Here is video of Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein admitting the passage of an “Assault Weapons Ban” will be an “uphill battle,” but still claiming she believes it can get done. There is no indication there will be enough Democratic votes in the Senate to even get to a simple majority, much less the 60-votes needed to bring it up for a vote on the Floor of the Senate.
Here is video of Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein officially putting forward their attack on the Second Amendment rights of every American. Their so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” would ban 158 firearms, but would clearly affect law-abiding citizens rather than preventing what it claims to prevent. The previous “Assault Weapons Ban” did not prevent the Columbine mass shooting, nor many other mass shootings. Feinstein and her ilk are seizing on the terrible Newtown tragedy to push their long-standing anti-gun agenda.
This bill is going nowhere. Even Joe Biden is already throwing it under the bus:
NBC NEWS: “Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday downplayed the importance of passing an assault weapons ban, even as Senate Democrats began a formal push to revive restrictions on those firearms.
“I’m much less concerned quite frankly about what you call an assault weapon than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine,” said Biden, who discussed gun violence during a Google hangout Thursday afternoon. . . . Read More
Guns that would be banned under Feinstein plan usat.ly/WRG8f1— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) January 24, 2013
So Feinstein doesn’t need to ban all those weapons after all. According to @joebiden, you can’t hit anything with them anyway.— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) January 24, 2013
In the coming battle for the 2nd Amendment, keep this Marine front and center as much as possible!
This is the U.S. Marine – Cpl. Joshua Boston – who wrote the now viral letter to Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein telling her she is overstepping her domain by trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans. Boston was on CNN today, where he clearly dumbfounded the host with his strong defense of the 2nd Amendment. When asked what he would do if Feinstein’s gun ban were to become law, he said:
“Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws.”
The Daily Caller reports today that Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein will likely introduce her bill assaulting the 2nd Amendment Rights of American Citizens on January 22:
The article also gives a rundown on what Feinstein is likely to propose in the legislation. I think it is clear that the real intent of her “Assault Weapons Ban” is to destroy the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
DAILY CALLER: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)–author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004–has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill. Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced.
On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, ”I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012. . . . Read More
*Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
*Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
*Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
*Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:–Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
*Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
*Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
*Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
*Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
*Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.
There is no way any Republican should support this bill. And there should be a great many Democrats oppose it as well. The media will be out in full force to get this passed. It’s time for Americans to stand up for their freedom and say “No.”
You can write your U.S. Senators/ Representative here.
You can call their office at 202-224-3121 (U.S. Capitol Switchboard) to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban.
Here is how gun control works: 1.registration 2.confiscation 3. extermination. Look it up if you don’t believe me.— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 4, 2013
Line to get into Gun Show. Don’t think Gun Control gonna do well in TNtwitpic.com/bsrnst— Dave Ramsey (@DaveRamsey) January 5, 2013
Can’t be expressed any better than this!
A U.S. Marine Veteran, honorably discharged in 2012 after eight years of service to America, has written a response to Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s plan to push additional Gun Control legislation that would force American Citizens to register their guns, and be photographed and fingerprinted. Joshua Boston submitted this letter, titled “No, Ma’am,” via CNN iReport, and it has now gone viral. In the letter, he says flatly:
“I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one. I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man. . . .” Read More
What a great American! He expressed what millions upon millions of other Americans believe. Warner Todd Huston has an interview with this outstanding American about his letter.
U.S. Marine Veteran’s Letter Goes Viral Telling Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein “No Ma’am” on Forcible Gun Registration: “You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. . . I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America . .”
Here is video of Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein saying Gen. David Petraeus will eventually have to testify about the Benghazi Terrorist Attack. Feinstein talked with Andrea Mitchell about how the handling of this entire mess with David Petraeus has been shocking to her, as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feinstein indicated she was never alerted by the FBI that an investigation of Petraeus was underway, and is concerned that other officials outside the normal loop of those notified of such matters knew about it before she did. She said Petraeus – who made a trip to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attack – will have to testify to her committee, probably in closed session, “one way or the other.”
Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein has said she wishes President Obama had not accepted the resignation of Gen. David Petraeus as head of the CIA today. Petraeus resigned today, citing an “extramarital affair” as the reason why:
POLITICO:. . . Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, said she wished President Barack Obama hadn’t accepted Petraeus’s resignation, but she understood the decision. “At CIA, Director Petraeus gave the agency leadership, stature, prestige and credibility both at home and abroad,” Feinstein said in a statement. “On a personal level, I found his command of intelligence issues second to none.” . . . Read More
I have to say I don’t think you can fault President Obama for accepting Petraeus’ resignation. But I do think Petraeus should be subpoenaed to testify to the Congressional Committee looking into the Benghazi Scandal. At this point, Petraeus is reportedly choosing not to testify next week since he is no longer CIA Director.