Still Confused About DiFi’s Bill? Tim Harmsen Lays it Out for You

49 Responses to Still Confused About DiFi’s Bill? Tim Harmsen Lays it Out for You

  1. avatardirk diggler says:

    As an amendment to this bill, the republicans should add that any sponsor, co-sponsor or member who votes in favor of this proposed bill shall NOT be allowed to possess a firearm on their person, or in their home, car or office, nor shall they be allowed to have a concealed carry permit, nor shall they be allowed to have or avail themselves of any public or private security, armed or not, nor shall anyone in their immediate vicinity be allowed to come to their aid or render assistance in the event of an attack.

    Problem solved.

    • avatarRoss says:

      Outstanding idea

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      +1000!!
      And also add in” any such person who is in possession of said weapons or security personnel at the time they vote for this bill shall immediately be stripped of all rights to vote, free speech and their personal weapons and belongings, and said possessions shall be given to their nearest neighbor who voted against this bill”. “Also any person who votes for or supports this shall be immediately fitted with a non removable voice activated shock collar, programmed to emit a sustained 5,000 volt shock every time they use the words help, gun, knife, assistance, security, police or law enforcement!!!

    • avatarLars says:

      A realistic amendment to add would be one that forbids any future bans or gun control legislation. Thee most important one is not banning ammo and reloading material, without ammo what would it matter what gun I have? Let’s get this done right once and for all. Let’s give them a little, whatever that may be I don’t know as any new restrictions and bans would do nothing to lower crime rates of any kind, but they will demand something for a compromise so we will lose some things no matter what we do.
      I agree with your amendment and think it’s legit, but they will never pass laws that prevent them from doing anything. They won’t even pass term limits, lower salaries, restrictions on becoming a lobbyist after serving or even a benefits reduction to help the rest off us pay for their spending bills. We are the people they are in control. Even republicans think they are better then us citizens, but the real problem is government itself having these massive powers. The gun-grabbing folks wouldn’t even have a leg to stand on if we had legit government. I wonder if most even know Reagan started this ban nonsense back when he was governor of CA with the Mulford Act which banned carrying firearms anywhere, whether on your person or in your car. He supported the 15-day waiting period over the 7 and he urged Bush I to drop his opposition against new gun control laws. The Clinton Assault weapons ban had republican support, as a matter of fact near the expiration of that ban more republicans introduced bills to not only keep it active but to expand the list of weapons in the ban. What I’m saying is we the people, we the people that support gun rights, do not have many friends in government and even though we are a majority in the population the media along with government is doing their best to make it seem we are a minority. We need to give them some bones, but at the same time we need to pass legislation that prevents them from ever doing this again.
      It’s 50/50 folks, it should of never got this far. Both political parties have screwed us bad on personal rights and freedoms. If it doesn’t end with this fight we are in trouble.

    • avatarE.Berg says:

      Sadly I cannot agree with denying ANYONE the right to self defense or being helped if being attacked. Also, adding such a amendment would not apply if the bill doesn’t pass, which its looking like it won’t because it is too lofty, its both a giant axe to the firearms industry, is going against the supreme courts decision in Heller vs DC. People are allowed their opinion, now if you want to create a law that would kick people like Feinstein out of Politics for their attempted infringements on the constitution? I can get behind that.

  2. avatarChris says:

    If everything is grandfathered in, wouldn’t putting all these banned weapons and even magazines into an NFA trust prior to this becoming law allow anyone in the trust to possess these until the trust is revoked? That’s how it works now, right?

    • avatardirk diggler says:

      Shhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!

    • avatarPascal says:

      It depends, she will be mucking with the NFA bill which means she can mess with the NFA trust too. I asked an attorney who deals with this and he said he wants to see the actual law. The trust may not matter.

      • avatarTim says:

        Exactly. She apparently has been doing her homework about the NFA. She’s likely aware of trusts and I’m sure the new bill will exempt “assault rifles” from trust protections. If not, it would be a great loophole for sure. All we can do is wait and see what the bill looks like.

        • avatarsurlycmd says:

          Yep, a great loophole. Except that you have to register them. In 10 or 15 years when crime doesn’t drop enough for them, confiscation will be very easy.

        • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

          surlycmd, I’m not sure confiscation would be easy… they do have to make it past the front door…

        • avatarsurlycmd says:

          No they don’t. Remember Waco. All they have to do is burn your house down with you and your guns in it.

          Unlikely but who knows how far the gov’t will go long after we are become an ex-parrot. I have a crystal ball I bought in Hong Kong years a go. It only gets one channel and it shows snow all the time.

        • avatarLars says:

          Private sales surlycmd. 1/3 of all firearms owned are bought from private sales. No record for most of those. This is a “loophole” they will go after to and one they might very likely get.

  3. avatarMotoJB says:

    What about the use of bullet buttons on AR’s legally purchased and owned prior to any possible new ban?

    • avatarTim says:

      It seems they will be grandfathered but the rifles will still be classified as “assault weapons” and will need to be registered on the NFA.

  4. avatarGS650G says:

    Too bad the bitch doesn’t have 59 fellow democrats in the Senate or a HoR in Democrat hands.

    • avatardirk diggler says:

      Pls don’t insult female dogs or place them in the same category as that old hag whore. . .

    • avatarLars says:

      True. But remember, a handful of republicans will support most bans. And the two independents vote dem. The house is just as iffy, republicans only hold a 33 seat lead, there are plenty of anti-gun republicans nowadays. Let’s hope for the best because our opinions and votes mean nothing.

    • avatarpat says:

      It will be an Executive Order by Barry if anything of significance is to become law.

  5. avatarKat says:

    I may need to write Difi and explain by banning some shotguns, some pistols and some rifles, she is leaving a lot of women vulnerable to assault, rape, murder. Since we do not have the luxury of armed security, we have to take care of ourselves.
    Also what about the vulnerable elderly, also preyed upon by bad guys with guns, or knives, telephone or lamp cords, bare hands Need to ban those items as well. Since these spree killings are done primarily by men, does she want ban them as well? I don’t think she has a gun problem, I think she has a man problem. She needs to work that out with a good therapist and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

    • avatarEvan says:

      That would be a good thing to send to your congressman, but Feinstein does not care about your security. If she did she would have pushed to allow others in san Francisco to have CHL permits. She just gave herself one instead. Because, well… She was special because she had death threats. Something no one else probably had in the entire city.

    • avatarNickS says:

      Sadly, she will gladly smile and tell women to carry mace and call 911. Even more sadly, she will be effectively be condeming people of all the categories you mentioned to fates determined by their would-be attackers.

      Dianne Feinstein and those who would support her efforts with this bill are effectively a criminal’s best friend. How they continue to be re-elected is a mystery to me.

      • avatarCA_Chris says:

        The GOP candidates in CA have been worse, or nonexistent, in the last few cycles. Independents don’t stand a chance of even getting noticed, so DiFi gets a pass year after year.

  6. avatarTim says:

    This link will take you to a Congressional website where you can quickly and easily email your Senators, Congressmen and the President: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

    You may use this message to send to your Senators, Congressmen and the President:

    —————-

    Greetings,

    Due to the recent events at Sandy Hook elementary school we now face renewed threats to our Constitutional rights. While I understand how painful the loss must be for those touched by this tragedy, blaming firearms or their owners and punishing them is not the answer to the challenges we face as a nation.

    We already have laws that were violated by a man who was likely psychotic and heavily medicated. This man was stopped by the mandatory background check from purchasing firearms. He then decided to murder his mother and take her legally owned firearms to commit this tragedy.

    If your true goal is to protect our children, then enact legislation that will do that. Banning firearms that are rarely used in crime (less than 1% of the time) is not going to stop such tragedies, that was proven in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place under the 1994 ban. Do something meaningful, please. Make committing the insane easier. Put armed security guards in our schools. But do not strip us of our rights and property by passing additional anti-gun laws that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.

    Thank you.

    • avatarNickS says:

      Done and done. I can only hope that everyone does the same, if they haven’t already. Thank you for your clear and concise explanation of the challenges we face. The more outlets we use, the more voices we have, the less likely we’ll be burdened by this rediculous assault on our rights.

      Apparently we need a law banning assaults on our freedoms. An Assault Bill Ban.

  7. avatarST says:

    Beware the Gut & Amend tactic.If this is attached to something critical like the Federal Budget we could be in for a rough time of things in DC.

  8. avatarWoodekt says:

    Even if the most extreme proposed law was passed and in place, it wouldn’t have stopped that kid from the sandy hook incident – even 10 round pistol mags. So it’s really that they have their foot in the door and are taking the opportunity to pass these laws with fear and “safety” in mind by using sandy hook as the catalyst.

    I still wish this issue was more about crazy people than guns, as it should be. But you can’t ban crazy, and everyone wants to be a hero with the solution to have a law passed banning something so they can have their name on it.

  9. avatarZak says:

    Letter sent

  10. avatarTony says:

    We’ve been approaching a fiscal cliff for how long now? And yet some government officials are able to get a bill up and running and ready for action in a couole weeks? WTF?! We need to get rid of all government officials who violate their oath to protect the constitution. What’s an oath if they’re not going to actually do it?

    • avatarDonS says:

      Feinstein has been working on this bill for quite some time. She’s just using Sandy Hook as an opportunity. From her .gov web site:

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

  11. avatarjoe says:

    it won’t pass as this version, if it did we wouldn’t have enough prison space to keep all the newly minted criminals…

    • avatarpat says:

      Not only that, but there would be thousands of Waco Texas’ and Ruby Ridges. It would be a slaughterfest and completely ridiculous. I cant see anything near an elected majority of officials going for such nonsense.

  12. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    That dumb ass “frankenstein ” (I know he’s not as ugly as this bitch) is following Hilters example and we’ll soon lose all our guns. I never thought I’d be saying that, but we’re really screwed this time. Those no good COMMIES have arrived and they’re going to ban all guns one step at time until no one has a gun (except for the bad guys).

  13. avatarAnthony says:

    http://wh.gov/QoEF

    I started a petition. It is to not allow ANY gun laws be dealt with until the general public actually knows the difference between assualt rifles and assault weapons. I believe if people were informed on the fact that assault weapons are no more than semi auto with cosmetics, they may see they arent as scary as they think…

    • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

      I just signed your petition and I sure hope it works.

      • avatarAnthony says:

        Thanks for the support. I am honestly not getting my hopes up. There still needs A LOT of signatures. However, I figured it is worth a shot. Better than just bitching about it…

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      I’m not sure your assumption is correct. I have seen some in the media shift to the phrase “fire 5 or 6 bullets in a second.” A semi-auto is well capable of achieving that rate of fire. Doesn’t matter that it wouldn’t be accurate. I believe the uninformed won’t care about the difference but will be scared of something that can fire “so fast.” I hope I’m wrong.

      • avatarAnthony says:

        I agree. I didn’t so much assume, as hope. Why I used the words “believe” and “may”. I dont expect every informed person to care, but if I can get some to at least take things in consideration, that would be better than nothing. If by some crazy ass chance the petition actually worked, it at the very least would make it to where nothing would be done for a while. Give people time to get over the emotions.

  14. avatarLance says:

    I still doubt very very much this bill itself would see the light of day especially in the GOP House. But I agree time to call your progun Reps and Senators and say Kill the Ban!

  15. avatarJ in Ga says:

    HELLO?!?

    Anyone going to mention that it costs $200 per NFA item for the tax stamp, not to mention the time off work to drive around and get pictures,fingerprinted, etc.

    You own an AR, a home-defense shotgun, two semi-auto pistols, and another bare lower. Thats $1000!

  16. avatarSanchanim says:

    I am from California, and I just feel sick.. I mean literally..

  17. avatarGreg Camp says:

    The sad truth is that even if this new gun ban fails–and I see that as likely, given the current makeup of the House and Senate–the control freaks won’t stop. The urge to manage the lives of others is the worst kind of addiction.

  18. avatarMark N. says:

    One thing missed is that, unless excepted (and we have yet to see the exceptions), this bill literally bans the sale of ALL semiautomatic handguns that accept a detachable magazine, and all semiautos with a fixed magazine that accept more than ten rounds (never seen a semiauto with a fixed mag, but I hear they were invented long long ago but not well-received). So that’s a photo ID and a background check and fingerprints (est. $150) PLUS a $200 tax stamp for each pistol if you want to keep your grandfathered handguns. The obvious purpose is that many people will not or cannot afford the cost of registering their handguns and will turn them in instead.
    And it also means that every manufacturer of handguns who does not also make revolvers is out of business the day this bill becomes law. Goodbye Springfield, Kimber handguns, Glock, Sig, Kahr, Kel-Tech, Walther, …..

  19. avatarmike0101 says:

    If this proposed law passes it will make the Gun Laws up here in Canada look reasonable! Good luck, I hope for you guys it doesn’t pass and keep up the good work Tim.

  20. avatarDon says:

    Guys, in Mac’s video description he has this really useful website for contacting all of your senators, representatives, and the president through one form. I’m copying it here for convenience:

    This link will take you to a Congressional website where you can quickly and easily email your Senators, Congressmen and the President: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

    You may use this message to send to your Senators, Congressmen and the President:

    —————-

    Greetings,

    Due to the recent events at Sandy Hook elementary school we now face renewed threats to our Constitutional rights. While I understand how painful the loss must be for those touched by this tragedy, blaming firearms or their owners and punishing them is not the answer to the challenges we face as a nation.

    We already have laws that were violated by a man who was likely psychotic and heavily medicated. This man was stopped by the mandatory background check from purchasing firearms. He then decided to murder his mother and take her legally owned firearms to commit this tragedy.

    If your true goal is to protect our children, then enact legislation that will do that. Banning firearms that are rarely used in crime (less than 1% of the time) is not going to stop such tragedies, that was proven in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place under the 1994 ban. Do something meaningful, please. Make committing the insane easier. Put armed security guards in our schools. But do not strip us of our rights and property by passing additional anti-gun laws that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.

    Thank you.

  21. avatarMotoJB says:

    Letter sent…twice. I’m going to send daily.

  22. avatarLars says:

    Even the Dept. Of Justice says a renewal of the assault weapons ban would do nothing to prevent gun crimes. So what’s the point? This is obviously just about disarming us, it has nothing to do with children or crime or death. It’s a real conspiracy. Slap me silly, those Alex Jones nuts were right.

  23. avatarLars says:

    Just watched the video. I can say that almost none of what he says will happen IMO. He is laying out the maximum the anti-gun folks will come out with, after compromise, even with a weak republican fight, it will not be half as bad as he leads us to believe. Not saying he isn’t doing right for EMPHASIZING, this is a VERY IMPORTANT TIME, and everything he says IS IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, but in the end as long as we voice our concerns this ban will be as meaningless and weak as the 94 ban with some exceptions. Mandatory registration will not happen. Firearms whether considered assault or not, will not be forced to have fixed magazines or feeds. They will try to tax out ammo, put limits on ammo, put limits on weapons, ban hi-cap mags I agree that will happen, they will ban threading on black rifles along with any barrel attachments, they will restrict and set new rules for class 3 weapons which affects almost none of us, they will ban SBRs and SBSs.
    Honestly, just how the NRA reacts to the NFA proposal will say it all. We will know much more from that point. And the details of the FeinStein assault weapons ban legislation will be an interesting read when this hyperbole comes out.

  24. avatarAlan Rose says:

    Well, she might have done her homework, and consulted with the ATF, but I’ve noticed one glaring omission in her “sweeping” legislation: Bump-fire stocks. They appear to still be under the radar.

Leave a Reply

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