or more they’re going to consider THAT an “assault weapon”?

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Short answer yes….

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I just googled “cowboy assault rifle” and one of the first pictures was a black levergun with a Magpul AFG and an EOTech optic. Lose the bulky EOTech and put something smaller on there and Ill say its actually kinda cool looking.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I am still trying to better understand politics so as usual feel free to correct me on what I have to say.

      I am trying to remain opitimistic but while you all are giving bennefot of the doubt toa Republican dominate house or that these bans have been turned down before I cant help but ask, was the past fueld by three close togetjer spree killings one being an elementry school with a majority child victims?

      I am by no meams saying recent history justifies our governments actions. I just want to point out to some of the more complaicent (it wont happen) ones that there is obviously a LOT of weight riding on this. Mostly emotional yes but that dosnt change anything, I mean look how quickly we have come from Sandy Hook to already in a week a possible bill on the table.

      Someone please tell me Im overreacting

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      That second comment by me was not meant to be a reply but its own seperate post. I have no clue how this happened

  15. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    Meanwhile… What is grinnin’ Joe up to? Last I heard, his commission had not spoke to the NRA….

  16. avatarAccur81 says:

    Full Frontal Feinstein?! Truly horrifying!!!

    • avatarDavid-p says:

      If Feinstein says give up the guns or I’m going full frontal? That would be quite the quagmire, can’t gouge your eyes out and shoot. My God be with us.

  17. avatarNickbnumbers says:

    Never EVER put “Diane Feinstein” and “full frontal” in the same headline again. Ever. Seriously.

    Yuck

  18. avatarRoss says:

    I just hope and pray we are spending just as much time emailing and calling our law makers as we spending posting here…………

    • avatarJon says:

      Just mailed my Rep about the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act. I’ll be contacting my Senators next about the Feinstein bill.

  19. avatarJohn says:

    As a concerned gun owner and California resident Dianne Feinstein simply does not want you to own a firearm period. If you look at the laws here it has become very difficult to buy any firearm and will become even increasingly more difficult as time goes on. Again she does not want you to own any type of firearm if you are from this state you will know what I mean.

    She is a career politician who will be 80 years old next June and will say anything to get this bill passed. Don’t let her take away you 2nd amendment rights. I think allot of Gun Owners I guilty of not speaking up and making their voice heard. I just joined the NRA and I got one of my friends to join as well and I am committed to get even more of my friends to join as well.

    Now is the time to fight back if you are not a member of the NRA it is time to join. If you are recruit someone who is not. If all your friends are in the NRA write your congressmen of better yet write her. If you believe in Freedom, Independence, Self-reliance and more importantly accountability don’t sit there and let some other gun owners worry your rights, so make your voice heard. If you need to get motivated watch her video and her thoughts about gun control on Youtube.

    We will not take this anymore.

  20. avatarAnthony says:

    http://wh.gov/QoEF

    A link to a petition

  21. avatarCurzen says:

    the 2nd as per DiFi:

    A well regulated National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of legitimate hunters to keep and bear certain well regulated Arms, shall not be infringed upon more than political leaders deem necessary.

  22. avatarJM says:

    Why won’t she or the NRA publish the damn lists though?! This is ridiculous. NRA, you should be screaming this list to every media outlet (blogs included) to get it out there so that we can see just how badly she’s lost her mind!

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      The lists will be available on the 3rd I would think.
      It is important to note it isn’t just “THE LIST” It is any gun which under the new definitions could be construed at an “assault weapon”. Any modern pistol with more than 10 rounds sounds like it could be considered illegal. Shotguns with pistol grips?? Could be, don’t know..
      Needless to say if the wording is vague it is purposely done that way. Then Police can arrest almost anyone as having an illegal gun. Then you think they will ever get them back??

  23. avatarSammy says:

    No matter how you cut it we’re in for a $h!t storm of epic proportions. And these cork sackers are relentless. If they don’t pass it this session they’ll pass it next session or the session after that. There are more crises than ever. Fiscal cliff, crazy people with guns (sarcasm), the debt ceiling. This is starting to look like a NYC 3 card monte game. And conveniently nobody is questioning the Benghazi coverup. This proposed AWB is as much a fight with the media as with the antis.

  24. avatarCA_Chris says:

    Every gun in history has been “military-style with combat features.” This is like trying to ban “transportation-style driving features” from cars.

    • avatarWill says:

      Unless you believe CBS when they said that that Bushmaster 223 used in CT IS a military weapon. (So sad for you if you do though.)

  25. avatarKirk says:

    A convenient lust of questions I tried asking: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/380-gun-ban-questions-needing-answers

    I wonder if this is a head-fake it’s so egregious. That way, when there’s “compromise,” she and her cabal will appear all reasonable.

  26. avatarKirk says:

    A convenient list of questions I tried asking: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/380-gun-ban-questions-needing-answers

    I wonder if this is a head-fake it’s so egregious. That way, when there’s “compromise,” she and her cabal will appear all reasonable.

    • avatarSD3 says:

      Kirk, I think you nailed it.

    • avatarAnthony says:

      Before she tries to pass another change in what an assault weapon is, I want her to explain just how one clip fed semi auto rifle that looks like a military rifle is so much deadlier than a normal style clip fed rifle. How do looks make it deadlier? Then I wish she could explain how a 30 round clip is more deadler than 3 10 round clips.

  27. avatarJAS says:

    Chill, I’ve read the present summary and also what is known as the “1994 Assault Weapons Ban”, the latter being 15-pages, pages 201-215, of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994″, which was 356 pages long. Specifically it was Title XI – Subtitle A, and you can find it here:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

    Most everything is the same, with some minor exceptions and one big one. The BIG difference is the NFA registration. The bill will not pass. Now we have the benefit of history, that already has established that the ban did not work. Neither will the magazine ban pass, which by the way and as the summary reads right now, magazines will not be NFA items, only “weapons”. Also, as it reads right now, the “weapons” would be transferable as per NFA regulations. As with the 1994 bill, transfers, sales and manufacture would not be possible after enactment. And a date would have to be part of the serial number for new “weapons”. This means that all guns in the system before the enactment date would be grandfathered, whether sold or not.

    This bill will not pass. If you look at bills, there is a magazine ban bill introduced almost every year. Nevertheless, write every Congressman, every Senator. And write them often. The other side is doing it right now.

  28. avatarWA_2A says:

    Fvck this, I’m moving to Switzerland.

  29. avatarIdahoMan says:

    I may be ignorant on this, but someone answer me if they have the answer:

    When was the last time NRA went “full frontal assault” and tried to REPEAL federal gun-control laws instead of play defensive?

    The GCA68 has got to go. No more FFL dealers, 4473 forms, “sporting use” language and BATF.

    • avatarSammy says:

      I’m with you, but we’re dreamin’

    • avatarRockThisTown says:

      I’m with you too, IM. I’d like to see conservatives go on the offensive and file 2A friendly bills, i.e. 1. Eliminating sales tax on all firearms, ammo & gun safes (although that may have to be done at the state level); 2. Mandating firearms safety classes in schools (they can have sex education & “free” condoms but no firearms education?); and 3. Repeal ALL waiting periods. That’s for a start.

  30. avatarLarry says:

    Thought I would share what my wife just sent to our Senators and Representatives:

    Dear Senator,

    I’m writing you as a women and a Mother to express my discontent with the recent talk of banning guns and “high capacity” magazines. I care a lot about my children, the safety of their school, and my ability to protect myself.

    So called assault weapons and high capacity magazines are both popular and effective. For the same reason police use these guns, I wish to also remain having access to them.

    While the movies like to suggest that the good guy or girl takes down a criminal with one shot, in reality it’s very different. Because of the inaccuracy of using guns under-pressure, multiple attackers, and the increasing prevalence of bad guys using body armor; sporting guns like the AR15 and standard capacity round magazine holding 30 round or more should be legal and readily available.

    These “assault weapons” are overwhelmingly owned by law abiding citizens and used properly. Annually the number of deaths attributed to these guns are less than 100, yet tens of millions of them are owned by people just like my family.

    As a woman, I’m well aware that guns are the one thing that can make a 110 lb woman as powerful as a 200 lb male. For this reason alone, they should be legal and readily available.

    Finally, the second amendment affords ALL citizens the right to weapons for self-defense. Any restrictions on the “types” of guns, magazines, or ammo is nothing short of an attempt to neuter this right.

    I’m an active voter and any attempt to add ANOTHER gun law to the books rather than enforcing the existing ones will be remembered by myself, my family, and friends when I go to the voting booth.

    Respectfully,

    Mother and concealed carry permit holder

    • avatarJAS says:

      Excellent!

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      And this was the reply I just received from my Senator (MO)

      December 29, 2012

      Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

      On Friday, December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and began shooting teachers and students before taking his own life. This horrific tragedy took the lives of 27 people, including 20 children seven years of age and younger. As a mother, I’m horrified and stunned by the senseless violence against innocent children and teachers.

      This tragedy has led to renewed and important discussions about gun control, which is often a divisive topic in our nation. The loss of so many beautiful children in a mass shooting that involved an assault rifle with ammunition clips that held large numbers of bullets makes clear that we need to revisit the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and review permissible magazine ammunition sizes. I am also supportive of closing the gun show loophole and making sure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns. Finally, it is equally clear that we must reconsider the mental health services available to our citizens, knowing that each mass shooting our nation has experienced involved individuals with substantial mental health problems. “Obamacare” will expand important mental health coverage when it is implemented in 2014. Protecting our children and our citizens will require us to come together to find real solutions that cover a broad range of factors that have contributed to these horrific incidents.

      I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri. Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment. I believe the horror of the Newtown shootings makes clear that we must get to work protecting our communities and our children from mass slaughter, while also protecting our Second Amendment rights. I am hopeful that the National Rifle Association, a significant voice in this discussion, will be a constructive part of this dialogue.

      Even as I welcome this renewed debate, please know that I will continue to protect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to safely own and use appropriate firearms. In the past, I have voted to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms. I also supported an amendment to a spending bill that would prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen. I have opposed other inappropriate measures, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states’ firearms laws.

      As your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind anytime Congress considers gun-related legislation. In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, my prayers are with the students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary, and with their families. All Americans are outraged at senseless and criminal gun violence no matter where they may fall in the debate on guns in American society. A renewed national conversation has begun and we must all be a constructive and open-minded part of it. There is middle ground here, where this nation can come together with sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens, while we continue to respect our Constitution and its Second Amendment rights.

      Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

      Sincerely,

      Claire McCaskill
      United States Senator

      • avatarLarry says:

        “Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment.”

        I call B.S. We specifically need weapons designed to kill. That’s the whole purpose of self defense.

        • avatarTaurus609 says:

          And did you catch her line about…”I have opposed other inappropriate measures, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states’ firearms laws” Which is her way of justifying her vote against the first National CC reciprocity act!

      • avatarWA_2A says:

        “I support the 2nd amendment, but…”

        These two-faced lying hypocrites.

        Since when was the AR-15 a weapon used to kill soldiers in war? And HOW is it not used for hunting?! IMHO it is the greatest rifle for hunting: accurate, versatile, and capable of harvesting any game in the lower 48 through changeable uppers.

      • avatarSammy says:

        Well first, McCaskill is notorious for being an anit gun, er woman. She barely won her last election so I guess she’s another Mandate Candidate. Reading her reply reinforces my skepticism about writing to these ruling class loons. I’ve joined, in addition to the prerequisite NRA membership, and sent additional bucks to GOA, SAF, NAGR, along with writing to those politicos that haven’t buckled yet. This is a battle for our lobbyists. You’ll get your money back, plus, by lower prices (a 6920 for 1,800.00?) if they can get this thing killed.

        • avatarSammy says:

          Correction. A colt 6920 LEO is now 2,100.00! Maybe this whole gun grab is a veiled QE something.

  31. avatarLarry says:

    I would encourage you to all have your wives/daughters write a letter and call your representatives in Washington. I believe the pro-gun message carries more weight when it comes from a woman.

    • avatarAharon says:

      It does. The past forty years has taught us that the needs, complaints, requests, and demands by white heterosexual males are ignored by government. Women are listened to by government.

  32. avatarBud says:

    Please don’t take any of this lightly and please do not think for a moment that she can’t get this done. More than 60% of Americans were against ObamaCare on the day the final vote was taken.

    They do not care what the majority wants done. They are coming after all guns and this time i think they may have a chance of getting it them.

    The revolution isn’t coming, it’s already here and the leadership and the media have idfentified all us as the “bad guys”.

    We can lose this if everyone doesn’t stand up and demand that this be ended once and for all time.

  33. avatarBLAMMO says:

    “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation …”

    (“… I was simply waiting for a psychosis-induced bloodbath to introduce it. Thankfully, all my hard work won’t go to waste.”)

  34. avatarRobbie says:

    A few times when she has tried this the bill has died in committee. Wonder what the chances are of it not even being voted on ? That would be ideal.

  35. avatarMacBeth51 says:

    Many conservative writers when covering the subject, and also many lawyers and judges who really should know better, speak of “Second Amendment Rights”. The right to keep and bear arms, are, in fact, not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is necessary to be able to enjoy the right to self defense. Like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are fundamental rights. They, like the the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are among the “self evident” rights. Are the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” no longer in existence because they are not enumerated in the Constitution? All the rights enumerated still exist,even without the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution exists, not to grant rights, but to limit Government power. Strictly speaking, the term “Constitutional Rights” is a misnomer.

    Note also, when the Founding Fathers spoke of self defense, they didn’t mean just defense from common criminals. They also included self defense against the Government, and in their writings they show that they felt that the public, the people had the right to any weapons the military had, so as to be in a position to resist them.

    The whole Bill of Rights was considered superfluous by many of the Founding Fathers. It was insisted on by men who had the mindset of what, in this day and age, we would call a safety engineer. Belt and suspender types. Thank heaven for them. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian”, Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress was one of those men insisting upon that bill of rights. He wrote “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Notice that the “power of the sword” the right to keep and bear arms is not under the authority of the Federal OR State Governments, it resides with the people

    Our natural rights, fundamental rights, god given rights, call them what you will, have been under assault almost before the ink of the signatures on the Constitution was dry. Every branch of Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, has attempted to limit the rights of the people, while enhancing their own power. They are, as a whole enemies of the people, and of individual liberty

  36. avatarlolinski says:

    How would this ban semi automatic rifles? since technicaly the gas piston “slides” inside the weapon obviously making it a slide action firearm.

  37. avatarGS650G says:

    Too bad this is all unconstitutional. I hope a significant number of Senators not in protected seats follow her on this because it won’t be enough to pass yet might clear out some people who are well past retirement from their seats.

  38. avatarRalph says:

    “This bill will not pass.”

    That’s exactly what people said about Obamacare.

    • avatarMacBeth51 says:

      If it gets through soon enough that it can make it to the Supreme Court before BO can replace one of the more conservative members, it could actually be a good thing. She’s over-reaching herself so badly that so far none of the major gun control groups have signed on

  39. avatarSammy says:

    This is a kick in the a$$ to every person, in or out of uniform, who has sacrificed even just portions of their lives (let alone The Fallen), for our freedoms for the past 237 years. The founders risked life, family and fortune to establish an imperfect system that was the best humanity has devised to date. Yet we, and our descendants, have let it come to this through complacency, indifference, and by granting a sense of entitlement to people for merely existing. The narcotic of liberty blinded us from the encroaching evil that plagues us today. If capable of seeing the fruits of their labors today, I would not be surprised to hear George or Ben, or any of the other 56 signers say ‘What did we waste our time and risk our lives for?” They raised the bar for humanity in harder times, all we had to do was maintain it.

  40. avatarMacBeth51 says:

    In 1939, in USA vs Miller, The Supreme Court decided that a Sawed of shotgun was not covered by the 2nd Amendment, because it was not used by the military. Their finding was that the 2nd Amendment only applied to Military weapons. Why has no one in the seventy-four years since applied this decision? The Supreme court has already, in effect, stated that the only weapons covered by the 2nd Amendment are the fully automatic versions of those Fine-Swine is trying to band

  41. avatarDave S says:

    What do you expect from the folks who told us that we have to pass the bill to find out whats in it?

    These folks are who the founding fathers had in mind!!

Leave a Reply

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