Feinstein's Proposed Legislation

[Snipersnest]

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons



Stay informed

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.






Press releases
Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012



Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 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 military characteristic
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
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

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.



Effectivenness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban

Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:
In an Urban Institute study for the Department of Justice (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004).
In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), las Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when land imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
Original source (pages 297-298): las S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, "Letter to the Editor, The land Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore," 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
Original source (pages 6-7): Violence Policy Center, "Target: Law Enforcement—Assault Weapons in the News," (Feb. 2010).
A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010).



Assault weapons in the news
NRA misleads on assault weapons (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
"Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban" (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
"A conservative case for an assault weapons ban" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
"Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control" (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
"Trying, again, to ban assault weapons" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
"Stop the sale of assault weapons" (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)
"Reason to Hope After the Newtown Rampage" (New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012)

[Dave Waits]

Boy! They've been really busy! I've never seen so much Contrived-BS in one post in my life!
A 6.7% decrease in gun-murders? I think not! According to the only studies that are not biased, there was no decrease period. Both the Dept. of Justice and the FBI studies concluded the AWB was totally useless.

Assault-Pistols? I don't think we even need to address that red-herring. There's no such thing as an Assault-pistol!

One in four police officers killed with an Assault-Rifle? More contrived BS. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime-Reports published yearly, Assault-Weapons account for less than 1% of all crimes committed with a gun. Truth is, more Police Officers get killed with their own weapon than with Assault-Weapons.

A 37% increase in the use of Assault-Weapons after the AWB sunsetted? More outright lies! See the above-mentioned Studies by the Justice Dept. and the FBI.

Guys, every bit of their 'Justificational Studies' are pure junk science and not worth the paper they're written on.

[Roverron]

Here's the dirty little secret. I hate Harry Reid but her bill will never see the floor because Harry won't allow it. Also, even with the bravado of BHO nothing is going to come. He handed it off the his VP Bitem. He wants this to go away he just needs it buried for a while.

[Roverron]

Here's part of the reasons this wont get passed:

New Poll: Inconclusive support for gun control
Ask Americans whether they support the idea of stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, and they'll offer a fairly robust "yes," according to the results of a new Gallup poll.

But ask them whether those stricter laws should include a ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons, like the one used in last week's massacre of 27 people in Newtown, Conn., and you'll get a far more ambivalent response.

That is the paradox confronting advocates for tougher gun control laws - proposals restricting the sale and use of firearms tend to be more popular in theory than in execution.

A Gallup survey conducted just days after Newtown found that 58 percent of American adults support stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, up from 43 percent in 2011. Thirty-four percent believe the laws should be kept as they are, and only six percent believe they should be made less strict. By this measure, at least, the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has strengthened support for gun control.

But advocates for stricter gun laws continue to face opposition on other fronts, according to a few other findings from Gallup's poll. Only 44 percent of respondents voiced support for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, one commonly-floated solution in the aftermath of Newtown. Fifty-one percent were opposed to such a ban, and both numbers have scarcely changed in the last few years.

Americans demand tighter gun control
Will Washington take on gun control?
And a whopping 74 percent of respondents - a record high - opposed a ban on the possession of handguns, compared to only 24 percent who supported such a ban. A handgun ban has not entered the post-Newtown dialogue on gun control, and given numbers like these, that does not seem likely to change any time soon.

Gallup's poll surveyed 1,038 adults between December 19 and 22 and had a margin of error of plus or minus four percent.

[Roverron]

This was maybe the best reply Ive seen to Feinstain from a Marine:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515

No ma'am.
By joshdb50 | Posted December 27, 2012


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

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.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

[mrerick]

I actually read the first of the studies that Feinstein referenced in her post.

She took one quote out of context. Try as they might to spin things, the rest of the study essentially says that the 1994 ban didn't make any difference...

That is the most supportive of what they quoted on their website!

Here are some extracts:
First, the study itself:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/re..._final2004.pdf

Next, the ban itself... Federally funded, this followed up on a series of studies called for in the original law (which is title XI Firearms of this document

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...3hr3355enr.pdf

Try as they might to swizzle numbers in the study, they were unable to show any effectiveness in:

- Reducing crime
- Increasing the price of "Assault Weapons"

They did document an increase in the price of "Large Capacity Magazines) of about 40%.

They included the quaint idea that criminals actually bought their crime guns...

Finally concluding:

"The findings of the previous chapters suggest that it is premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence."

- and that is 10 years after enactment of the flawed ban.

They admitted that "Assault Weapons" contributed to a very small minority of crimes. 2% or so in most cases.

They also showed that gun crimes resulting in death didn't change a bit over the first 8 years of the ban.

"But this still begs the question of whether a 10-round limit on magazine capacity will affect the outcomes of enough gun attacks to measurably reduce gun injuries and deaths."

"Similarly, neither medical nor criminological data sources have shown any post-ban reduction in the percentage of crime-related gunshot victims who die."

"If anything, therefore, gun attacks appear to have been more lethal and injurious since the ban."

Try as they might to swizzle statistics, the summary reads:

"9.4. Summary
Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."

- - - - - - - - - -

Finally, they talk about the time after lifting the ban:

"It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists operating in the U.S."

- - - - - - - - - -

This study is almost a playbook for the ineffectiveness of prohibition, and what to do to get the next one...

[Horse'nround]

Becareful with this line of thinking guys. This is the bait and switch game.
With Fienbitch spuing her far left wingnut-ism, one of those less left sleepers is going to get one of those barbless hooks to pass. Remember that a HOOK is a HOOK, once they're inside the wire then it's a whole different fight!!