The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 16, 2012, 07:10 PM   #1
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Just heard on the radio (news) that Senator Feinstein from California is going to introduce a gun control bill very soon. This, with the help of a number of other congressional members.

I believe it is an assault weapons ban.

Told ya!
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 07:15 PM   #2
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
Here's a quote:
"We're crafting this one. It's being done with care. It'll be ready on the first day," she said, adding that she'll soon announce the House authors.

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."


Is this the same as the one under Clinton?
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 07:25 PM   #3
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,700
I believe she does this each year, but I could be mistaken. Also, I would assume the bill would be similar to the Clinton era restrictions and appears to be what is being parroted in the media.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old December 16, 2012, 08:08 PM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,519
It'll never pass the house.

"It's being crafted carefully." Yeah, right. It's BEEN "crafted" for years. Nothing new.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 08:18 PM   #5
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
The one thing that appears "new" is that you won't be able to sell your "assault" rifle to another person. You are grandfathered in, but can't sell.

If I'm reading correctly.

Under the Clinton ban, you could sell your personal weapon, right?
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 08:26 PM   #6
fuhr52
Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19
I wonder if she has invested money in the gun industry? What a great way to feather her bed. Unlike us poor surfs insider trading is legal for her.
__________________
"You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" Ronald Reagan
fuhr52 is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 08:51 PM   #7
SecurityMike
Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2011
Location: Chicagoland, Il
Posts: 35
If "assault rifles" were banned...?

Would uppers and parts and magazines still be legal to sell? For example, if I were inclined to "panic buy" an ar 15 but did not have the money for a full gun, is there a part I could buy (a lower receiver, the trigger group, the stripped lower) that I could build up later when I have more funds, possibly after the actual gun has been outlawed for sale?

Sorry if this is on the wrong forum or even a dumb question.
__________________
"We have repeatedly held that one who is unlawfully assaulted and put in apparent danger of his life or of great bodily harm need not attempt to escape but may repel force with force..." PEOPLE v. BUSH
414 Ill. 441 (1953)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
SecurityMike is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:01 PM   #8
rkeiger
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Posts: 6
Murder capital of the US is Chicago, IL. How are the gun laws there?

Last edited by Al Norris; December 16, 2012 at 09:29 PM. Reason: Conservative v Liberal debating
rkeiger is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:20 PM   #9
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,545
I think with the emotions running high after this most recent unspeakable act, the anti-gun proponents are going to have a shot at passing a bill...watered down or otherwise.

I believe the Connecticut incident is the straw that broke the camel's back and this is the beginning of anti-gun laws at the Federal level. For the longest time, even after the Oregon incident, I didn't think it was enough. It had to be a violent act that would cause a monumental mud-slinging battle in Congress.

This past Friday was it.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:30 PM   #10
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Quote:
I think with the emotions running high after this most recent unspeakable act, the anti-gun proponents are going to have a shot at passing a bill...watered down or otherwise.
Well, I sincerely hope you are wrong. At the end of the day the politicians will have to answer to their constituents. I'm hoping.
coyota1 is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:31 PM   #11
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Under the Clinton ban, you could sell your personal weapon, right?
Yes; under the 94 AWB, affected firearms made before the ban could still be bought and sold without any additional federal restrictions, and the same went for so-called "high capacity" magazines. Furthermore, it remained legal under federal law to build and sell firearms capable of accepting "pre-ban hi-cap" mags; new guns just couldn't be sold to average citizens with said mags.

Once average folks began to understand the restrictions, the unintended consequence was a massive free-for-all seller's market in pre-ban items. Some gunmakers even got in on the action by using their LE trade-in programs to access caches of spare LE mags, then auction them off to resellers.

The unintended consequences of the first AWB are so well-documented that almost any proposed "AWB II" would have to be far more restrictive, punitive, and invasive in order to be effective. IMHO this fact actually works in our favor because it renders passage of such a law much more remote. Few congress-critters would vote for it- on EITHER side of the aisle- and even if it were passed, it would probably be tied up in court for years.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; December 16, 2012 at 09:42 PM. Reason: minor reword...
carguychris is online now  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:33 PM   #12
pturner67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 655
After Obama's speech this evening, I believe that there will be a huge push for gun control. There may not be a ban on guns per say (beyond "assault" rifles) but he had a build up tonight that something will be done. Maybe a national tax on ammunition?

Something is going to happen. And I don't think it will be left up to the individual states.
pturner67 is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:38 PM   #13
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Nothing will make it out of the House. At least we still have the House.
jmortimer is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:40 PM   #14
pturner67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 655
true jmortimer....but the House will have a lot of pressure after the latest tragedy
pturner67 is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:44 PM   #15
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Wait till things simmer down. All existing gun laws were broken, how can they justify more legislation.
coyota1 is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:52 PM   #16
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Like others, I don't see anything passing the House. You've got a voting bloc that's set itself to deny the President anything he wants. They're not going to let him have a win with gun control.

Furthermore, the language in Heller seems to preclude any sort of sweeping ban on a class of weapons in common use.

And yes, Feinstein does bring this to the table every single year. There will be a great deal of chest-beating about it while its supporters do the rounds on television. Then it'll get deep-sixed in committee, and they'll scream about how they wanted to do something, but the evil gun lobby wouldn't give it to them.

Then other issues will come around and eclipse this. It's all a certain sort of morbid theater.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:52 PM   #17
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Maybe a national tax on ammunition?
A 10-11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition has been in effect since 1919.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/i...xcise-tax.html

I don't think an across-the-board increase in the excise tax is likely. Despite the current budget woes, most folks in Congress don't want to be seen as backing higher taxes on low to middle-income Americans.

That said... I do think there is a real danger that an "AWB II" may take the form of a taxation scheme aimed (no pun intended) at so-called "evil" features. My thoughts here:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...2&postcount=85
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old December 16, 2012, 09:59 PM   #18
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Let's cut the party rhetoric.

Fact is, there are as many Republicans as Democrats that might sign onto a new AWB bill. Time to really get in an uproar is if we see the actual bill and find out who is supporting it.

Further party posturing on this forum will be dealt with, at a minimum, by a deletion of the post. Depending upon that post, further action may be taken against the member who posted.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 10:05 PM   #19
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
All I know is my phone started ringing the moment the press briefing got over... Whatever action occurs people are concerned...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 10:16 PM   #20
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Like others, I don't see anything passing the House. You've got a voting bloc that's set itself to deny the President anything he wants. They're not going to let him have a win with gun control.
Yep, we sure do have a majority of pro-gun persons in the House of Representatives. But remember, this is the same majority that has gone along with raising the debt limit, gone along with increases in government employment, gone along with the orders of drones killing civilians in sovereign nations, gone along with continued spending, gone along with……. Need I continue?

I have a feeling the "pro-gun" majority in the House will go along with a new assault weapons ban. Hope I’m wrong…… Pray I’m wrong……

In the mean time I’m calling my Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) tomorrow. That, and ordering a few dozen more AK mags.
Mike38 is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 10:16 PM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
Fact is, there are as many Republicans as Democrats that might sign onto a new AWB bill.
Ah, but how many Democrats would sign it? Many of the freshmen who took seats in 2006 were pro-gun. In fact, a couple had better NRA ratings than the guys they'd replaced. Consider the congressional briefs in support of us in Heller and McDonald. There are plenty of signatures from both sides of the aisle.

I've long argued that a politician's stance is not always determined by the color of his lapel pin. Folks pushing for stricter gun laws may find they've got much less support than they thought when they push the issue.

Then there are the folks who remember 1994. Many folks who might support a new ban in their hearts aren't going to risk their careers by supporting it in deed.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 10:34 PM   #22
Distinguished Rick
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 1
If you really want to have your voice heard BEFORE a vote contact your Senators and Congressmen and voice your opinion. After a vote.....won't matter one bit. Time is now to act. Later it will just be bitching that someone did'nt do their part.
Distinguished Rick is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 11:16 PM   #23
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 769
In all the emotional hubbub let's try to maintain a rational train of thought here. Gun control is about CONTROL, not about the safety of an individual citizen or society as a whole. If that were the case, then it would be a requirement that all citizens be armed, as there is a multitude of unbiased statistics that would back that up. It is time to face up to the real facts, and stop trying to hide behind knee-jerk, feel-good legislation. The fact is that, as a nation, our moral compass is totally skewed. If you want to make a difference, then truly love your children and teach them to respect others. Teach them by your actions as well as your words. Go out and befriend your neighbors and take the time to help another person, even if it costs you something. Teach your children the uniqueness and beauty of each individual life. That, my friends, is how we can overcome the rash of heinous and unprecedented acts of violence that have occurred. Guns are not the problem, people are.
ronl is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 11:42 PM   #24
Hiker 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 501
Look for AR15's and the like to be moved to NFA status. That won't require legislation.
Hiker 1 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 12:11 AM   #25
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,463
Quote:
Look for AR15's and the like to be moved to NFA status. That won't require legislation.
How do you figure?

NFA Title II firearms are specifically defined by law. The only major grey area is the "sporting purposes" test for shotguns with bore diameters over 1/2", but this does not encompass AR-type rifles.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15659 seconds with 10 queries