GORE

Classify ‘Assault Weapons’ Under NFA…The Grand Compromise?

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is leading the charge to reenact 1994’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ but with a vengeance. On her official website she has laid out the highlights of her proposed legislation.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
-120 specifically-named firearms
-Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
-Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
-Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
-Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
-Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
-Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
-Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
-Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
-Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
-Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
-Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
-Background check of owner and any transferee;
-Type and serial number of the firearm;
-Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
-Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
-Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

I’m not going to critique this line-by-line but rather give some general comments. Outlawing guns by name is straight out if the California textbook and is laughable. Folks will just change names and features and be right back in business.

To me, the big issue is the set of proposals I set apart toward the bottom. This notion of placing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act is the most intriguing. This is a very, very sticky issue. Sure, the proposed legislation appears to direct local law enforcement to accept NFA weapons in their jurisdictions but the legality of various NFA items varies from State to State. It would seem that Feinstein proposes to invalidate local laws regarding firearms ownership. Will Congress members from those areas fight this legislation on this element alone?

Or, if ownership of these new NFA weapons aren’t grandfathered in areas that currently outlaw their possession, will it mean that gun owners who prize the Second Amendment over their homes decide that they must move to areas that share their values? And, if there is a migration of gun ownership, won’t this cause even more friction at the national level as hoplomandering rewrites the political landscape in the put years?

Naturally, this will entail registration of all assault weapons. Not bad how they snuck that in there, huh? You’ll be able to keep your guns, but only if you register them as NFA items.

I would keep a very close eye on how the NRA reacts toward this element of the Congressional language. One more time, keep a very close eye on how the NRA reacts toward the NFA proposal.

Will it become the grand compromise to preserve the peace? And, if enacted, what will the consequences be?

Tags: ,

54 Responses to “Classify ‘Assault Weapons’ Under NFA…The Grand Compromise?”

  1. Steve says:

    what a load, now way this passes the House. She is going for the gusto so that potus can go exec order later and try to fill in some areas involving background checks and private sales, possibly higher taxes on ammo. she and her ilk are seriously nuts.

  2. Well said Eric – watch the NRA on this one

    And contact your senators and congressmen – cant say that enough

    • John Denny says:

      We all need to be vocal, letting our representatives and the NRA know where we stand… and hold them to it. No compromise. We also need to make sure the opposition understands we’re not putting up with this crap anymore.

  3. Kevin Dooley says:

    So, does this mean that if we’re registering them with the NFA (if this goes through) that we all can bump up to SBRs? I mean, if they’re registered, what’s the difference what barrel length is on it?

    • FormerSFMedic says:

      Kevin, that’s a question I’ve always had. If there is an AWB, how does that effect the NFA and Class III items? Like you said, does this mean we can all just have a free for all on SBR’s and suppressors? What about my grandfathered gun, can I still get threaded barrels and adjustable stocks? I don’t think Diane Feinstein or the other gun grabbing politicians even know the answers to these questions because they don’t know anything about the state laws or anything about guns.

      • Steve says:

        of course not, she just wants CONTROL, and guns out of the way makes that a lot easier….this might be the biggest threat to the 2A ever, and it will only ger worse in 2014 UNLESS they get shut down hard now.

        • Scott S. says:

          You hit the nail on the head, Steve…CONTROL is the object, a simple power grab and they will try to get as much of it as they can right now. our guns are the only thing standing between them and our liberty. We ALL need to SPEAK UP very loudly, RIGHT NOW!

    • Cymond says:

      Back in the day, the Cobray Street Sweeper got re-classified from a Title-1 shotgun into a Title-2 Destructive Device. The VERY few Street Sweepers that were sold as Short-Barreled-Shotguns escaped reclassification as Destructive Devices.

      So, will a SBR AR-15 also be classified as an NFA “Assault” Weapon, or will it escape reclassification?

      Also, if threaded barrels are banned on pistols, will they be banned on NFA registered Any-Other-Weapons (pistols with a 2nd vertical grip)? If not, then we can just register our handguns as AOWs, add a small vertical grip to the rail, and have a threaded barrel!

  4. Big Red One - Ramadi says:

    I went to her page and cannot find the list of -“120 specifically-named firearms”, neither can I locate her list of “-Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes…”

    If you found these lists, please reply to this post with a link(s) enclosed.

    Otherwise, I guess these lists will be disclosed once Frankenstein gets her bill signed into law.

  5. NC1911gunner says:

    So does the 1 military feature and detachable magazine make my Sig 1911 with a picatinny rail fail under this? The latter being the so-called military feature… Can see this gets to a quagmire quickly!

  6. mike says:

    This was a disaster in CA during the first ban. The state required registration to be grandfatered in but didnt have procedures in place to handle it so they dumped it on local LE to who promptly redrected the very few who tried to comply with the law back to CA for clarifcation which they never got. So by the act of bureaucracy the clock ran out on several who tried to follow the law. Also this great registration database tat CA has consists of file cards in cabinets and is not searchable by computer so even if these laws were a good idea, which they are not, the data is worthless. Did I mention that the registrarton was generally ignored by normally law abiding citizens. Retro registration doesnt work and only serves the purpose to build data for future confiscation.

    • Steve says:

      right,. who is gonna pay for 80 + million to go get regestered, fingerprinted and catalog their guns? We are so broke, stopid. stoopid and more stoopid.
      Do they want a list of my guns? Wait, now I can take my guns into the GFZ, but only for the gov to regsister them ?? Oh, wait, I get it, we will have to make an appointment to take out firearms in and have them registered…nice.

      Right, this is crap-o-la……contract and join the NRA and the GOA, contact your sentators and US reps…

  7. 7540CCH says:

    “If you found these lists, please reply to this post with a link(s) enclosed.”

    Ah, my First Infanty friend – Don’t you know that you have to PASS Democratic legislation before you can see what’s in it? She’s taking a page from the Pelosi Obamcare playbook.

    • Steve says:

      i can the two of them going over notes on how to pass this legislation, attach to any fiscal cliff bargain? or make it a stand-alone bill and compomise with a few RINO’s??

  8. BradKAF308 says:

    In Canada there was a long gun registry. it required registering ALL long gun. Handguns and most military style rifles are called “restricted” that means you need a licence specific to own or possess that classification. It has been that way for awhile. Back in the 90’s the gov came up with this idea to register ALL long guns. Many people didn’t participate in the registry. The gov said it would only cost $2 mil a year to run. review this link for more details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
    In the end the current gov cancelled the long gun registry. The registry for handguns and Mil style rifles is still in effect but it gives you an idea of the cost.

  9. Mitchell says:

    I think (besides constituency pressure) two things are working against the AWB in this economy

    1. Where will funding come from to impose it, a law has to be funded to be enforced

    2. It’s negative impact on domestic manufacturing jobs and small business people and their employees

    For liberals a more difficult question is how to address the mental health question specifically related to past shooters / murderers and in general members of our society that for the safety of themselves and society should be institutionalized, most likely against their will

    Also, families play a role in these individuals actions, many of which know these individuals are unstable and do nothing to address the issue

    • DDM4 says:

      Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

      #2 is the point I keep making to my wife. This is one of the ONLY domestic manufacturing sectors that’s growing. One of the biggest ironies is the number of firearms companies in anti-gun “blue” states such as CT and MA.

      Restricting manufacture of firearms will lead to job losses in key blue states, and alienate a constituency badly needed by both parties.

      I’m waiting for all the politicians to figure this out.

  10. Polader says:

    Mh Sorry Guys,
    I´m not into that the last weeks:
    Will this definitly come, or need it stil to pass the congress etc.?
    Can´t believe it will be that way, there are toooooo many powerful people in the NRA.

    • Steve says:

      Join the NRA, or the GOA…call your reps and senators, take nothing for granted, the dems are really out for blood this time…

  11. Steve says:

    guns are the easiest for libs to hit, unfortunately a lot of politicians said they would never pass the healthcare affordability act, but when the time came, they did in fact sign it. maybe an awb is just easier to say “no” to, but call & write both of your senators + plus your rep….

  12. Matthew says:

    I live in Socailist Kalifornia but only recently started owning firearms…TRUST ME – you need to call your Congressman/woman. It is the only way to go about getting the AWB rejected. If all we do is say how much it sucks, we give the victory to the opposition. You DO NOT WANT THESE LAWS IN YOUR STATE!!!!!

  13. straps says:

    Massive overreach. I pronounce this DOA, based purely on the ATF funding piece.

    Feinstein is an old school greasy-palm operative. I’m sure she had planned to go out on a higher note than this. What’s more, there are enough OLL owners in California to replace her with someone with more sensible politics, and we will be out in force. For all intents and purposes California shooters have no NFA access, so we have the option of (a) mobilizing, (b) moving or (c) taking up golf.

  14. The Uninformed Good Idea Fairy has been whispering in her ear, contact your Reps and the NRA and speak loudly in theirs…

    Jon, OPT

  15. Barry B says:

    I’m not moving, I’m not taking up golf, and I’m not registering anything.

  16. Glas says:

    Sorry Officer, I sold my AR years ago. Registration my ass!

    • straps says:

      Will do you no good if you’re pulled over on the way to an “underground” range session and the good officer sees an “indicator” of assault weapon ownership such as performance footwear, eyewear or outerwear. Multicam or morale patch? You’re getting your car tossed for sure…

    • jose says:

      The only thing you ever say to police is, “I have no statement and I cannot answer your questions.” In these times you cannot know which police are statists and which will recognize and refuse to enforce unjust laws. I have many L.E. friends but the time to choose sides draws near. They have a horrendous choice to make.

  17. Me says:

    Funny how people really think they give a sh!t what you think… Be vocal.. Like the people did on Obama care?.. Yea that is what I thought! I would say you better dig your head out of your a$$ and get prepared for war or slavery… It your choice…

  18. Steve says:

    If transfers are to be banned, then the monetary value of our property is reduced to ZERO.

    And when you die, it dies with you.

    I will NOT abide.

  19. Jim E says:

    If the bullet button and 1 evil feature passed, most all CA AR’s would be non legal. It would mean going back to magazine well being welded shut and firing 1 rd at a time. Reloading requires pulling the pin and putting a round in the chamber.

    • Cymond says:

      No, it means those guns would be classified as FEDERAL “assault” weapons, but still not CALIFORNIA “assault” weapons. It’s a little like medical marijuana – federal no-no, but state legal.

  20. Rjf98 says:

    First the registration, then the confiscation. NRA better get some cajones on this quickly. I am hoping this is so overreaching that someone who might have gone for an AWB will balk. Of course I’m writing senators, congressman, AND my NRA rep to voice total opposition to any new gun laws, but they don’t listen much. I’ve got an unproven repub, and two freedom hating dems.

    • Steve says:

      A strategy might be to let this thing go to a vote in the senate unchanged, unamended.

      No cover. just an up-down vote. Lets see if they are crazy enough to start the second civil war.

  21. Definitely time to light up your federal reps with calls, emails, etc. I also think getting motivated with the state governments is key. If WA and CO voted for legal weed, that seems like precedent for states to nullify federal encroachment on the RKBA.

    Also, push back on the media hype every chance you get. http://ivymikecafe.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/gun-control-and-the-medias-narrative-dont-buy-it-guncontrol-billofrights-tcot-tlot/

  22. Aaron says:

    Guess I’ll be buying guns instead of furniture.

  23. Craig says:

    Not One Inch, No Compromise, give them nothing but steadfast resistance to their assaults against our constitutional rights.

  24. Bring It says:

    In response to Strap’s post, “You’re getting your car tossed for sure…” One question Sir, how many years of Law Enforcement do you have?

  25. Billy the Kid says:

    Yawn. This is the equivalent of declaring air will be taxed. Let the liberal fascist twits sign any law or edict — it will be ignored. Our unalienable rights to defend ourselves are non-negotiable. That goes for mag restrictions, private party purchase bans, etc. Ignored and will done openly and flagrantly. You want a debate? Fine, deal in blood. Until you candycane statists get the nads get feelin froggy and make a move, it’s all foreplay. And this latest registration blah blah infringing on inherent rights is full violation of oaths by these clowns and earns you a spot on the 100 hundred heads list. Bravo. As if you fools granted us the ability to have weapons? Seriously? It was never yours to give, what makes you think you can take it away? And the 1st amendment, etc. soon to be dismantled afterwords. We know the commie playbook from history. And the dunderheads who are even considering complying with this are a naive batch of fools indeed. As if this is just one agenda. The goal is no guns for you serf. Do you understand?

  26. Ross says:

    Dear Senator,

    Below is the oath of office you took:

    “I, [name], 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.”

    And below is the Second Amendment to the United States Bill of Rights:

    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.

    And below is the Webster’s Standard Dictionary definition of Treason:

    Treason: betrayal; a breach of faith.

  27. Doc B says:

    Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

  28. Chuck says:

    Pleasantly surprised to see that the usual Euro-Trolls are thus far absent from this thread.

    Also very pleased to see how the overreaching and extreme positions revealed by Di-Fi have galvanized those of us on the pro-Liberty and pro-2A side.

    Maybe even the Fudds are starting to see the truth.

  29. Robert says:

    For someone who claims to be a helper of the poorer people in this country (like all Democrats wrongfully claim), Feinstein is basically ensuring that the poor of this country continue to be the most vulnerable when it comes to criminals and violence. The rich and upper middle class will have no problem (financially speaking) paying $200 NFA registration for every “assault weapon” they own. The rest of society, the ones who live in the areas with the highest crime rates, will be forced to give up the best options available to protect them and their families from the criminals and gangs that won’t obey the laws anyways.

  30. Agentofwrath says:

    This FEDERALE will NOT participate in ANY gun confiscation scheme. OATHKEEPER! Although there are some of my brothers and sisters in blue that suffer from ignorance of the Constitution and suffer from a mild case of libtardia. I take my oath as my sacred honor!

  31. MR76251 says:

    from my cold dead hands …

  32. Stefan S. says:

    Like the ban still in effect in CA, NY, NJ did any good?

    • Doc B says:

      Or the one in CT, not to put too fine a point on it. Of course, the leftist idea of “safe zones” guarantees that murderers and assorted whackjobs have a guaranteed safe place to stab, shoot, rape or commit the newsworthy deed du jour, and their constitutional right to engage in whackjobbery shall not be infringed.