Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Commonly-Owned Semi-Autos, Again!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

I guess we all figured THIS one was coming, and, well, here it is… Read more.

Dianne Feinstein

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On Wednesday, November 8, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 2095, which she is calling the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.” The 125-page firearm prohibition fever dream is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.

Subject to an exception for “grandfathered” firearms, the bill would prohibit AR-15s and dozens of other semi-automatic rifles by name (as well as their “variants” or “altered facsimiles”), and any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine and be equipped with a pistol grip, an adjustable or detachable stock, or a barrel shroud. And that’s just a partial list. “Pistol grip” would be defined as “a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip,” meaning the ban could implicate even traditional stocks or grips specifically designed to comply with existing state “assault weapon” laws.

Needless to say, semi-automatic shotguns and handguns would get similar treatment.

Also banned would be any magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds or even any magazine that could be “readily restored, changed, or converted to accept” more than 10 rounds.

While Feinstein’s bill would graciously allow those who lawfully owned the newly-banned guns at the time of the law’s enactment to keep them, it would impose strict storage requirements any time the firearm was not actually in the owner’s hands or within arm’s reach. Violations would be punishable (of course) by imprisonment.

Owners of grandfathered “assault weapons” could also go to prison for allowing someone else to borrow or buy the firearm, unless the transfer was processed through a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer would be required to document the transaction and run a background check on the recipient.

Should lawful owners of the newly-banned firearms and magazines decide that the legal hazards of keeping them were too much, the bill would authorize the use of taxpayer dollars in the form of federal grants to establish programs to provide “compensation” for their surrender to the government.

This bill is nothing more than a rehash of Feinstein’s failed experiment in banning “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds. Except this time, Feinstein would like to go even further in restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to firearms and magazines that are commonly owned for lawful self-defense.

The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had little, if any, impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction” of firearm-related crime.

Don’t let Dianne Feinstein infringe on our Second Amendment rights with a policy that’s been proven to do nothing to stop crime. Please contact your U.S. Senators and encourage them to oppose S. 2095. You can contact your U.S. Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

16 thoughts on “Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Commonly-Owned Semi-Autos, Again!”

  1. Nothing “new” here. This democommie hag (and her communist “cronies”) have been attempting to disarm Law-abiding citizens for as long as she has been in office. ( I guess she figures you have to “protect” your CRIMINAL “friends”.) Sounds familiar(just like “‘king andrew” here in N.Y.) There isn’t a “gun ban” Law they won’t try to PUSH so they can continue to try to disarm everyone to turn us into easily controlled “obedient sheep”. Apparently they still haven’t gotten through their feeble brains that the second amendment is NOT about “hunting” it is all about protecting ourselves from government tyranny.

    1. Yes, this Bill only victimizes we lawful gun owners. But what will cut down on firearms getting into the wrong hands would be shoring up our NCIC reporting of criminal convictions, domestic violence arrests and mental health hospitalizations. Also, there has to be some sort of mandate regarding safe and secure firearm storage as criminal and crazies mostly get their guns by theft. You get your car inspected to make sure it is safe. Why not have your guns inspected every so often to make sure they are stored safely and securely; get gun owners into good habits. I have a C&R license, and someone from ATF has come to my apartment to inspect my gun collection and see how they are stored, and I don’t mind that at all.

      1. I think you meant “NICS”, not NCIC.
        NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information (i.e.- criminal record history information, fugitives, stolen properties, missing persons).

      2. Stuart: Ignorance is bliss. The state grants us the “privilege” to operate a vehicle on public roadways. So, we have to comply with a plethora of regulations and restrictions in order to do so.

        The Constitution grants us the “right” to keep and bear arms, with the very significant caveat of “shall not be infringed”.

        When gun control and “sensible gun safety” laws imposed by the government are also applied to all government law enforcement agencies, then I will consider accepting their efforts as serious. “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”. Otherwise, don’t regulate my guns and ammo in order to keep someone else from using a firearm to commit an illegal act.

        1. And the constitution does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it enumerates the god given right to keep and bear arms.

      3. Well since I disagree with car inspections guess I’ll have to disagree with allowing ANY authorities to come into “My House” to inspect anything.. Especially with out a warrant or probable cause.
        Problem I see is some inspectors will see things differently and could cause issues where there may not be any. Nope stay out of my AO..

    2. She’s also hypocrite, having had one of the few concealed permits issued in San Francisco after Harvey Milk was gunned down. She says she had the revolver melted down into a crucifix she gave to the pope. Guess she’s safer now with armed guards.

  2. Isn’t she about 100 years old now?

    Funny how many who push for stiff gun laws are protected by people who carry guns and they also live in highly secure gated communities.

  3. I would contact my senator, but it wouldn’t do any good. Unfortunately I live in California and the old twit is one of my senators. The other one wouldn’t be any better.

  4. I don’t think I want ATF in my house “inspecting” my firearms. First they would have to have a “list” of owners (REGISTRATION) I think is what it is called. I secure my firearms and any responsible owner does. If you do not know how to do that you should learn.

  5. Once a type of legislation has been through the mill, and rejected, subsequent versions or repetitions iteration of the same legislation should be considered the same way double jeopardy is treated. This would be as frivolous, harassment and not worthy of further consideration unless bearing a very extensive change or rewrite of social import. How about censoring senators who suck the energy out of congress with their uncessent bleating and haranguing over dead issues?

  6. I really would think you would remember win thay took guns away from folk over seas and thin started Putin your plp in ash trays

Comments are closed.