2013 Federal Assault Weapons Ban

So this seems to be all I can find on the new firearms/assault weapons ban of 2013. Once again, everything banned seems to be “what’s in the news” and based on visual elements of the firearm other than function. I’d still like to know what the 900 exemptions are.

What I don’t like is the fact you have to register each “assault weapon/rifle/whatever” as an NFA item. Meaning $200 tax stamp PER FIREARM. This is what we (Vermont) do now for fully automatic guns. I doubt this would go through just on the fact of how many grandfathered firearms would have to be registered and background checks done.

Ill be curious to see the final draft. I don’t like the way shit clings to the air. Shit tornado is coming.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. 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.
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, 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. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:
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 carries 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 1944 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 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. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”
“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must here from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

wtf is this morons problem? So this bitch wants to make it so that you can’t own anything besides a hunting rifle or shotgun. Not to sound like an extremist, but if somebody wants to try and take my guns or tell me I have to pay 200 bucks a rip to keep them they can expect a very uncivilized response.

Im so fucking sick of hearing about gun control.

More ‘control’ isnt going to help anything. Criminals and nut jobs are still going to have guns and use them regardless of what this fucking twat does to try to stop the sale of them and regulate them.

I know it will be revised so it will be more realistic, but holy fuck.

I’m not paying $200 just to own a SKS.

WTF is the cunt smoking?!

Oh wow a female democrat out of CA proposing this… That’s a shocker.

This will never pass in its current form, we all know that. I’m a little skeptical it will pass at all, given that the last time they did the Dems lost majority in congress. (http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html) Also, with social media, there will be a lot more public ‘discussion’ on the topic. That can be a double edged sword but hopefully the logic that banning weapons from law abiding citizens doesn’t do shit to slow down criminals who don’t care about the law.

While I’ll agree with these proposed laws being a ridiculous solution to the problem, and that the AWB is laughable in it’s execution once you get to semantics and grandfathering of pre’bans… the comment about criminals always irks me.

Just cause somebody is a criminal or is about to break the law the doesn’t mean that we have to make it easy for them. Nor does it mean they will go out of their way to get/do something illegal when there is an easier legal option thats almost just as good.

Lets take Aurora Theater shooter. He could have used illegal full auto AR or even an AK (which we all know isn’t even that hard to accomplish as you can get full auto AK sears in parts kits), or even major explosives of sorts to achieve his target better of doing most damage and killing as many as he could, but he didn’t - all of his weapons were legal easily purchased by his insane ass.

This school shooter, while taking the guns from mother without permission wasn’t precisely legal, the fact that his moms had access to them meant he didn’t have to go to the black market to get the AR all he had to do is go to the kitchen.

Virginia Tech shooter - also legally owned guns.

In all don’t confuse amateur criminals who go out with a bang with gang violence and the people of the hood.

Those guys live their entire lives disregarding laws and are responsible for the vast majority of shootings in this country. Typically using a pistol and typically killing each other. Completely different ballgame.

These high profile mass shootings are a VERY small percentage of violent gun crime. 94% of gun crime is done with an illegally obtained weapon (http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635).

Are crimes with a legally obtained ‘assault’ weapon a problem? You bet, but it is a VERY small problem when you look at the big picture. I am all for reducing gun violence, but instead of removing rights from the common law abiding citizen in the name of cutting down on small percentage of the crime lets go for the big problem, crime itself. I believe that we’d see a greater reduction in gun violence if we abandoned the drug war, reformed our punishment system (a college kid selling dope does more time than a lunatic who ran someone down in a vehicle), reform our court system (why are murderers allowed to plead guilty to get a manslaughter charge, letting them back out into the world in 15-30 years), and handling our mentally ill better.

unreal…cant wait to see how this pans out, they’re not getting a dime out of me

Problem is nobody cares about the 7000 gunned down hood rats, gangs, robbers and other criminal culture related shootings as those “sinners play with fire and deserve it”. Those guys could use pistols, .22’s, AR’s, ak’s… legal or illegal and nobody will blink an eye or try to make policy. Other than police involvement they either understand or assume that there isn’t much they can do.

However 100 or so dead a year of “innocent” due to a maniac each year is valued far greater and is the driving force behind policies. THAT type of violence isn’t tolerated and is deemed unacceptable and inexcusable.

The reason that they go after “law abiding citizens” rights is because in most of these cases the shooter was a civil person, and most likely got his guns legally. People can’t comprehend why or how and go after the most direct approach. Take guns away from all so these “uncivil” murders don’t happen again. Other shootings will go on in crime ring levels and people won’t care as long as their schools and malls aren’t being shot up by snapped law abiding citizens.

Does it make their approach right? Not at all.

Does their perspective make some sense? Sure.

I don’t even really have words except that EVERYONE needs to stand up and ensure that this or anything like it doesn’t pass. We don’t HAVE to have a new ban. Those fuckers work for us.

Start writing your senators and representatives.

This. Did it last week. Wrote the governor too.

This is a bit off, there is a lot of innocent death in poor areas wrong place wrong time, wearing the wrong color shirt… No one cares. When something happens to white or a nice area it’s a different story.

Drug use in a poor area… whatever…:pop Scotia teens on extasy? it’s a huge problem that must be solved!:ahh No one panics when it’s all part of the plan, when the social hierarchy is in working order everything is fine.

But other wise I agree.

anyone have email address to our senators?

They appreciate handwritten letters more.

oh ok good to know thanks

If this even stinks a faint smell of getting passed, for once I hope people do more than write a “strongly worded letter” or something along those lines. One of these times, everyone will get together, stand together, and say no. I don’t mean standing on Madison Ave with home made signs and protesting like a bunch of burned out hippies either.

If a part of the population turned a few cities upside down it may get attention. Or if no one complied with the ban as a basic slap in the face. Some people need to be told to frig off.

$200 X how many “assault weapons” in circulation = $$$$ holy fuck.

Our own BATF can’t keep track of over 2000 firearms used in the botched Operation Fast and Furious, good lord the fuck ups that could and would happen if they had to keep track of every firearm in the US. So what if one serial number is entered incorrectly and it shows my gun was used in a homicide?

This bill as it is written will never go through. The house is a republican majority and even some democrats have stated they arent touching anything gun control related for fear of political suicide. If anything passes it will be pale in comparison to this.