TYR Tactical

Proposed Legislation – The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Sen Feinstein (D-CA) didn’t pull any punches when she named the bill she introduced to the Senate yesterday. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill is a controversial piece of legislation that is sure to see opposition in the Senate including from members of her own party. Here’s some info on what she has in mind for America.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload.

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

(The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.)

Banning dangerous after-market modifications and work-arounds.

Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a work-around to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a work-around to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

(This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.)

Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

Assault Weapon Bans Have Been Proven to Be Effective

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.

Source: Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” (March 1997).

The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”

The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.

Source: Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004), University of Pennsylvania, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.

Source: David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, “In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204046.html

When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.

Source: Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997..

37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired.

Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact (May 2010).

List of Firearms Prohibited by Name

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

79 Responses to “Proposed Legislation – The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”

  1. Lawrence says:

    Can we get a fact-check on those studies and surveys that she quotes?

    Instead of the NRA launching a national ad campaign slamming Obama for hypocrisy, they should be promoting the FACTS about civilian semi-automatic sporting rifles vs. real military assault rifles, and also about the safe and legitimate sporting, hunting and defensive use of legally-owned civilian sporting rifles vs. illegally-obtained and illegal use of guns by criminals.

    The gun-haters have their propaganda machine in full swing and we are going to be trampled underfoot by the wave of public hysteria they will whip up – unless our national “defenders of the faith” pull their finger out and pro-active in a positive way – and quickly!

    • Ryan says:

      I agree completely with the fact checking. I don’t necessarily like the NRA’s hypocrisy campaign but I understand it. The gun grabbers don’t care about facts. They prove that over and over again. The bill itself uses out of context “facts”. The masses don’t bother to check the “facts” they are fed by the talking head media. NRA figures instead of getting into a fact fight with a bunch of liars appeal to the emotional end of the topic. Let’s face it the NRA does have a valid point.

    • Andrew says:

      You don’t get it bro, and your argument is not doing the gun community any favors. Before you get all defensive, understand we are on the same side and I agree with a few of the things you mentioned. That said, there is no such thing as an “assault rifle.” The rifles don’t jump off a table and beat someone up. If I want a “military style” rifle, I damn sure should be able to have one. The whole “sporting rifle” thing is not a good angle for us as gun owners. I have my weapons to defend myself, my family, and my property and there should be no qualms about it. My guns are not for “sporting purposes,” and there is nothing wrong with that. I would advise reading the 2A one more time, and pay specific attention to the reasoning behind the right to bear arms.

      • Lawrence says:

        Hey – I’m not going to get all defensive. Maybe I’m just being pedantic, but an “assault rifle” is only one which is capable of full-automatic fire. Anything which is semi-auto only is in fact a sporting rifle.

        The gun-banners are only able to gain ground because they’ve hood-winked and confused gullible people with made up terms like “assault weapons”. As you say, no gun ever got up under its own power and assaulted somebody – and that is why I absolutely object and reject calling a semi-automatic rifle made for the civilian market an assault rifle – even if it sounds cooler.

        Trust me, I do know what the 2nd Amendment says and why it was written. But my fundamental point is that we are currently engaged in an info war and we have to be clever about how we wage it. And part of that is countering the anti-gunners “scary, evil, military-grade death machines with no legitimate purpose” argument.

    • Garrett says:

      Liberty and the 2nd Amendment aren’t about sporting, hunting, or defensive use…they are about protecting yourself from tyranny PERIOD….look at all these countries where innocent people are slaughtered en masse. If it’s good enough for the military or law enforcement, it’s CERTAINLY good enough for a citizen who most often has no radio, no support, no air support etc.


  2. Aaron says:

    Diane Feinstein…the biggest job Killer in the US!

  3. Don says:

    One of the studies she claims proves the last ban worked, actually specifically states that gun control legislations have not been found to conclusively work. She carefully chose certain phrasing from that study that with no other information would sound like it proves gun control works.

  4. Paul says:

    So LEO (active/retired) and military are not included in this ban? Can anyone say class warfare? What makes us any different than the citizens, Senator? Why is the ban set at 10 rounds? Why is that the magic number? Smoke and mirrors people – keep an eye out for what’s behind the curtain. i believe the left is gauging the population to see what they can swing in the next 4-8 years and what will be the social “norm” in the next generation.

    • MattF says:

      While the language is poorly written and somewhat ambiguous, I believe that the LE/Military big is referring to official organizational purchase of firearms and accessories listed in the proposed Assault Weapons ban. Off duty/retired LEO and active/reserve military would likely be prohibited from personal purchase the same as regular citizens.

  5. Usmc5800 says:

    Tell me….what the hell is a barrel shroud? Funny how she can try to pass a ban but had no idea what exactly she is banning.

  6. J says:

    Good thing this isn’t ridiculously asinine. 😉

    I was reading the times though and a few other articles elsewhere, and it seems that even Democrats are uneasy about even trying for a mag ban. They would much rather go for reformed background checks (which I think is fine) and a new look at mental health (also good). Even the non A-rated-by-the-NRA ones seem to be feeling this way.

    If even a mag ban is making some of these Senators and Congressmen a little uneasy, why would they even try to go for this? We know most Republicans won’t, and I am starting to think the same for Democrats. I really doubt anything will happen aside from prices staying high for a while. The first has burnt out it appears.

    • Lawrence says:

      I agree with you on the mental health point (where’s the “national dialogue” about that?!!) and also on the improved background checks point. I’d also be more than happy for them to improve their prosecution rate on background check cheaters and also for them to focus on proper enforcement and prosecution of violations of existing laws. I’d even be okay with them looking at ways to close some of the so-called current loop-holes. This blanket ban on certain types and classes of firearms simply because of their cosmetic features and magazine size is sheer lunacy, and I do hope that you’re right about it not having much political traction – but I wouldn’t bank on it.

      Its obvious that their objective is to get the weight of public opinion behind them, and even to try and drive a wedge between the hunting and the tactical communities with their constant hammering on the message about preserving “legitimate” hunting and sporting firearms use.

      So, I think its dangerous to think that it is somehow a fore-drawn conclusion that we are safe….

      • J says:

        I agree with everything you’ve said in your first paragraph. Improved background checks, higher prosecution rate for abusers of the background checks, mental health discussions, closing loopholes, etc… Those are all plenty fine and logical ways to go about doing it.

        They do want the public opinion behind them, but the atmosphere seems to almost be shifting towards bills of that sort being a little out there. Of course it is not a great idea to jump to conclusions, but I’d be insanely surprised if Feinstein’s bill passed, and even mildly surprised if a mag ban passed.

        I’m not sure how I feel on the issue of background checks on private firearm sales though, but I have no problem doing it, at least for the time being. If I were to buy a gun from a friend, I would do a proper transfer through an FFL, same if I were to sell one. I totally understand the desire for the government to be unaware of what you have, but there is also some benefit of doing things the most legal way possible, as to avoid any issues down the road that may arise, however far-fetched they may be.

    • Chuck says:

      They aren’t looking to “reform” background checks, they are looking to make EVERY transfer or sale of ANY gun, ESPECIALLY private sales between individuals subject to background checks. In other words, if I want to sell that old 30-30 I never shoot to my buddy who always wanted one because he loves John Wayne movies, I have to do a background check on him in order to sell it, or even gift it to him. They don’t specify how this would be accomplished or how it would be enforced, but that is the goal. Explain to me how this reduces crime? Better yet, explain to me how this is not an infringement on my right to dispose of my property how I see fit.

      You know, just like how they are able to regulate street corner drug sales.

      • veteran says:

        Well said Chuck…
        As to the “mental health assessments” they are talking about, this is very dangerous in how they are looking to apply it.
        Every veteran coming back from overseas is subjected to mental health assessments and any of them who claim TBI, or PTSD will fall into the no-go category for retaining control of previously bought firearms and will bar them from future purchases as well….

        • Lawrence says:

          Well, as always, the devil is in the details – and we have to be especially vigilant and responsive to any attempts to make legitimate “reforms” turn into Draconian blanket bans, like what they’re trying to do with mags and rifles.

  7. Aaron says:

    Feinstein is out of her skull

  8. DavidC says:

    It’s nice to claim that most Republicans won’t go for this legislation and many Democrats as well. Isn’t that we said about Obamacare?

  9. asjadest says:

    Steyr AUG is allowable?

  10. Dave the Rave says:

    If we are not united on this, they will win. I can tell you right now that if I witness any of this unconstitutional rule being enforced on one of my fellow law-abiding citizens, I will help that law-abiding citizen fight. We have to stand up for each other.

  11. Terry says:

    “assault pistols”

    Is she just making up words now?

    • Lawrence says:

      Always has done. “Assault Weapon” is a made up word. Even “Assault Rifle” was originally a made-up propaganda word…

      Interesting how she’s even listed .22LR versions of MSRs. Yup, even a plinker is now an evil assault weapon!!

      Also interesting that the Mini-14 Tactical Rifle is banned, but not the standard Min-14 or Mini-14 Ranch Rifle…

      The IWI Tavor isn’t listed either, so everybody go buy one of those! LOL.

      • Steve says:

        If you translate Sturmgewehr, it works out to assault (storm) rifle. So the term assault rife was indeed made up, by the Germans, and was used to describe a specific class of actual rifle that was selective fire and chambered for an intermediate cartridge during WWII.

        • Lawrence says:

          Exactly – it was invented by members of the Reichswaffenamt in order to hoodwink Hitler into signing the production order for the new type of rifle (which had previously been type-classified as a “Maschinenpistole” – sub-machine gun) that he had previously refused.

          They, rightly, figured that if he thought it was a rifle that would encourage the Army to attack rather then defend then he would approve it.

          I’m a bit fuzzy at the moment as to when and how it became cool to label just about ALL selective-fire military rifles as “assault rifles”…

    • Andrew says:

      Assault pistols are the second-gravest threat to this nation, right behind rocket-launching shotguns.

      • vlad says:

        Great comment hah

      • Ed says:

        Oooh! Where is the line to buy one of those? How would that work with a choke tube?

        At some point confusion arose about rifles that follow a military pattern, whether they were automatic or semi-automatic. Many of those who choose to be ignorant would confuse a semiautomatic M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine as “assault rifles” indistinguishable from the selective fire M-14 or M-2. The fact that the slower to operate bolt action and lower capacity Springfield M1903 rifle was just as deadly as the M-1 Garand or the M-14 did not matter, as that rifle appeared similar to those sportsmen used in hunting.

        Some would argue that the “intermediate caliber” requirement is just nonsense in today’s ammunition market. It originally referred to ammunition in use by the German military in between the 9x21mm Parabellum (Luger) pistol and machine pistol round and the 7.92x57mm rifle round used in Mauser carbines and machine guns. Originally designed in 1942, the selective fire MP 43, MP 44, and StG 44 (variants of the same design) weighed 10.3 pounds empty with a 16.5 inch barrel and fired a 7.92x33mm Kurz machine pistol round. This machine pistol/rifle would be considered to be too heavy by today’s U.S. military and lacked a bayonet lug.

  12. Anthony says:

    This is a great summary, thanks for spelling it out. Among the first steps to getting 2A supporters on the same page is knowledge and knowing what the opposition is fighting for.

  13. Obi-Wan Kenobody says:

    As said elsewhere: This whole show is basically a big Trojan horse for the real goal of all this win-by-retreat hoopla: magazine capacity limitation.

    They can’t get a full AWB, but they might be able to get a mag cap law.

    Anti-gunners don’t win by leaps and bounds, they win by slow erosion.

    • Whit says:

      Absolutely. They are also very patient. They are willing to wait 20, 30 or 40 years to get what they want.

  14. Tim says:

    I don’t see super soakers on the list.

    • Juan says:

      Don’t worry, soon those super soakers will be high powered, anti-personnel, shoulder fired water cannons.

  15. Russel says:

    Sounds perfectly reasonable… welcome to the Real World.

  16. Chuck says:

    Where do I get one of them fancy Assault Weapons with the attached rocket launcher? Does it attach to the front sling swivel?

    Also, can someone explain to me just how a pistol grip makes a rifle more lethal? What is Di-Fi’s hard-on for pistol grips? I mean she hates them SO much that she specifically singled out thumb hole stocks because she was so incensed that anyone would have the unmitigated gall to try to get around her pistol grip ban.

    Seriously, let’s call this what it really is: a ban on cosmetic features on selected self loading rifles and on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.

  17. Dom Hyde says:

    OK, just to crank up the craziness: Why is the M2HB on the list? Name one incident, ever, when a dude rolled up carrying a 50 cal HMG and went postal with it?

    Aside from the fact that to get it off your property in the first place you’d need to either 1. mount it on a pick up (or bigger) or 2. politely ask some innocent bystanders to help you lug it to the scene!

    Meanwhile, 4-inch scissors, 7-inch screwdrivers and those DEADLY Bic biros are still allowed in the cabin on commercial flights. I’m not joking: Your mind is the weapon, and any object can theoretically be recruited as ammunition for it.

    I don’t know. Maybe these matters are decided by random lottery, not ‘judged’ at all.

  18. Philip says:

    What part of “Shall not be infringed” does this bitch not understand?!?

    Why not strengthen existing laws regarding who can get what? I’m all for a mental health exam, background check and a piss test… I’m sane with a clean record and have nothing to hide. So why should my rights to own weapons for self-defense be trampled on because of crazies who illegally obtain weapons and go berserk? Criminals already ignore the laws we have regarding weapons acquisition, does she really think more red tape is going to stop them?

    She’s exploiting the emotional volatility of the Newtown tragedy. It’s a knee-jerk response for political gain. All these gun-grabbing politicians are after is control… it’s not about guns, safety, or the children, it’s about control.

    If they’re so evil, she and her bodyguard detail forfeit theirs too, no exceptions. I’ll relinquish mine when does the same with hers.

  19. Dan says:

    Sounds like pretty much every gun is on the ban list except the .22 bolt action rifles the BSA uses for the rifle merit badge. Anyone who supports even a fraction of this ban should sit back and ask themselves “what about the future?”. Though it may not be clearly stated, the 2A is a defense against tyranny and oppression. The government of today may not be threatening, but we may be as little as a century away from repeating history’s mistakes because of these “good intentions” by democrats, republicans, and libertarians alike.

    • veteran says:

      We are much closer than a century…
      As to the oppression part, it is already in motion. The fiscal situation we are in makes us a slave and the POTUS does what he wishes along with his Chicago buddies in congress. The states which are failing the most are the ones dictating legislation and our votes, though I still believe in voting and practice it, do not matter as almost all elections today are manipulated.

  20. Alex says:

    So an SW MP 22 pistol with a detachable magazine and a threaded barrel is an assault weapon? WTF.

    Also, a Benelli M2 with an 8 round tube is an assault weapon?

    I don’t know why I am asking for these pricks to make sense when they speak.

  21. SGT Rock says:

    The point here being is that you need to reach out and tell your local, state, and federal representatives that you are in disagreement w/any type of infringement upon your 2nd Amendment rights. Let them know that Senator Feinstein is completely out of touch and unrepresentative of the American public as a whole. If you sit idly by and do nothing and let your rights be eroded away then you are to blame for not exercising those rights as an American citizen. Use your voice and make your representatives listen to you as they’re supposed to do as representatives of their constituents. Remind them nicely that they can be voted out of office as easily as they were voted into office.

    • Dan says:

      That’s easy if you live anywhere else but California. All we have left are our federal representatives of the house to communicate with. It would be a lot easier if Boxer came out and said that even this ban is way too much, but she also supports gun control and bans. As for voting them out of office, it’ll be too late if she gets what she wants done.

    • veteran says:

      I agree with what your saying Rock, and we will continue to voice our opinion in this fashion but it is rapidly becoming clear that the storm is on the horizon. WIth our own president again showing his support and interest in executing UN regulation on the sovereign people for which he took an oath to defend and protect and continually shows no regard to uphold the constitution and the rights guaranteed in it, we are in serious danger as a nation and as a people to serious problems in the very near future.
      Greed, Power and Incompetance…

  22. straps says:

    This thing is dead on arrival.

    The filibuster deal that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell struck is cold hard evidence of that.

    Reid wants for something to get done this Congress, knows full well that Feinstein’s overreach will stop everything cold, and the elimination of a $4B economy for a NET ZERO change in public safety isn’t worth it.

    And then there’s the House…

    Bets are off if something else happens that the media can spin, and I’m definitely not advocating complacency.

    • Whit says:

      Not to mention that Harry Reid is an NRA A rated politician. The NRA didn’t endorse Reid’s opponent two years ago. That made the difference.

      He knows that if he lets a gun control bill through the Senate, his politican career is pretty well over.

  23. Lucky says:

    I want that (Rhymes with PUNT) to specifically name all of the people she claims that were killed with assault weapons, I wan her to do so, while providing the police reports that accompany each example, and then I want her to give me a good excuse why her bodyguards are allowed to carry firearms, but the average citizen isn’t. I further want her to state why cars aren’t illegal since drunk drivers use them to kill, why spoons aren’t illegal since they are responsible for Rosie O’Donnell and Honey Boo Boo being fatasses, and why we don’t ban fists, rocks, clubs, forks, knives, all pointy objects, and common sense to boot.

  24. Whit says:

    Regarding “improved” background checks, the anti gun folks have for years wanted to make EVERY firearm TRANSFER (not just a sale) require a background check. For example, if you wanted to sell your brother-in-law a shotgun, he would need to have a background check. If you wanted to GIVE your wife a gun as a present, she would need a background check.

    Ok, so you say you don’t have a problem with that. How would those background checks be accomplished? There is no mechanism available for you, as a regular citizen, to call up and check out someone’s background. Nor will there be one in the future. You would have to go to a FFL who has access to the system, and pay them to perform the background check. They aren’t going to do this service for free. Feel like paying an additional $25,$35, or $45 to have it done? All the while, criminals who buy their guns off another criminal or steal them WILL NOT be doing any kind of background checks.

    Not to mention, transfers will have to be recorded in the FFL’s bound book. Eventually those records will be computerized, if they aren’t already. So one day the government will know exactly who has what firearm if they have followed the law. Cha ching, backdoor gun registration.

    If you are a gun owner, you need to oppose “strengthening” background checks.

  25. CWall says:


    Why is there no mention of bubble guns?

    and I’ll be damned if they try to take away my shotgun rocket launcher.

  26. Mr. European says:

    Here I am once more to give a view and dissection from this side of the Atlantic on this.

    “All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine”
    Agree with this. Garand and SKS would still be good weapons.

    “pistol grip”
    Do they mean the actual pistol grip as seen with rifles and SMGs since the 30s, or the old semi-pistol grip style stock?

    “rocket launcher”

    “barrel shroud”
    What exactly do they mean by this? The perforated metal sheet meant to keep fingers off the hot barrel, or RIS?

    “All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature”
    Back to Steyrs, Mausers and revolvers, then.

    “All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds”
    Consistent enough. Though one doesn’t see too many stock semi-auto rifles or pistols with over 10rd permanent magazines… Other than certain versions of the Mauser Broomhandle or WWI experiments…

    “All semiautomatic shotguns […] capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; […] grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.”
    5 rounds is a bit of a stretch in limiting magazine capacity. With normal tube mags the only way to get more rounds is to make the weapon itself longer. Then again, there’s KSG and SRM 1216…
    What is it with rocket launchers here??? Can’t exactly strap an RPG on a rifle!
    “Revolving cylinder” as in…? I’ve seen some pretty cool revolver rifle-style shotguns; and any shotgun that would have revolvers over 6rd capacity have detachable drums or revolvers. Otherwise they’re unwieldy as hell.

    “All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.”
    Not that stripper clips usually come at higher capacities than 10, usually at 5 for rifles and proprietaries for pistols (usually 7).

    “The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:
    Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
    Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;”
    Reasonable. Maybe not for those who want to start contesting the “lawfully possessed” part.

    “Banning dangerous after-market modifications and work-arounds.”
    A law isn’t effective if it leaves loopholes.

    “Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.”
    Never had any trust in those products anyway… Mechanically questionable and clearly a cop-out.

    “So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a work-around to prohibitions on detachable magazines.”
    Can’t someone figure out a stripper-clip-fed upper? FAL had it. As far as I understand it, the AR10 (and derivatives) uses a system similar to the Ljungmann.

    “Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a work-around to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.”
    This I don’t agree with at all. As long as it’s a solid stock, what does it matter what shape it is? Some weapons can’t be redesigned for old-style stocks.

    “Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.”
    Since they make the case that results were being seen during the last years of the last ban I understand their reasoning for this.
    What does fact checking say on this?

    “Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.”

    “Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.”
    Expected. Wasn’t there a case where two LAWs were brought in to a no-questions-asked buy-back?
    Even here wartime weapons are STILL brought in to police departments. And I don’t just mean old Mosins, but Suomi SMGs and the occasional Lahti (pistol, MG or AT rifle).

    “Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.”
    Common friggin sense.

    “Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon”
    Isn’t this already in the books? If it isn’t, then WHY THE HELL NOT?

    “Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons”
    Out of the tens of thousands of people killed generally by firearms since then…

    “Rifles: […] Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78”
    Not M95 or M76? Rk 62/76 was fun to use BTW…

    “Pistols: All AK–47 types, ”
    Wut? ?_?
    They’re SUB-CARBINES, not pistols…

    “Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.”
    That’s a bit superfluous…

    Opinion: policy-wise I mostly agree, but many technical points are just wrong and at parts the terminology is a bit wonky.

    I would say that it’d be interesting to see what the people through their congress will decide on this, but I’m too cynical to believe that. The people decide nothing there.
    But what I would see is plenty of pressure ($$$) from the manufacturers to not to pass this one. Maybe even a few euros from the cold north over here (see Valmet). Plus there’ll be the usual (and often illogical) rhetoric from your right on this.

    The reason why the companies won’t want this passed (other than their owners’ political views) would be because it would consume their short-term profits in trying to adapt to this. Easier/cheaper to kill it and continue the status quo.
    But if an enforcement like this came into effect, it might rekindle interest in older-style weapons to fill the niches emptied of the mentioned weapons. Strengthening of revolvers, return of clip-fed pistols (personally I’d like to see a modernized Steyr Hahn) and renewed interest in manual weapons and new old-school semi-autos.

    • Chuck says:

      Does anyone actually read anything you post much less care? Whatever it was you wrote would probably be more coherent if you had just typed whatever eurobabble you speak directly into Google Translate and then pressed the button.

    • straps says:

      The terminology is not wonky, it’s misinformed hoplophobia from a hypocrite.

      Our representative government has its flaws, but on this issue more than most others in the coming legislative year, you will see what kind of pressure will be brought to bear on our Congress by their constituents.

      If you’re anything other than a US Citizen you have no dog in this fight. Why bother commenting, other than the schadenfreude of watching someone else fight to protect rights that you gave up decades ago (or never had), perhaps?

      • Mr. European says:

        Let’s just say I care about things.
        I care about people. I care about your influence.
        When there’s somebody in the room so to speak with a shotgun, you pay attention to them. If they’re unhinged, you fear them. If they’re amicable you go along with them. But you do not ignore them.

        If you wonder why someone from europe would pay so much attention to america, blame cultural osmosis. Your influence is not only economic and military, but also cultural. Plus I’d like to visit the country at some point in my life and have at least some semblance of assurance I won’t be randomly shot on a whim. I’d like to see a stable western land, not the wild west.

        Plus your right-wing (REALLY far to the right in our spectrum) at times threatens civil war over the arms issue. Could you even imagine what that would do for the economic and political landscape of the world, not to mention the loss of life on your continent?

        For rights we’ve never had? My country has been one of the most politically stable states east of the british channel since 1918. Our population’s gun ownership rate is the second highest in Europe (4th globally, after you, Yemen and Switzerland); we have a strong military tradition due to centuries of conscript armies under two crowns and three flags; much of our territory is effectively empty, so there’s the frontiersman spirit in the rural regions; and many see our eastern neighbor as an ever-present threat (Russia will always be Russia).
        But we have nothing like your interpretation of an unlimited right to own arms.
        All firearms in legal ownership are registered through the police department, and each owner is certified for each of their weapons separately. Automatic weapons and heavy ordnance ownership and use are severely restricted, technically only to professionals who need them or collectors of long and good record.
        Every license needs a valid reason for issue (self-defense does not count), such as membership in a hunting club, shooting club, reservist organization or doing amateur sports shooting.
        Licenses can be revoked and arms declared illegally held in cases of criminal behavior, reckless conduct or certified mental instability.
        Voluntary surrender of said arms leads to no punishment in ownership.
        Handguns have faced the most scrutiny in recent years and have come under increased sanctions and red tape.

        But with our other rights… We have pretty much every right any western country would and should have, but we recognize that rights come with responsibilities. Hell, here access to the internet is counted as a basic human right!

        Schadenfreude (you seriously have no word of your own for it?) doesn’t factor in this case. I know exactly what firearms can do to people. And I’ve been trained to do that as well as treat it. When some shallow issues come in with no human cost attached, schadenfreude does provide entertainment. But when one deeply looks at these issues, it doesn’t factor.

        I know exactly how powerful firearms are. I have respect for that power as well as a healthy fear of it. When I first fired my Rk I felt that power. I laughed on the range from the exhilaration. And I realized what that piece of steel can do. Medic NCO training further showed me what it can do, what it really does.
        But when I see not only your media, but also your “news,” guns are treated as little more than toys or status symbols or as JEWELRY.

        Guns are weapons meant for nothing more than to injure or kill whatever they’re used at. If somebody sees them as something else, they are blind.
        That said, I wish to maintain my shooting skills for reservist purposes when I can devote enough time and resources for it.

        • bobX says:

          You want us to give up our rights on the off chance you plan on visiting sometime? Save yourself the airfare. I don’t comment on European websites about your local politics, I have no idea why you feel this urge to tell us how you feel. I don’t have the slightest interest what Europe thinks about America’s politics or what you think our rights entail. Or you could just be a self important troll.

          • Dave the Rave says:

            Your country is politically stable because there are so few men over there that will stand up for their natural rights. There is no fight when there’s no opposition.

            One of the biggest differences between you and us is that we believe there are things worth fighting for.

        • tomaso says:

          Mr euro,
          i read your whole speech….you my friend are a victim of the media.
          “wild west” “don’t want to get shot if i visit” why don’t you hold off your misinformed comments till you visit. ( also understand just how large we are and how diverse in cultures…..hence many vises and virtues)

          Bottom line this country is built on our Constitution and its Amendments….gun control was outlawed in out 2nd amendment “SHALE NOT BE INFRINGED!” it is a structural necessity to our 1st amendment “FREEDOM OF SPEACH!”

          Gun owners DO NOT CONSIDER THEM TOYS!…..the media just portrays us that way (and unfortunately YOUTUBE shows a very small group that portrays them as entertainment, which dosnt help)
          Please understand how you would feel if some drastic change in your countries constitution was being played in your government with massive miss information by the media and we agreed with it…I’m sure you wouldn’t like it.

          • Mr. European says:

            Maybe I am a victim of the media. Yours holds so much power on a global level, especially in the information age.

            “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
            If gun control is outlawed, then what would “regulated” mean in there?

            And of course I know that not all gun owners consider them toys, but the many that I see come dangerously close.
            Not to mention such products as the Back Up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEVL9DhMp3U
            Of course when the media does stories on irresponsible/loopy gunowners, they’re the ones that deviate from the norm, blah blah.

            Changes to my country’s constitution don’t shock me. Latest changes were enacted in 2000. Most prominent changes from previous acts was the weakening of the office of the president. That’s the legacy of Kekkonen, who some could consider to be Finland’s only dictator (though that word is too strong for the context).
            The parliament is the sole authority that can change the constitution.

            If you want a read on the latest Constitution Act, here’s a translation: http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf
            Personally I disagree with sections 17 and 51. With the developing climate they might be changed at some point in a future Constitution Act. But I doubt it would happen, because a certain tiny party has a vested interest in that issue, and they’re in every government…

    • Ed says:

      Read the U.S. Constitution. Those are the rules we govern with in the United States. What you do in the European Union may be different. That is your choice. Choose wisely. We will never confuse you with us.

      Some of us, like Diane Feinstein, have their separate version of reality from the rest of us. You are wasting your time looking for logic or reason in their utterings, as they go by their feelings, such as abhorring things that make them feel unsafe. Feinstein’s list is comprised of things that make her feel unsafe. She wants to impose her fantastic vision of what would make us all “safer” on the rest of us.

  27. Eric Page says:

    What? Flamethrowers aren’t listed…that’s it, high capacity assault pistol flame throwers for everyone!

    • Mr. European says:

      I’d be intrigued if they’d ever figure out the flamethrowers from Aliens…
      I’d know some pioneers who’d be happy to get their hands on those.

  28. David Spicer says:

    Feinstein and her cronies are so concerned about saving the lives of the innocient victoms of gun violence. If saving lives is a true concern, they should be going after the AUTOMOBILE. According to the CDC numbers from 2010, over 32,000 people died as a result of auto accidents. Not intentional vehicular homicides but accidental deaths. That sounds to me to be much worse than the just over 14,000 total intentional homicides by firearms. from the same year. Which sounds more dangerous to society, one device that people accidentally kill themselves or others with, or the other that requires a personal, intentional decision to take the life of another human being. they aren’t wanting to stop the violence, that bitch supports abortion, no this has a far more sinister ulterior motive. They want to make subjects out of us and have an easier time “getting rid” of those who opose. Sorry, I am not totally into the black helicoptor crowd yet…. but I am beginning to wonder.

  29. Russel says:

    Very well said Mr. European. I agree with your comments entirely. Nice to hear a reasoned opinion from the Real World.

  30. Russel says:

    Your constitution was written over 300 years ago so it is time to bring it into the 21st century. The second amendment is no longer relevant, it has been irrelevant for a hundred years. Now it is just conveniently manipulated by certain groups with their own agendas

    • SSD says:

      I am just shaking my head. Which “enlightened” country are you from? And I’m curious what makes you think you have any right to an opinion about the United States or its form of government if you aren’t a citizen?

      Btw, our Constitution has only been in effect since 1789. I immediately shut down when someone has zero idea what they are talking about.

    • Drebin says:

      The Constitution reaffirms natural rights that free men will always have. The Constitution never expires. It is always relevant even when we don’t like it, like right now when you exercise your right to free speech and sound like a total idiot. You don’t even know when it was written much less what it is about.

      • Lawrence says:

        ^ Amen!

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

        Read the preamble to the BILL OF RIGHTS Russel. Sometimes it is truly better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt.

      • Another chuck says:

        My thinking has been so narrow minded on this subject. I had forgotten entirely what the Constitution means. I was so caught up in thinking that no one should be allowed to violate it. But you’re right, the constitution is just an affirmation of natural rights. Among those are the right to self defense. And why would anyone believe the people holding all of the guns when they tell you they want to take yours to make you safer.

        For any of you apologists that think you live in the “real world” where we should compromise, when has compromising your rights ever been okay? Have some responsibility for yourself and your own defense.

  31. Russel says:

    Gotcha!!! 🙂

  32. Lawrence says:

    Ha ha – got me too. *face palm*