Did the Feinstein bill change re: transfers?

T

tulsamal

New member
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!

Gregg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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! :eek:
 
In any case, I'm doubtful of its passage.
Click to expand...

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.

Gregg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top