Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Diane Feinstein says she has been "looking at pictures of guns" in order to write a ban bill. Apparently she thinks that will give her an informed position. At least she will be in a position to judge which ones look scary.

So her ban will only cover guns that are: made of polymer, stainless steel, stamped metal or blued metal, if it can fire one or more rounds of real live ammunition, if it looks like a real gun, if it almost looks like a real gun,if it can be concealed within a holster or a 7' box, if it is sold as a rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver, derringer, automatic, semiautomatic, single shot, double barrel, pump, lever, bolt, falling block, single action, double action or muzzle loader, it will be banned.

Everything else will be okay to own.

Gives me a real sense of pride in the intellectual honesty of our elected representatives.
 
Not to get too political but Jackson introducing a seemingly weaker bill and because she is from TX has no causal relationship. She is not a friend of the RKBA.
 
politicians can introduce all the bills they want, that is their job and how they try to convince people they deserve re election. Only a few of them ever get tabled. Do you know how many bills never even make it to the floor because they get lost in committee or if they make it out they do not get tabled ?

do some brushing up on your civics folks and quit letting the fear mongers on both sides get your bowels in a knot. It is ok to be concerned but don't panic over every news article or take it like every proposal will ever become law
 
*** Two options on gun measures: The White House has a self-imposed deadline of the end of this month to come up with some tangible items. They can go one of two ways: (1) Incremental (magazines and mental-health screenings): This will show the White House trying to create proposals that can pass, but there will be a lot of disappointed people, or (2) Bolder (really pushing for reinstating the assault-weapons ban, mandatory background checks of all purchases, including private sales, a national gun ownership database): But the risk of the bold approach is that it can’t pass Congress. It’s a bit of a political box for the White House; they’d like to do something, and there is a chance to “do something,” but what is possible and what some gun-control advocates really want are not in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Source

This to me really sums up the current situation. "Something" may happen, but it's not nearly as dire as it seems.
 
MSBC babblers think the Administration will go for the whole shebang and then settle for something less.

The tightening of mental health checks, reporting and NICS for private sales at gun shows are good bets.

I have a whacky theory that the administration knows that truly draconian bills would not pass. Thus, they don't want to waste effort on a long term effort on a losing proposition. Go for something now, get what you can. If you lose on something, you can say you tried. Blame it on the nuts and use it for the 2014 campaign if it has traction. Or forget it and say well we tried.

So get it over with now and move on.

I also think that the NICS thing can be played to some advantage and expansion of gun rights as I said elsewhere.
 
I think it would be wise to keep in mind Obama sent 400K as the tax relief cap. Boehner tried to send back 1 million, failed, and caved, at which point Obama got 400K, 450 for couples.
 
Administration will go for the whole shebang and then settle for something less.
Click to expand...

I think this is accurate . The AWB summery seems to be contradicting it self

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test;
Click to expand...

If they are going to ban them all from being mad why is the a characteristic test for gun that are not being made

Bans the sale, TRANSFER , importation, or manufacturing

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee
Click to expand...

If the bill bans all transferring of said weapons and you can not hand them down then why do they want a back ground check on grandfathered weapons when transfered . To me it seems they built the compromises right in
 
The Tax/Cliff/Tax business had a built-in deadline or artificial deadline, and thus urgency. The AWB is the exact opposite, the longer it gets dragged out the more people forget about any given mass shooting and go back to posting pictures of cats.

"Do nothing at all" is an option here, and for many the preferred one.
 
JimDandy said:
I think it would be wise to keep in mind Obama sent 400K as the tax relief cap. Boehner tried to send back 1 million, failed, and caved, at which point Obama got 400K, 450 for couples.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Obama wanted 200 or 250 originally.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.
 
The Tax/Cliff/Tax business had a built-in deadline or artificial deadline, and thus urgency. The AWB is the exact opposite, the longer it gets dragged out the more people forget about any given mass shooting and go back to posting pictures of cats.

"Do nothing at all" is an option here, and for many the preferred one
Click to expand...
I see it just the opposite.

The longer things drag out, the more the chance that another "event" will occur.

Nothing has been done to alleviate any of the root causes for the shootings. If anything, conditions that cause them have gotten worse.

& I'm not talking about guns here,,,,,but,,,you can bet that the anti gun side is going to jump all over the sudden demand that's taken place...

If another event that matched Dec. 14th's scope of horror were to take place in the near future - you'd be lucky to be able to register a BB gun in this country...
 
I don't know about it loosing steam. Looks like the administration is going "state by state" manipulating state legislatures.
 
Oh, they're definitely losing steam.

Colorado is the only place outside of the usual anti-gun enclaves where they appear to be getting anything done. The President is one of the very few remaining federal level politicians still pushing for more gun control (and it appears that nobody in Congress is listening... bans are off the table there).

In the various states, while ban bills have been introduced, in the vast majority they have been stuffed into dark holes from which they shall not return. Moreover, the anti gun folks are showing themselves to have overreached- the confiscation bills in MO and MN that are dead in the water and the confiscation/unconstitutional search bill in WA that supposedly was put out there "in error."*

This particular set of battles in legislatures is in wind-down phase. If we keep the pressure on the anti-gun forces will get nothing. Then it's off to the courts to see if some of the recent legislation (such as in NY) will stand up to the new Heller based scrutiny. I rather wonder if they won't... if that is the case, then we may even see magazine and politically incorrect gun bans struck down nationwide.

*Error, sure. It's pretty clear these bills are written by outside lobbying groups and they got carried away with their wish lists. While those groups have their politicians willing to introduce bills, very few are willing to sign on to such things.
 
I agree that the anti's have lost the momentum.

But... we are a country of over 300 million. The bills are all written and the media groundwork has been laid. The other side can patiently wait for the next mass shooting. Could be a month or could be a year. But it is hard to argue there won't be one.... we better be ready.

I agree the AWB is dead at this point. I hope the magazine capacity bills are dead but something _could_ still happen there if we don't watch them.

And then there is the whole "universal background check" thing. Seems like they are in full court press mode on that one. I'm just hoping people like Sen Coburn are going to be able to deflect them into just improving reporting and the whole mental health thing. This one isn't over yet.

As far as the states go... well, I'm not totally against this sort of thing. I'm against the actual legislation but... I'm a lot happier when they do it state by state. Rather than having a large and intrusive Federal Government shoving it down our throats. Pro-gun people can control their states and the crazy people that want to live in the super high density population zones can have theirs. I'm sad for the pro-gun people that live in NY but I would rather see that outcome than a national law created to "help NYC and Chicago" that affects gun owners in Oklahoma.

And we all know it is easier to effect change at the state level. I can drive to OKC. I can actually talk to my state Reps and Senators. They come through my home town all the time. The Federal Government is much more insulated from public input.

Gregg
 
And then there is the whole "universal background check" thing. Seems like they are in full court press mode on that one. I'm just hoping people like Sen Coburn are going to be able to deflect them into just improving reporting and the whole mental health thing. This one isn't over yet.
Click to expand...

I really wonder if that isn't because they're determined to get SOMETHING, ANYTHING passed. They wanted a ban, magazine limits, background checks. They would have even gone for confiscation if they could have (the wish list bills now DOA in MO, MN, etc. show they tried). They wanted tons.

So far, with the exception of NY (already a morass of gun control) and CO (more and more overrun by folks intent on turning it into California 2: Electric Boogaloo), they've won nothing. Not one thing. And even in CO the limit is 15 rounds... not the ten they often try for and certainly not the seven the poor folks in NY had rammed down their throats.

So they want to come out with some kind of victory. Two months ago I was thinking that if we escaped with nothing more than background checks on all transfers, we got out of this storm in surprisingly good shape. I'm still thinking that may be the case, but then again, by no means do we even need to give on that... rather, we can even take part in that discussion and shape it if it can't be quashed.

Why did this happen? Is it because of the money involved, as the Chicago police commissioner claims? Hardly. It's because people like us contacted our legislators and made our wishes very clear. As said, that's easier to do on a more local basis... state by state action is much harder for the antis to fight since there's still not that many places amenable to their desires.

If we keep it up, we'll keep winning. This is the kind of groundswell that just didn't happen in 1994 (not until after the ban passed, that is). We're showing them that the election results of '94 were not a fluke. We're still here. We still care. And we're paying very close attention.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens to the legislators in the states pushing for stricter gun control when election time comes. Hopefully a lot of the anti supporters will loose their seats, and send a message to the politicians similar to what happened when the Clinton ban was voted in.
 
Hopefully a lot of the anti supporters will loose their seats, and send a message to the politicians similar to what happened when the Clinton ban was voted in.
Click to expand...
By then, the damage is done. In 1994, everybody ran around in circles and slapped each other on the back about how they'd contributed to some sort of revolution in Congress.

Yipee. Some folks finally got out and voted, but it was too late at that point. We still had the ban for another ten years.

We need to be proactive, not reactive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top