The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 31, 2013, 04:10 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,546
Did the Feinstein bill change re: transfers?

Way back at the beginning of Jan, the text of Feinstein's proposal started to pop up on the web. And we talked about it here. And one of the elements that was commonly pointed out as legally problematic was the part where it said existing semi-autos were grandfathered in but they could never be sold or transferred. So you get to keep your AR-15 but you can't ever pass it down to your son. Or grandson. Had to be turned in after your death.

So the talk at the time was about how this probably constituted a taking of property without compensation. Since something of value would have to be surrendered from your estate after your death.

But I just got an email from GOA. And there is this paragraph:

"* Allowing for grandfathering and transfer of semi-autos (but prohibiting the transfer of magazines and prohibiting the transfer of semi-autos without a Brady Check);"

So did something change from when we first saw the bill? Did she change that part before she put it on the floor? I would like to have my facts straight when I'm arguing with people!

tulsamal is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 04:28 PM   #2
Junior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2010
Posts: 10
I've been waiting for the text of S 150 to be made available by the Government Printing Office. Then we will be able to tell if the bill on her website is really the same as the bill she introduced in Congress.
RubiDing is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 06:51 PM   #3
Junior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2012
Posts: 6
Nothing changed, She never did have a part about banning transfers. Her opening line on the summery stated that wants to ban sale, manufacture, and transfer and most people took that as she wants to make it illegal to sell a firearm if the bill became law. Its worth noting that the 94 bill included the same language and when the fine print was read it ultimately meant transfer, sale, and manufacture of post-94 firearms covered by the bill.

There is a portion of the nfa summery that hinted at transferring firearms but most people seemed to overlook it and only focus on the opening line without giving much though as to what is really meant.

She does intend to ban transfers of magazines though.

Needless to say its a bad bill and needs to be opposed, and just because your allowed to still sell what you have does not in any way make this ok.
kenny87ky is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 11:49 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,154
It hasn't even been printed yet, as Rubi pointed out.

Which is odd, because it's a long lag. It's even longer considering she initially promised it on the first day of the session.

In any case, I'm doubtful of its passage. Even if it made its way to the House, it'll get gutted in committee.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 05:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 236
I think they are trying the Obamacare tactic of...

"We need to pass this bill to see what's in it!" Nanny Pelosi

In California they already have many of the provisions of this bill as law. Now in California they have introduced bills to eliminate the grandfather clause of the AWB and a going to try to confiscate all grandfathered AWB registered arms!
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 12:31 AM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,546
In any case, I'm doubtful of its passage.
I agree. But I like to be as honest as possible. People notice if your statements always check out. And when the other side says things that you can prove aren't true. So I don't want to get into arguments about her bill and tell people you can't sell or transfer your AR-15 or that there will be an NFA registrations requirement, etc, unless that stuff is actually in there!

Not trying to find a way to support her bill or anything crazy like that.

tulsamal is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 12:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05004 seconds with 7 queries