Feinstein Introduces Sweeping Gun Ban Bill

At least one gun control proposal is now in the hopper, and if it becomes law, it would be a big change.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca)   announced plans to introduce a sweeping gun control bill that would ban 158 types of rifles, as well as other shotguns, hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein claims that no guns will be confiscated. Her aim is to do away with the weapons by attrition over time. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, (D-NY) will file the same bill in the House of Representatives.

A Salon article describing the press conference with Senator Feinstein and Representative McCarthy reads in part:

In a press conference Thursday, Democrats unveiled a new version of the assault weapons ban that they will introduce into the House and Senate, which includes a ban on 158 specifically named military-style firearms.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who sponsored the Senate version of the bill and who worked on the assault weapons ban from the 90s that expired in 2004, said in her remarks that this will be a “tough battle,” but she is “incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in this country.”

“The common thread in these shootings in that each gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon” or a large capacity magazine, Feinstein said.

The legislation specifically prohibits 158 types of military grade firearms, as well as other semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can have a detachable magazine and have at least one military characteristic. As Feinstein explained, the 1994 version of the law had a two-characteristic test for a weapon to be banned, but that was “too easy to work around.”

Feinstein also emphasized that the ban will not effect weapons for hunting and sporting, and protects “2200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. They are, by make and model, exempted from the legislation.” She added: “No weapon is taken from anyone. The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time. Therefore there is no sunset on this bill.” (Read more here.)

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    It will not pass. And thank God for that.

  • Will

    Sounds reasonable to me, but the gun lobby will not let it pass. The violence wii continue.

  • vox borealis

    I’ve got a crazy idea. Why don’t these technocrats try to amend the constitution. It’s clear they don’t care much for the document, and certainly not the second amendment. Fine. It’s not holy scripture. So let’s change it. Instead of trying to circumvent the constitution through a bunch of silly laws that are badsed largely on inflammatory and potentially dangerous language (” military grade firearms”—what does that even mean? and is it really a good thing to give the State a monopoly on military grade weapons? After all, as gun law proponents like to point out, the second amendment was enacted at a time when people had muskets and the like…of course, so did the State, so everyone had state of the art military grade firearms back in those days…is that what the framers wanted? is that what we want?).

    So, top pussyfooting around, (mostly) Dem lawmakers. Just come out and say it. The second amendment is poorly written and/or outdated, and it needs to be abolished and/or clarified.

    • Sus

      I agree vox. It is time to abolish the 2nd amendment and replace it with something that is in line with the times.

      • vox borealis

        Of course, your very statement suggests that the Natural Law philosophy that undergird the Constitution and the rights articulated therein is itself not in keeping with the times. We have no inalienable rights endowed to us by the Creator. Rather, we have some goodies that the State doles out to us, in keeping with times.

      • Ryan

        Good idea. I suggest indefinite detention without due process.

  • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com neenergyobserver

    Manny is 2 for 2 on this one. Somebody tell me how a law banning legal firearm will end the violence, except of course for the rare lawbreaker who gets shot by a civilian.

  • FW Ken

    I’ve talked with some very conservative people who have no issue with restricting military firearms to military settings. Handguns for home safety and guns for hunting seem reasonable.

    On the other hand, it’s foolish to expect laws to solve the problem. Criminals really aren’t likely to obey new laws any more than they have obeyed existing laws. I’m ready to see comprehensive reform of mental services. I’m ready to see us address the pervasive violence in the media.

  • http://mywordwall.wordpress.com Imelda

    The only issue I have with this gun ban is that only the law abiding abides by it. Sure, obtaining guns may be more difficult for gun runners and organized groups . But money talks. If money does not silence opposition, the gun barrel does. I guess, I am too jaded.

    For the good of society, I hope the laws work as intended. Although, I think we need more than gun control to prevent violence. It is not the gun that kills, the people who use the guns do.


  • Ted Seeber

    I own a 70 year old gun. It is still able to fire.

    Attrition works against human beings getting old. It doesn’t work against machinery.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    This was probably introduced so that some other unreasonable legislation (which, however, is not AS unreasonable as this) will seem reasonable.

  • Jimmy

    Any one who believes a gun ban will change anything is out of their mind. You have the right to your opinion but you can not get past the facts. Look at the crime rate of ANY state or country that has a gun ban. The only people that this effects are the ones willing to follow the law. Im sure all the carjackers, drug dealers, child molesters, rappists, and thieves will bring their guns to turn them in no problem if its illegal to have them. When will people wake up. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

  • http://wordsthathavemeaning.wordpress.com/ Russell Holder

    The 2nd Amendment does not need to be replaced… it needs to be honored, and even amendments should be added to clarify it but what could be deftly changed are the out dated thoughts [the modality of the day]. If a person is found to be harmful to themselves and others [by virtue of their psychological state]… the Medical community needs to be allowed to come forward [legally] and make this information clearly stated to those with the ability to grant permits, i.e. our own government. It is bad enough pharmacological means have been taken to guide and address our youth’s issues without showing indication or concern for the less than positive side effects which would come about by the prescribing of them. This is going to be the blame game [continued] if they do not adhere to these practical changes and more senseless killings will occur.

  • stan cassity

    Rewrite the 2nd ammendment ?? That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard !! Im sorry anybody ever gets shot with a firearm. But Im also sorry we have drunk drivers , dope heads , and crazy people that kill. There are 4 to 500 million guns in this country , do you think the bad guys are going to turn theirs in ? Most shootings are done by gang members and crazy people ! Take away the honest peoples guns because of that ! Then call the police and wait 30 minutes when one of them comes to your house !

  • Rockdad

    Vicki Dorff-Payne
    Feinstein looked like an actual living zombie on today’s senate hearings ..very scary. She could play a lead on the Walking Dead show.