Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

[Metal god]

Does anybody know if this is accurate

Summary of 2013 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 or more military characteristics; and
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; and
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.

I got this off another thread here at TFL
.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Contrary to popular belief, there is a process to this. A bill is not a law until it has gone through the process. It is introduced, it is given a number and a title, and it gets heard by a committee. If the committee decides not to table it, it gets debated on the floor. Then it goes back for revision. Then it gets debated again. Then it goes back for revision. Then it gets debated again. This can go on for quite some time.

Tom, aren't you missing something? The same thing I think every major newspaper and blog has missed to date: that the committee chairman can pigeon hole a bill, a way of silently preventing it from even hitting the floor - and I believe any bill will be introduced in the judicial committee, for which the chairman has said that a gun ban isn't on the table.

"We’re going to take a look at what happened there [in Newtown] and what can be done to help avoid it in the future," Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees gun laws, told Roll Call last month. "But gun control is not going to be something that I would support."

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/27...#ixzz2Gy80t8G7

[thallub]

IMO: A new AWB is very unlikely. We do need to be on alert.

There were at least 12 attempts to extend the AWB. Most got few co-sponsors and all went nowhere.

[Tom Servo]

The same thing I think every major newspaper and blog has missed to date: that the committee chairman can pigeon hole a bill, a way of silently preventing it from even hitting the floor

Android, shut up! I've still got guns to sell!

I kid, I kid. I work at ground zero with the public on this, and I get bombarded with questions, concerns, conspiracy theories and whatnot all day long at times like this. I talk to people who actually think the United Nations can enact legislation here. I am not kidding on that last one.

It amazes me that I have to give grown adults the Schoolhouse Rock lecture on the legislative process.

I'm glad to see the statement from Goodlatte. Unfortunately, the only member of the Committee from my state is Hank Johnson, and he won't be swayed from his views.

[thallub]

The same thing I think every major newspaper and blog has missed to date: that the committee chairman can pigeon hole a bill, a way of silently preventing it from even hitting the floor

Bingo!!!

Committee chairpersons have tremendous latitude in the consideration of house bills. Most bills never see the light of day.

In 2003 Carolyn McCarthys H. R. 2038 did not get a committee hearing. H. R 3831; congressman Castles bill to extend the AWB, died the same death.

http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/arti...b704536989.txt

[BGutzman]

It amazes me that I have to give grown adults the Schoolhouse Rock lecture on the legislative process.

To us non lawyers or those at least not super well educated in the law, I think the process is a misty veil... There seem to be rules that can be bent or broken at will in the process. Factual or not I keep hearing about bills being passed in one house or the other without even being read... Media hysteria? Possibly... Heck I don't know. I think the general membership of this forum at least would feel better if there were one standard, non bypass able process. It could be that there is one and only one process... Perception however is king, perception trumps facts everyday.

The perception is we have a lot of people legislating that are well motivated to do any deed no matter how moral or immoral to deny us our rights to arms... And to be fair there are a lot of laws that make that perception seem to have a more factual basis than most things. So, ok, you have me beat 3 ways to Sunday on this stuff but that's why I'm here to benefit from the collective experience... I would suggest others here might say the same.

We all have our expertise areas and this is by far apparently one you have great strength in... No doubt in my mind you have passed the bar... We appreciate your knowledge..

[Tom Servo]

No doubt in my mind you have passed the bar.

I've never even taken a law class. My academic background is pretty much on liberal arts side of things.

However, I tend to do research on issues that matter to me, and that includes areas that involve my civil rights. While I'm dismayed to see the apathetic charade that passes for civics education in our schools, I'd hope folks would do some reading on their own regarding the matter.

With resources like Wikipedia available freely, there's no reason for a fortysomething adult not to know that the President can't simply enact legislation out of free air, or that a treaty can't bypass the Constitution.

Many of the people unloading their fears on me will spend hours reading Fifty Shades of Grey, but they've never read our founding documents. They'll waste huge amounts of money on "tactical" gear of questionable utility, but they can't be troubled to ante up for a $25.00 NRA membership. A significant portion of them don't vote, and I doubt one in twenty can name any of their congressmen.

And this is how we lose our liberties. If 10% of the folks howling at me actually called their representative instead of burying their heads in the sand (or trekking all over town to blow obscene amounts of money on things they think will be banned), we'd be much better off.

[mayosligo]

Tom Servo said:

And this is how we lose our liberties. If 10% of the folks howling at me actually called their representative instead of burying their heads in the sand (or trekking all over town to blow obscene amounts of money on things they think will be banned), we'd be much better off.[/QUOTE]

So true. I tell friends I have written to my congressmen and senators and show them what I have written and more than half thank me and do nothing or tell me they don't know how to contact their representatives even when I provide the link. Very sad.

[Metal god]

For the record

New NRA life member

I not only vote . I research my votes .

My Senators are Boxer and Feinstien

congress woman is Davis

I plagiarize the heck out of people on this forum and send it to my reps as if I thought of it my self .
There are many people here that artculate thing so much better then me .

and I spend more money on gun stuff then I should but not as much as I would like

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Does anybody know if this is accurate

That is what we know at the moment; a direct copy and paste from Feinstein's Senate webpage.

[trespass]

If this does, perhance, become law. Seems to me if have to register NFA and pay tax, etc..might as well go full bore and obtain a fully auto firearm?
If taxed, inspected, registered, and regulated just seems like might as well
get a real assault weapon?

[Alabama Shooter]

I work at ground zero with the public on this, and I get bombarded with questions, concerns, conspiracy theories and whatnot all day long at times like this. I talk to people who actually think the United Nations can enact legislation here. I am not kidding on that last one.

You must work in the coffee shop of the UN building.

[Drummer101]

Another article for those who are interested.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/fe...ed-january-22/

On a side note, Senator Feinstien reminds me of the head master who wears pink in Harry Potter...

[Metal god]

Who's going to read through 13 pages of post looking for new specifics that does not talk about the specifics of the AWB cus there were none at the time the thread was started .

require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.

I do not like any of the bill but this part sucks . I very much planned on handing my firearms down to my son . I guess I'll have to transfer ownership to a few before it goes into effect . My guess is It will say the owner of said firearm may not lend the firearm to anyone . That would mean I would not be able to shoot those fire arms again . . Im sure if caught with a "AW" not registered in your name would not be good . I also find it interesting that part is left out of the summery . Can't wait to see what else is left out .

What are your guys thoughts now that we have more specifics and what parts if any do you think will not hold up in court .

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Metal god

What are your guys thoughts now that we have more specifics and what parts if any do you think will not hold up in court .

We still do not have the actual language of the bills proposed in the current Congress. And I think it is proper that the moderators maintain a strict separation of "what may be" from "what is" in this discussion.

As to "what may be," we have had, for quite some time, a very, very good idea of the contents of the bills that have been or will be introduced in the current Congress. The anti-gun politicians have been tweaking their ideas for 18 years and have not been shy about showcasing their ideas by proposing bills in each session of Congress.

[Technosavant]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

And this is how we lose our liberties. If 10% of the folks howling at me actually called their representative instead of burying their heads in the sand (or trekking all over town to blow obscene amounts of money on things they think will be banned), we'd be much better off.

We need to find a place to engrave this into granite in letters ten feet high.

If I had a quarter for everybody I've seen worrying about a ban but haven't yet written legislators or joined a group who will be fighting the battle, I'd have enough to go buy some in demand items at current high market prices.

The folks standing in line at gun shows and gun shops need to spend the time writing emails to legislators. They do that and we're guaranteed to not see anything pass.

[Ben Towe]

I'm glad to see the statement from Goodlatte. Unfortunately, the only member of the Committee from my state is Hank Johnson, and he won't be swayed from his views.

I'm glad to see it too. And isn't Hank Johnson the Rep. who thought Guam would capsize and sink if we stationed more troops there? Real critical thinker, that man.

[Tom Servo]

And isn't Hank Johnson the Rep. who thought Guam would capsize and sink if we stationed more troops there?

Yes. Yes he is.

What are your guys thoughts now that we have more specifics and what parts if any do you think will not hold up in court

We can never make exact predictions, but the idea that the AR-15 is not a weapon "in common use" doesn't wash. Given that semiautomatic pistols, many of which hold more than 10 rounds, are considered so makes a ban on high-capacity magazines somewhat suspect.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Ben Towe

And isn't Hank Johnson the Rep. who thought Guam would capsize and sink if we stationed more troops there? Real critical thinker, that man.

Sometimes I take great pride in being from Georgia....and then I think of great men like Hank Johnson and Billy carter and die a little inside.

In other news, I got an email back from John Barrow's office today. He, or by proxt his aide, was thankful for my interest and reiterated Rep. Barrow's support for the Second Amendment.

No mention was made of the fact that I told him in my letter that I was a registered Republican but would vote for him if he stood for me on this one.

[Tom Servo]

In other news, I got an email back from John Barrow's office today. He, or by proxt his aide, was thankful for my interest and reiterated Rep. Barrow's support for the Second Amendment.

Barrow's solidly in our corner, and a good example of how the cause of the RKBA crosses party lines.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

...and a good example of how the cause of the RKBA crosses party lines.

He also represents one of the last Blue Dogs of the "fine Southern tradition" as my Souther Politics professor referred to him once. He's the reason I am able to stomach being a single issue voter.

[Metal god]

This off of Sen. Fienstien's webpage.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;

And this statement in the Dailty caller article

require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners

Seem to be contradictory . Who would you be transferring the gun to if you can not sell it or leave it to your children when you die .

I must have mist this part reading this .

AR-15 is not a weapon "in common use"

I think if wording like that will be in the ban it could be worth the fight in court

[Tom Servo]

The NFA thing simply won't work. There isn't the infrastructure, manpower, or budget to handle the registration of so many firearms in such a short time. Furthermore, since the NFA has nothing to do with semiautomatic rifles, it'll have to be rewritten, which could have unintended consequences for supporters.

Fun fact: the NFA was originally going to include a $2.00 tax and registration of handguns, but that provision was axed due to opposition from the politically nascent NRA.

The idea of forfeiture without compensation would also raise some serious 5th Amendment concerns.

[tulsamal]

The idea of forfeiture without compensation would also raise some serious 5th Amendment concerns.

I think that's the biggest Constitutional problem of all. If a serious shooter has $10,000 - $30,000 worth of semi auto rifles and magazines, telling him that he can't sell them or transfer them is outright theft. No due process, no just compensation. If any confiscation actually ever occurred, seems to me they would just have to bite the bullet and pay gun owners for the items they demanded be surrendered.

Gregg

[Tom Servo]

If any confiscation actually ever occurred, seems to me they would just have to bite the bullet and pay gun owners for the items they demanded be surrendered.

And the money for that would come from what source? Yep.

Even a conservative CBO estimate of the cost would give most politicians pause.