Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Tom Servo said:
...and a good example of how the cause of the RKBA crosses party lines.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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;
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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"
Click to expand...

I think if wording like that will be in the ban it could be worth the fight in court
 
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.
 
The idea of forfeiture without compensation would also raise some serious 5th Amendment concerns.
Click to expand...

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

Even a conservative CBO estimate of the cost would give most politicians pause.
 
150 billion if all guns were turned in?

But really I doubt it would cost much - how many do you think would actually be turned in? And any that were not turned in immediately would cost nothing to confiscate later, at least monetarily.
 
Even a conservative CBO estimate of the cost would give most politicians pause.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. They have no qualms about borrowing into 100% of the GDP to meet other political goals certainly this will not bother anyone. Barely a rounding error on the debt really. Someone, somewhere will pay for it someday but not the current guys running things.
 
The second, the diminution in value test, argues that government regulation is a taking
when it so restricts the use of property that little of its value remains to the
owner.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this reads . Does it say the government can't be the cause of the property no longer having value ? or because the property no longer has value , there can be no just compensation ? Even though the law they past is the very thing that caused your property to no longer have value .
 
Another killer of ducks always your kids to be defenseless against killers:

“I’m a hunter, believe in Second Amendment rights. But you know what? I don’t need an assault weapon to shoot a duck,” Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And I think they ought to be banned, and I think we need to put a ban on the amount of shells you can carry in a magazine and I think we have to strengthen our background checks.”


Save the ducks!
 
I'm looking forward to seeing how this whole thing plays out in the Senate/House.

I don't enjoy the anxiety.

Hopefully things will just die in committee or be hammered down with a vote from those who believe in the Constitution.

I read an article the other day, they want it done by the end of January?

So when should we expect to see some votes on this in Congress?
 
Save the ducks!
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly the hunting group fails to recognize that not only do they not "need" firearms to hunt, but there are people out there who already hunt using other weapons, so to speak. Bows are the number one but there is also other primitive types of weapons I seem to find primitive hunters either interested in, or using in some fashion.

So, with that said, I have to ask, why dont those hunters feel the need to use something other then a firearm to hunt? The answer would be it is effective to use a firearm, but also requires less skill then say a bow or other primitive weapons. If that is indeed true, then why are we not only restricting, but also expecting those law abiding americans to defend theirself with a less effective weapon?

Many of these americans for one reason or another have varying levels of fitness, but also handicaps and others physical issues which would make it almost impossible to use certain primitive weapons. The issue isnt just do we "need" an AR-15, or standard capacity mags, its also about do those of us, law abiding americans who have some sort of physical issue that restricts them, that should be entitled to adequate, proper tools for self defense.

It would be one thing to restrict an average, fit, american, to a 10 round mag, but its another to restrict another who is bound to a wheel chair, and has only 1 good arm to use to a 10 round mag and expect that same wheel chair bound person to be able to reload quickly and defend theirself, when a standard, full capacity mag would be better.

We would be essentially discriminating against those in society who are restricted due to physical issues for whatever reason.

Also, it we can look at the mental health aspect in a similar way. There are many folks out there who feel that any variation from the norm is a mental health issue. While I do support increase of reporting of serious mental health issues to NICS, and I do support increasing mental health programs, we need to not only define what is "serious" and what is just a minor abnormality...

Ive known and dealt with folks personally, who feel strongly about keeping those folks, some with extremely minor mental issues, some as small minor learning disabilities, seperate from others and or discriminate against them, because they are not the "norm" as they see it. Ive never known 2 people exactly alike to be honest, so we should expect minor variations in people and embrace that difference. I bring up this point because we need to keep those who have a real potential for violence restricted, but we should not let the line drop down to where it includes anyone outside of a narrow norm.
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting (albeit pre-Heller and McDonald) analysis of the Takings Clause in relation to a firearms ban.
Click to expand...
Please summarize

As to the "In common use" reference. I would find it impossible to NOT say that ARs and AKs are in common use. The amount sold since the Sandy Hook shooting alone should prove common use, let alone the 4+ million ARs before then.

On a secondary thought, does anyone have any statistics on the amount of firearms sold since the shooting?
 
It's not Feinstein, but Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va) has introduced the NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 (H.R.21) requiring background checks for all firearms transfers. Anyone know if this has any actual NRA support, or is it creative wording to imply such?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) has introduced the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R.65) which will raise the age limit of semiautomatic "assault weapon" ownership to 21 and require all guns to be sold with a safety device. See Tom Servo's earlier link to read the bills in their entirety (I don't know how to put it in this post).
 
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) has introduced the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R.65) which will raise the age limit of semiautomatic "assault weapon" ownership to 21 and require all guns to be sold with a safety device. See Tom Servo's earlier link to read the bills in their entirety (I don't know how to put it in this post).
Click to expand...
The Gun Control proposal from Texas would be the least intrusive. My hometown is within 30 minutes of Sheila Jackson. To say that a lot more people hate her than like her is an understatement.

Edit: I fail to see how either of these provisions would even marginally alter these disasters. The legislators are grasping at straws.
 
The lame safety device they include with guns plus a leatherman equals a safety device no more.

Its not about safety. Its about incremental control. Raise the age on this. Force the maker to include that. They can't or won't kick down the door. So they get their foot in the door. Then their leg and so on.

Meanwhile they are all showing their posteriors.

Anyone OK with a 10 round mag limit...needs to get ready for a 5 round limit then a single shot limit.
 
considering that the recent fiscal cliff bill was just a band aid that kicked the can down the road for 2 months does anyone really thing something as controversial as some of the proposals being made will ever pass ? Last time I looked both the Senate and the House had to pass a bill fro it to be sent to the President and I don't think even he would try a executive order on this one. Now if the libs get control of the House in 2014 then it is possible and even likely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top