U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday released a summary of a sweeping gun ban she intends to introduce to Congress in 2013. Her Senate web page describes it as “a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.”
Her proposed legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
•120 specifically-named firearms;
•Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
•Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
•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; and
•Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
•Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
•Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
•Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
•Background check of owner and any transferee;
•Type and serial number of the firearm;
•Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
•Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
•Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
Despite Feinstein’s good intentions, the whole idea of an “assault weapon” ban is an exercise in futility.
First of all, the previous assault weapon ban had no effect on gun violence. Gun-related crime didn’t drop after the 1994 ban on assault weapons became law. In 2004, when the law expired without being renewed, crime didn’t rise, either.
Second, notwithstanding the horrific nature of the Connecticut school shooting was, FBI statistics show violent crime has decreased for five years in a row, despite the fact that gun control legislation has relaxed, according to Hotair.com.
Third, Feinstein obviously misses the point of the Second Amendment, one of the many federal laws she has sworn to support and defend. She claims that her proposed bill “protects legitimate hunters” by “exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes.”
I know I sound like a broken record, but the Second Amendment’s purpose isn’t “hunting” or “sporting.” It’s for another legitimate purpose — self-defense.
What I really find disturbing, however, is the idea that Feinstein would ban “semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that” — and listen carefully here –“have one or more military characteristics.”
So she wants to ban a tool for self-defense solely on the basis that it looks like a military weapon? What’s next — arresting ferret-faced men with beady eyes because they look like criminals?
RedState TV Editorial Drector Ben Howe looked at the proposal and tweeted: “People calm down. @SenFeinstein doesn’t want to ban all guns. Just ones that have handles, bullets, and triggers. All others are fine.”
I feel better already.
Latest posts by Michael Dorstewitz (see all)
- Did Bill Clinton doze off during his wife’s historic speech? Sure looks like it! - July 29, 2016
- Trump’s had it with Hillary’s ‘fantasy world’; unleashes torrent of tweets steeped in stinging reality - July 29, 2016
- Would someone PLEASE educate WH spokesman Josh Earnest on the history of presidential elections? - July 29, 2016