Update on the Feinstein gun control bill... not good at all

These idiots...

Just received this from a reader:

Mike,

I just got off the phone with Feinstein's office. . . I'll give you a rundown of what I learned:

* Semi-auto, fancy hunting rifles are on the exemption list. Staffer said he'd used one last time he went hunting--so much for the idea that politicians and judges that hunt with semi-autos will oppose the ban.

* He specifically brought up the Kel-Tec KSG as an example of something that they wanted to ban even though it's not semi-auto, so even though the bullet points on Diane's website don't mention extended tubes on pump guns or any other features like pistol grips on them, that doesn't mean they're going to be safe if she gets her way.

* They don't know how they're going to set up the NFA regulation for everything--that will be done with the help of an ATF agent coming over from FTB next week. Therefore, no idea if they'll allow standard NFA transfer with $200 tax for those suckers who register their guns.

* The regulations will be a loose set of guidelines giving ATF authority to set it up how they want, so the picture on the 22nd will still just be a partial picture.

As for the lists of features and the specific exemptions and specific bans, they can't release them until the bill comes out, but the staffer said I could ask some specific questions and he'd tell me what he knew:

* KSG--as already mentioned, Banned.

* M1 Garand is probably Safe.

(MBV Note: I'm not so sure since the Garand has a bayonet lug.)

* M1A/M14--Banned.

* Mini-14--Banned.

* M1 Carbine--Banned (hopefully this will upset some Fudds and older vets/collectors).

At first, he thought the M1-Carbine would be safe, but then he googled a picture of it. Basically, if he saw a magazine sticking below the body of the gun, and if it is a semi-auto, it's banned. He did a similar thing with the Garand and was apparently reading the Wikipedia page. His conclusion was that even though the gun was a military rifle, it "looked like you could hunt with it" and was limited in capacity. Apparently it's impossible to hunt with something that has a magazine sticking out the bottom--hey, since I've managed that before, maybe I can divide by zero too... This also showed that he has no conception of how quick it is to reload a Garand by pushing in a new En Bloc.

As for the new features test, flash suppressors and bayonet stubs are off the list, but he couldn't tell me the whole list, and just because a gun doesn't meet the features test doesn't mean it won't be placed on the specifically banned list. E.g., the M1A wouldn't necessarily fall under the ban if the feature's test only included the old features now that flash hider and bayonet stub are off the list, but it makes the specific ban list. I'd guess this will sweep up SKS's, Vz. 52 carbines, Saigas, Vepers, Hakims etc. (Or at least all of them that they actually Google and look at.) Since they have so little firearms knowledge, I would guess that they'll probably toss in a clause stating that ATF or the Attorney General can add items to the list in order to catch the ones they didn't Google (and to be able to expand the ban unilaterally later on.)

The phone call was a showcase of legislative ignorance, and of their disdain for us. The more I pretended not to know much about guns, the more they opened up to me about the law. I got the impression that they plan to go big or go home and to make quite a list of banned guns and features. From a few comments, I think that although bayonet stubs and flash hiders are gone, there may be more features being added to their list.

If they pass it like that, there'll be civil war...

Did they say anything about 42oz soft drinks?

True that. It will be chaos!

Originally posted by wrksstudios
True that. It will be chaos!

I am just worried that if the war breaks out in NY I wount be able to get a 42oz soft drink.

They can have my M-1 Carbine when 1...they can FIND IT..and 2? When they win the fight I put up for it. I won't die for that gun but I'll damn sure put a few in the hospital if I'm not securely handcuffed to see it is not taken.

My M-1 Carbine came out of military issue WW-II and is among the true blue Winchester manufacture and issue. It's special in not only that way for being collectible but it's one of two firearms my Grandfather favored in his life and my own Father grew up shooting and learning on.

They look at all guns as nothing but chunks of steel, alloy and wood fashioned into an object that can kill if used that way. They can't even FATHOM the fact that to many, a specific weapon is FAR FAR more than that and we WILL fight over some of them on pure specific principle attached to individual ones. Not to even touch on the overall principles involved for the topic as whole.

Originally posted by lolita64
These idiots...

text

If they pass it like that, there'll be civil war...

No there won't. At worst some loon will loose it but it will be dealt with quick.

It will never happen. They might....MIGHT....get a magazine ban and possibly some kind of restriction on internet ammo sales, but that's the end of it. They probably won't even get that. Right now there isn't even enough support in the freakin' Senate to pass the most watered down of bills, let alone the House of Reps. That's why Ol' Uncle Joe was running is mouth about executive orders (which will get struck down by even a very left leaning SCOTUS). The administration knows they'll never get anything done legislatively.

I hate to be that guy, but good. I hope it does cause a civil war so that the majority of America will wake up and retake our country from the politicians who are subjugating them. Our country no longer represents what our patriots fought and died for. I know the Constitution that I swore an oath to defend from foreign and domestic threats doesn't shape the country that I ultimately fought in a war and hurt myself for. The government keeps whittling away at our rights and the populous sit by and let them do it. It's absurd! The government lies to the public on a daily basis and not only does the population NOT care, they expect it.

I read over the excerpt in the OP and I couldn't help but continually notice that the public isn't privy to all the workings of this bill until after it passes. This is the kind of erosion I am talking about. Why do the people allow the government to dictate their lives behind closed doors? The decisions that are being made will effect every one of them yet we sit idly by, complacently waiting for the all mighty government to tell us what guns we can't own now. This doesn't happen for just this bill, it happens all the time.

This is why the populous needs to take offense at this. The way things are shaping up, it may happen. I realize that this will bring hardship on us all and maybe even the world, but something needs to be done and no matter what it is its going to hurt.

reply to post by lolita64
here is the bill www.feinstein.senate.gov... now if it will be the same one to go before the house or senate ? but it does give you an in-site as to what she has in mind form the link

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 military characteristic
 Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds

it goes on to state

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
 Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address
attempts to “work around” prior bans

so does that give you an idea of what she has in mind?

reply to post by bekod


The final Feinstein bill won't be introduced until January 22 and even then, it'll be changed after that.

The OP is basically a run down of what they intend to put in there.

reply to post by Logarock


True , that there , but the 42 ounce soft drinks will only be included in the ban if the straw can be cut or sharpened so as to be easily used as a weapon of mass destruction.

How can a Garand be safe but an M14 not?

That doesnt make any sense.

Feinstein should know better. After all, she's looked at pictures of guns!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere
8 rounds to 30 60 or 100 rounds, that and if you do not know the M1 Garand, look up M1 Thumb, it is not a safe weapon at all, but reliable as he!!

reply to post by bekod


Where can you get a 100 round mag for an M14?

I own several Garands and shoot in CMP events regularly. It takes all of a second to slam in another 8 and get back on target.

Targets that could be behind brick walls or a mile away with the .30-06 and still be fatally struck.

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Logarock

 

True , that there , but the 42 ounce soft drinks will only be included in the ban if the straw can be cut or sharpened so as to be easily used as a weapon of mass destruction.

edit on 10-1-2013 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)

Well, if you stomp real hard on a 42oz cup, the bang would sound like an artillery simulator. That may buy you enough time to rush in and get a refill and steal the whole straw dispenser. You could then pass them around and have a straw army. History would remember it as the "night of the long straws"....or the "42oz massacree". Sort of like the Boston Tea party without any tea.

The gun grabbers are going full tilt to sweep guns up quickly before the economic sabotage is complete.

reply to post by exitusstatuquo

Good point.

As the Great One has said, "theyre setting the stage for violence".

I just hope that if civil war does break out that 1) the cops stand down and 2) they take it all the way up to DC, raid the Federal Reserve ffs

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by lolita64
These idiots...

text

If they pass it like that, there'll be civil war...

No there won't. At worst some loon will loose it but it will be dealt with quick.

No, there will be a whole lot of what you seem to call loons and they won't know how to deal with it short of declaring martial law and restricting every ones rights to the point that they just alienate the public at large and create more of what you call loons. That's the neat thing about insurgencies, there is no enemy to fight and to combat them you have to clamp down on the population as a whole which only creates more insurgents.

They forgot cigarettes and big trucks that do not belong in city streets.

reply to post by lolita64


This blog is essentially sourceless. Its source is "this dude I know on the internet who said he called their office and got the real low down on the bill".

Its complete hearsay. Perhaps totally fabricated.