NRA-ILA press release [via ammoland.com]:

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- On December 16, Rep. David Cicilline [above, left] and 123 other Democrat members of the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, a bill virtually identical to S. 150, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate in 2013 . . .

For the moment, the ban has little chance of passing. Feinstein’s legislation was defeated in 2013, no similar legislation was even considered in the House at that time, and Feinstein’s two attempts to push the ban this year—most recently after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino—failed as well.

However, things could change in 2016. The leading contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning on the most anti-gun platform of any candidate in American presidential history. Meanwhile, though the leading candidates for the Republican Party’s nomination are far friendlier to the Second Amendment than Clinton, support has not yet galvanized behind the one who will ultimately be selected to carry the party’s banner going into Election Day.

It is important to note that H.R. 4269, like other federal “assault weapon” bills introduced over the last decade, would not “reinstate” the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004. Gun control supporters have been using the word “reinstate” to mislead the American people into thinking they are proposing to renew the ban that expired in 2004. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 1994 ban allowed manufacturers to produce AR-15s without flash suppressors and one or two other external attachments, and to make similar adjustments to other firearms. As a result, the number of AR-15s made and sold during the 10 years the ban was in effect was a quarter of a million greater than the number produced and sold during the preceding 10 years. Additionally, 50 million magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds were allowed to be imported while the ban was in effect. CBS 60 Minutes reported that the first year of the “ban” was “the best year for the sales of assault weapons ever.”

For these reasons, the Violence Policy Center, which in 1988 urged anti-gun activists to focus on “assault weapons” as a “new topic” to “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby,” described the 1994 ban as a “fictional ban,” “a ban in name only . . . [and a] “charade.”

The new ban proposed in H.R. 4269 is another story. It would prohibit the manufacture of most detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, numerous semi-automatic shotguns configured for defensive purposes, any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds (except for a tubular magazine .22), any semi-automatic pistol like the HK SP-89, any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds, revolving cylinder shotguns, various other named and described firearms, frames and receivers of banned guns, and ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, except those for tubular .22 rimfire rifles.

Two weeks ago, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that the American people oppose an “assault weapon” ban by a 53%-45% margin. Presumably, if the American people knew the vast differences between the 1994 ban and the one currently being proposed, that margin would widen considerably.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and express your opposition to H.R. 4269. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 or write your lawmakers here: https://www.nraila.org/take-action/write-your-lawmakers/
About the NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, please visit: www.nra.org. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Recommended For You

77 Responses to 124 House Dems Introduce New/Old Gun Ban, Mag Limit

  1. This has as much chance to pass as the safe hearing bill. I read this and it actually gives you a list of Firearms “you are allowed” to own. F all those 124. Can we still tar and feather in 2015?

    • The next time someone tells you that there is no difference between the parties remember this. They ARE coming for your guns.

      A vote for a Democrat is a vote for gun control. Every Democrat in office strengthen the party that stands on a platform for taking away your rights.

      • Ever notice what the Republicans fight the hardest for – and they can stand and make a very effective fight when they want to; they fight to prevent any true conservative from gaining power withing the Republican party, note Ted Cruz and Trump.

        They play divide and conquer, good cop bad cop, however you want to call it.

        They are working with the Democrats, Republicans are not working for your individual liberties, they are working against them.

        • I now describe the Republican party as being, in many respects, “Democrat Light”. If you look at the long term trends, by and large all the Republicans do is slow down the descent to the ultimate Progressive destination … they rarely seem to actively reverse the trend.

          Saying it another way, I think the Republican party of today is, by and large, the Democrat party of the 1950s.

        • Currently the ONLY value of the republican party is that a third party conservative has NO CHANCE of winning and will take enough votes from any Republican candidate that the Democrat is certain to win in most cases.

          As a result any true conservative candidate, if they hope to hold national elective office, must defeat the Republican primary candidate first and run in their place. To do otherwise is political suicide for the true conservative candidate and for the people they are hoping to represent.

          Chooz Cruz.

    • Really? Because this is a copy of the NY SAFE act. A Bill that “would never pass”. So Cuomo enacted a “Message of Necessity” and passed the bill with 30 minutes of review.

      • You answered that yourself. ” NY “safe act, NY is not all 50 states. Even my anti gun (D) rep didn’t put a name to this!

      • That sure help us look like reasonable, respectable citizens. Let’s shoot people who disagree with us! That’s the way to show we honor the law and the country that gave them to us. Doesn’t give any ground to people supporting this proposed bill at all. *sigh*

        • No – but it was sure funny! I laughed. I mean it wasn’t politically correct for sure. Keep in mind he may not have been saying “let’s shoot who disagrees with us” but more like “let’s shoot those who seek to take our rights and freedoms from us.” They certainly are different statements.

        • Or it’s simply from the gun control side trolling in order foster sympathy for their cause.

          The comments from the gun control side would seem to condone shooting gun owners as well. The internet is going to internet, I guess.

        • I get your point – we certainly do not want to go around making incendiary threats.

          At the same time, though, at what point does this turn into a fight? Does it require the opposing side making an end move against our rights? Do we, as considerate gun owners, need to allow our guns to be taken away without basis and then fight to get them back?

          I seriously wonder… At what point does this cross the line?

          I know where the line is for me as an individual. Each of you may know as well for yourselves. At what point do we stand up and actually say “enough – this is now a fight”?

          I wonder how events in the 1700’s would play out today. I wonder how much tyranny we’d be willing to swallow, rhetoric aside. I wonder if… there even is revolution in us anymore. People these days barely stand up to the people they allowed or put in office when they put the screws to us.

        • Every one off the varmints of their own free will swore an oath to defend the Constitution. So what should the penalty be for violating their oath?

    • What’s scary is 124 persons elected to Congress who took an oath to support and defend The Constitution of the United States of America but who seem to have not read the document and are only too willing to ignore the Bill of Rights.

      If they will ignore the Second Amendment because they don’t like it, but refuse to use the mechanism in Article V of the Constitution to amend, revise or repeal the 2A, then they cannot be trusted to support any of the Constitutionally protected rights in the Bill of Rights.

      This is all political theater, people. We will see a lot of this in the next 10 months because for some reason the Progressives have convinced themselves that this is a vote-getter from their low-information voter constituency. They know full well that this will never be passed, but they get miles of free publicity from the media for their attempts to “DO Something!”

  2. Oh look, they didn’t forget me;

    “(ii) All AR types, including the following:

    “(I) AR–10.”

    Also, no more bump stocks;

    “(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”

    Lot of badness in there….

    • Start stockpiling rubber bands! And did you notice what a SHORT LITTLE SHIT Cicilline is? Short people with power are always trouble.

      Read quickly before deletion.

    • “(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”

      Which could include ALL aftermarket triggers, rubber bands, magazines larger than one round, et cetera, so on, so forth. I swear, every time the left introduces a new bill, they intentionally make it as vague as possible.

      I know I’m not supposed to attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but look what happened with the commerce clause…

    • I bet you that you could get them to knee-jerk ban the AR-7 survival rifle (a .22lr that breaks down for compact lightweight storage) just because it has “AR” in the name (due to being another Armalite design, of course)

  3. OK, all you “there is no difference on gun policy between the major parties” folks, and/or all you spokesman for all those “pro-gun Democrats” that we need to avoid “alienating” because they are such a big part of the 2A community: Can you guys explain why it is always “[fill in number here] Congressional Democrats propose [fill in gun-grabbing scheme here]” ? When have you guys ever seen “[fill in number] Congressional Republicans propose [fill in gun-grabbing scheme]” ? Even the occasional “bipartisan” gun-grab proposal boils down to scores of Dems and one or two slave state R’s. Or am I imagining all this? I don’t think so. And don’t go telling me about those R’s that ultimately go along with some of this crap. Why is it always Dems who propose it in the first place? And how do all those rank-and-file pro-gun Democrats out there address it, other than by either continuing to vote the same folks into office or bolting the party?

  4. Despite dramatization by the news media long guns (not just “assault weapons”) kill very few people in the US year to year; way too hard to conceal.

    • This is what I find most amusing about the “gun control” movement. They all grab for the weapons least instrumental to America’s violent crime problem. Probably has a lot to do with the leftist corporate media’s 180-degrees-opposite-reality obfuscation, wherein they trumpet man-bites-dog mass shooter stories, and sweep the dog-bites-man urban criminal stories under the rug. Probably because the former is one of the best places to find a Great White Male Defendant, whereas the latter is young, black, and male with a consistency that leftists find disturbing.

      So, they focus on the non-problem of “assault weapons,” a favorite of law-abiding, suburban and rural white males (i.e., leftists’ political enemies), and ignore the huge problem of handguns, a favorite of the urban criminal class, and the urban whites (i.e., leftists’ political allies) they sometimes prey upon.

      (I’m pro-2A and I don’t consider hanguns a problem, but if you jump into the shoes of a lefty, you have to try to explain why they wouldn’t)

      • Oh they do, ultimately they would ban all – the anti-gunners just know if they went straight to handguns they would fail and fail hard.

        Ultimately they see assault weapons as low hanging fruit. It’s a divide and conquer strategy. They are desperate to get “any” ban to stick a the federal level, because once they can successfully keep “1 type” or class of arm banned, then they can go back and attack others. THis way they can pretend – “we do respect the 2nd Amendment!!! See lookit all the types of guns we don’t want to ban {right now}… we only want the evil ones”…

        • I think they know that when the SHTF it’s the AR-15 s and the like that citizens will turn to to “water the tree of liberty.” Or yea, could be they’re just stupid.

  5. This has been going around social media for at least ten days. I would have expected more expedient reporting form TTAG, write your reps, the 124 that put their nane on it are all liberal lackeys who should be tried for treason.

    • A trial is only necessary when you don’t have a signed confession. Last time I checked, traitors got stood up against a wall and shot.

      • They all swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Violating that has to have some legal ramifications.

        “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” – Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code.

  6. How’s this for stupidity: They ban the Mini 14 by name, but exempt the Mini 14 and Mini Thirty by name.

    It seems the point is to ban AR and AK type rifles and pistols and to kill off any new innovations. Is there any other market that is explicitly restricted from developing new products?

    So all one would have to do for this is to come out with a new rifle that isn’t based on those named. That would take about an hour of engineering time. Then its just a matter of illogically banning cosmetic features.

    Its a special kind of stupid with these people.

    • The tacticool version is banned, not the wood stock version. Because with a wood stock it is not longer “scary looking.”

  7. “…to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

    I would say that this sentence is the framing for their end-game.

    We need to amend the second amendment with modernized language that leaves no room to be misinterpreted…

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute, and shall not be infringed.”

    Would THAT work?

    • “The individual right of the people to keep and bear the same arms as military and police is absolute, and shall not be infringed. Any elected official who attempts to infringe this right in anyway will be tried by the people for treason.”

      That would work for me.

      • I would like to see that as well, though much more unlikely…

        Modern lawmakers are different from our founding fathers in that they don’t like to give people the power to arrest, kill, or otherwise remove them from their position of authority.

    • I’d be sure to add the words “not limited” as that is the language the courts and legislation is using. Even this bill says its purpose is to put limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

  8. Here’s the popvox link if anybody’s into that: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr4269

    If you’re not signed up there, it’s worth it. They keep track of bills moving through Congress, and let you support or oppose a bill. You can then write out a message that will be delivered to your Representatives & Senators explaining your position.

  9. Is Obama about to kiss and dip Cicilline in that pic or what??!

    I can almost hear the music playing:

    “Gungrabbers in the night exchanging glances
    Wond’ring in the night what were the chances
    We’d be sharing love before the night was through….”

  10. I’m calling Hillary the winner in 2016 right now, and it’s ALL because of Trump.

    Either Trump will get the GOP nomination and alienate the middle who will vote Hillary, or he’ll not get the GOP nomination, run as an independent and steal votes from the GOP, again giving the win to Hillary.

    We’re screwed because of this buffoon.

    • Hillary may not even win so much as her party’s nomination…..and it’s all because of SANDERS. Well, Sanders, and how horribly unlikeable and incompetent Hillary is both professionally and at campaigning. She is not the juggernaut she and some others imagine her to be.

      • I don’t imagine she could win of her own merits.

        I fear she might be handed the election in a gift wrapped basket by Trump and the liberal media

      • And Sanders isn’t the phenomenon people seem to think he is, either. There aren’t enough politically active hipsters to elect Sanders, especially in the primary.

        It’ll be Clinton v Trump. And it’ll be a sh*tshow. (And I’m not talking a firearms convention.)

        We need to concentrate on the house and Senate as much as humanly possible. Can you imagine if both chambers had a D majority right now? The NY SAFE act would be federal.

        • No chance will they get the House in ’16, they may get a few seats in the Senate.

          It’s *possible* ‘The Donald’ could actually get ‘The Trump House’ in ’16.

          2020 will be an interesting year, in the Chinese ‘Living in nteresting Times’ curse sense, that is…

        • People were saying similar things about Obama back in 2008 campaign…

          Sanders vs Trump would actually be interesting for a change. Both are economic populists, but with different perspectives on what it takes to fix things. Both partially pander to the same demographic even – the same one that was catered to by conservative union Democrats 30 years ago.

    • Careful. There are people on this site who believe every word he says, so long as it’s what they want to hear and was said during this election cycle.

      Once elected, would a President Trump sign off on a bill like this? Depends on the political climate, what it would do for him, and whether it was his second term. But it wouldn’t surprise me. He was Hill’s friend and pro AWB in the not too distant past.

      But everyone seems to ignore that because he panders really well.

      … Cue the responses imploring that I prove a negative.

    • LOL still afraid of trump.

      My question is how you are all missing the fact that no matter what he says or how he says it, the guy leads every poll out there? No, that’s actually a rhetorical question. Thats your homework for tonight. Figure out why. What’s even more laughable is you’re considering Sanders as a credible threat.

      Trump will get the nomination and not because the party elite likes him. I think I’m good with that.

  11. You keep saying those words, “I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America”
    I do not think they mean what you think they do.

    cf. 2nd Amendment, “Shall not be infringed”

  12. My read on this bill is that most of my currently owned firearms would no longer be available to buy and what I do own would get grandfathered in and subject to safe storage laws and UBC that are far more restrictive that what Oregon just passed. I just sent a note my Rep Bonamici as she thought it would be a good idea to cosponsor this attack on our country.

  13. This is what I posted on another, political thread…it is the war on gun ownership battle plan and I hope that all gun owners come to realize how important the fight has become…they are closing in on a pinnacle moment and we had better be ready for it….

    I think the gun grabbers see an end game approaching in the next election for their gun control efforts, that is why we are seeing so many state level gun laws going into effect…get it in one state, control the Supreme Court…and it becomes law…

    For those who follow the democrats war on gun ownership it seems like every day we get some new, stupid law coming at us from various left wing states.

    –Washington…. universal background checks, excessive taxes on guns and ammo
    –New York…. SAFE Act and now limit on ammo….2x the capacity of your gun per 90 days
    –Virginia… end of concealed carry reciprocity
    –California… confiscation of guns using behind closed doors hearings with judges without the knowledge of the gun owner
    –democrats in congress with new gun ban proposals for 2016………

    The list is growing as the left is feeling froggy because they think hilary is going to be President.

    What is the battle plan for their war on guns…I think I have it.

    Mayor Bloomberg (surrounded by well armed body guards) and his anti gun groups have been throwing money into states to get new gun laws passed and they have probably been coordinating between states.

    They plan on pushing through as many anti gun measures as they can at the state level and then they will get the various judges that obama has put on the federal bench to uphold them as Constitutional, even though they are not even close to being constitutional. I have noticed the increasing trend for judges to rule for the gun grabbers…especially in Washington state and New York, most recently.

    Then, if hilary wins, she will appoint more judges to all levels of the federal bench, and then when the openings on the Supreme Court happen…and Alito, Scalia and Thomas are getting old….she will appoint anti gun zealots to the bench…and with a few rulings all of those gun laws will be permanent….

    And Constitutional………….

    We need to start pushing back at all levels…………their claim that they only want common sense gun control is a lie…they want complete control one step at a time…..

    They think in terms of the long game…I hope the NRA, the Second Amendment foundation and Gun owners of America think that way too….

    • I think that secession is the only real long term solution, otherwise we are stuck in a cold war that could go hot at any moment till the end of time

  14. Well, I thought “symbolic” bills and votes were a waste of time? Apparently not. Seriously, everything said in the article above needs to be tip of tongue when this comes up, starting with the succinct:

    “Well, to begin with, that’s a lie, actually three. So, I won’t talk about reinstating the prior assault weapons bill to reduce gun violence, because this isn’t that.

    To start with, this is a way different bill than the earlier federal assault weapons ban, so that’s a lie – more like banning all silverware and calling it a “knife ban”, because that’s what they called the last one. That’s not a good start in the honesty department.”

  15. Let’s see, my senators are Boxer and Feinstein, so no home there. My representative is a Northern California Republican, but I have not seen strong support from him on 2A matters either–he hasn’t come out in favor of gun control, but he hasn’t actively opposed it either.

  16. Ya’ know I was savaged on FB when I mentioned this last week. Tinfoil and ginning up a run on guns& ammo. But it’s crap like this that got me political after 40 years…This is political theater at best-vote Republican even if you have to hold your nose. There’s a storm a brewin’. Ted Cruz for president/Supremes.

  17. I think each time the gun grabbers start up this shit, we need to draft a bill that very closely mirrors the wording but with regards to abortion. That will distract them… and maybe send a message.

  18. What is Diane’s obsession with the Taurus Circuit Judge? It holds 5 shots and isn’t anywhere near being a top tier self defense weapon. I keep seeing the revolving shotgun on her ban list suggestions. It’s not even that fast to reload from what I can tell. I mean with a little practice you can load a 5 shot pump shotgun faster than a Taurus Circuit judge.

    For those curious I am referring to the actual rifle/shotgun rather than the hand gun.

  19. Be sure to contact your representatives…I did;

    I am writing you to express my utmost opposition to H.R. 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.

    I find the entire premise of the bill…“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”…to be a direct contradiction to the purposes of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution…”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.

    It is clear to anyone that has read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and other timely writings of the founders, that the natural right described by the 2nd Amendment means…at the very least…that individual citizens have the right…and perhaps the duty…to maintain a state of readiness and ability sufficient to put down and overthrow the aggression of an enemy. And so, we can only infer that the described right implies that the arms beared be of sufficient likeness or capacity to overcome those of the aggressor. While recent incidents of terrorism are fresh in our minds, we pray that such circumstances do not present themselves, but God forbid they should occur and the citizens not be prepared.

    I believe H.R. 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 to be wholly inconsistent with our Constitution and a direct affront to our tradition and the American way of life and I urge you to fight against H.R. 4269 and any future legislation that resembles it in any form.

Leave a Reply

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