Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 James Kash
 Where We Live
 Behind The Scenes
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Meet The Staff
 Meet The Authors
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Massad Ayoob

BACK TO SERIOUS STUFF

Wednesday, December 26th, 2012

Media hysteria did not abate much over the holiday, and is still in full sway.

Here is a voice of reason from the left: http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Now comes a claim from Israel that their school security program is nothing like what NRA is talking about: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560761/israel-rejects-nras-guns-in-schools-claim/.

For Heaven’s sake: They say they have armed security in their schools, and NRA is demanding armed security in ours.  The difference there is exactly…what?

Dr. David Schiller’s interview with Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership,  http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/school.htm , makes it clear that the armed schoolteachers in the Israeli program were trained by their civil guard, the mishmar esrachi. This is directly on point to what I’m recommending: no one is saying “give guns to untrained people and make them pretend they’re cops.”  A proper armed teacher program as I see it would be analogous to our country’s fabulously successful FFDO program, the armed pilots who take their own time off to go through the training to become Federal Flight Deck Officers, equipped with loaded HK .40 caliber pistols.

Israel has armed security in their schools?  Damn right.  And if our schools train staff members who volunteer for such a program, they will be armed for security and will therefore BE – Duh! – “armed security.”

Edited 12/28/12 to add: Fox News has just released confirmation that there are, indeed, still armed teachers in Israeli schools: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/27/armed-teachers-guards-key-to-school-security-in-israel/ .

37 Responses to “BACK TO SERIOUS STUFF”

  1. Peter Says:

    How about the Clinton proposal for cops in schools? Same thing NRA wants but somehow less palatable now? Exactly why?

  2. .45StayAlive Says:

    Hi Mas, In reference to this cartoon image of a teacher shielding her students with the caption “Always Remember To Thank A Teacher” underneath it:

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c96.0.403.403/p403x403/224823_10151144129717056_1165224015_n.jpg

    I have the following to say:

    We trust these teachers with our children’s lives. It’s too bad we as a society don’t trust them enough to afford them the means to protect our children and themselves as well. I thank it’s a national disgrace and embarrassment that we as a society and nation have created a situation where the best these poor teachers can do is run, unarmed, heroically but uselessly at crazed gunmen, only to be slaughtered.

    Teachers should be allowed to arm themselves. To be prudent and safe, if they want to carry arms, perhaps they should have to undergo rigorous training and even psychological assessment (as do airline pilots when applying for the Federal Flight Deck Officer weapon carrying program). Then, by carrying concealed, the kids (and potential killers) wouldn’t be aware of which teachers chose to participate in the program and which ones did not. The preventive effect of such a program could very well end school shootings outright.

  3. John Says:

    The first sentence, by a supposed expert, makes no sense. “…armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday…” As if the label attached to the person who is there to kill our children makes any difference.

  4. Elm Creek Smith Says:

    “Israel’s lightly armed school guards are not the first or the last line of defense,” reads the CBS story.

    Hmm. “…[L]ightly armed…,” like this teacher with an M1 Carbine? http://thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/israeli-schoolchildren-and-teacher-001x.jpg

    Last I heard, no one was suggesting that teachers here sling up semiautomatic carbines. Being more of a revolver guy, I was thinking of arming volunteer administration personnel, teachers, and perhaps custodial workers with six or seven shot stainless steel revolvers loaded with .38 Special +P ammunition and training them to Oklahoma’s CLEET standards for Armed Security Officers. I would consider THAT to be “…lightly armed…”

    ECS

  5. W.T. Says:

    Please let President Obama know your views at the Whitehouse Petition website:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/share-your-thoughts-reducing-gun-violence

  6. 5minutes Says:

    Hey, Mas… with all the attacks on the 2nd Amendment happening right now, as someone who’s looking to support an effective, reasonable group who will work to defend those rights. I’ve heard positive and negative things about all sorts of national groups (NRA, GOA, SAF, etc.) and state groups (my own state’s GrassrootsNC). Do you (or anyone else here) have any wisdom you’d be willing to share with us?

  7. Kevin Says:

    Andrew Bernstein gets it…

    To Protect The Innocent, We Need More Guns In The Hands Of Honest People

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/26/to-protect-the-innocent-we-need-more-guns-in-the-hands-of-honest-people/

  8. Patrick Says:

    Senator Feinstein Releases New Version of AWB Bill

    Posted on December 27, 2012 by Robert Farago

    Here’s the summary of the Senator Diane Feinstein’s 2013 Assault Weapons Ban 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

  9. kelley in Charlotte Says:

    I am kind of surprised to see only four comments up at this point , but I think we are all already weary of this subject and the battle has not yet begun . As I have tried to engage people in conversation on these issues this week , I have encountered so many of the misunderstandings of the average citizen .
    Probably the most difficult issue is why we need these guns. People have a very difficult time understanding all of the benefits of an armed citizenry. That leads to them asking the question “why would anyone need these guns “. That is a question that deserves a good answer for the uninitiated . The problem is that is a very long and difficult answer to try to connect with the points that might be understood by the uninitiated . I had a challenging time explaining to my son that this law would make his home defense shotgun illegal to purchase in the future . he has also been convinced by the press that a fully automatic weapon was used in the murders in Connecticut . My goal in the coming days is to make a concise list of all the benefits of these firearms in our society . I will then be prepared and have an answer for those who are uninformed . Any help in this endeavor would be appreciated. People that have spent their life growing up in urban areas have a more difficult time appreciating the value of owning firearms .
    Another difficulty in these conversations , is watching my gun owning friends become frustrated trying to answer the questions and losing their tempers in the process . I do appreciate their frustration , but we must warmly and friendly share good information, understanding that those people are not well informed and might join our side if we can kindly inform them.
    It is a good time to be both kind ,and patient with those who do not understand our views , they can become our allies if we do our job well .

  10. RonS Says:

    I know two teachers in our little rural school district that I would trust without reservation to protect my childs life with any weapon any time any place. I know for a fact that one is qualified with the 1911A1, M16, M60, minigun and 2.75″ rockets. He might have to climb up a flight of stairs to get a good sight picture though.

    I think the Israeli reaction is understandable, I don’t think they want to be held up as an example in the media and then blamed when some American gets it all wrong and kills a kid. There are 7million people in Israel and 310 million in the US. That needs to be taken into account.

    If we do this the teachers need to be volunteers, their identity kept secret and they need to be trained to a higher level than a CCH permit holder.

  11. Mas Says:

    5minutes, speaking only for myself, I focus my efforts and contributions on NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, and grassroots state level gun owners’ civil rights organizations.

  12. Randall Says:

    In regards to this link Mas posted…

    Here is a voice of reason from the left: http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

    I think EVERYONE on you should copy down this link and post it in every comment thread for every applicable story you find on washingtonpost, cnn, etc. Invite people IN A RESPECTFUL WAY, to read it.

    This is the most articulate and logical explanation of why not to enact new laws, especially those targeting “assault rifles” and “hi cap” mags, in response to mass shootings. Please copy it and post.

  13. Marc-Wi Says:

    Peter, it’s different because Obama re moved it from his last “budget” and the one before got $0.00 funds. His tears are false he cares nothing for the American people. We’re collateral damage.

  14. Gerald Says:

    To answer a question asked “Why we need these kinds of weapons?” When we are attacked by multi-attackers, and seeing as we’re only one person, we need as much fire power as the law allows to protect our families as we can get. It’s not always one on one!

  15. Tony Says:

    We The People are the only one who can change what is going on in this country. We all have our thoughts on how this should be handled but what are we going to do to make it happen? Mas what do we do? Where do we start? I to belong to the NRA, I have a 9yr old son and a 15yr old daughter their Christmas break will be over in a week or so and it will be time for them to go back to school. I have read the thoughts of alot of people on what we should do but we are not agreeing on anything. United We Stand Divded We Fall. Lets agree that our school need to have armed personal in each and every one of them . Where do we start? If enough of us demand it or pull together to do something about it something will have to be done. Lets unite on this subject and act on a good plan to protect our children.
    I love guns more than anybody I know. Besides my faith and family they are my passion.I would gladly give every gun I on if it would make the kids in this country safe. But it won’t. My guns are what keeps my family safe when they are at home. There should be people in our schools who can do the same.
    Mas you have the knowledge to from a plan to put in place.One good plan and everybody stand behind it. We need someone like you who isn’t labled a nut because we own firearms. Its a big job for someone to try to take, but we need someone to herd the cats that are running around. Lets take a stand for our kids our freedom and our country.

  16. Allan Says:

    Hi Mas, I am not a paranoid person but I feel and think this is not about protecting children or in general for law abiding American gun owners to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones against the criminals. This is about disarming the populace. I hope I am wrong.

  17. Tom606 Says:

    The pro-Second Admendent people’s ideas make too much sense and will never be accepted/adopted by the Dark Side. In fact, those evil fools do exactly the opposite of what would actually work and proven so in other countries like Israel. Look what’s happening to the American economy!

    What we need to do is to have former President George W. Bush, who the left despise fanatically, proclaim that all firearms be immediately banned and confiscated. The liberal idiots will then declare everyone should have
    all the AR-15 rifles, Glock pistols, and high capacity magazines they want.

  18. Doc Martin Says:

    Teachers aren’t stupid. As the populous argues the minutiae, the teachers might just move forward on their own.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons/index.html

    So Mas, it seems like a great time for experts such as yourself to step up and offer a special gun curriculum for this unique and possibly reluctant but practical demographic. I’d be happy to help since teacher education is my speciality, among many other academic areas. Let me know…

  19. Jack Says:

    I see a movement in this country to ban assault rifles on the blood of these children. We had an article in my local paper the other day which one school board member stated we do not need to put security or armed officers in every school it would cost us too much. I have not herd a peep out of our “F” rated by the NRA sheriff on this matter (school security). You would think he would be interested in the safety of the school children and demand an officer in each school. No, lets a ban gun that is easier.

    I can reload darn fast with a revolver, pump shotgun, lever action rifle… Have any of these gun grabbers ever watched a cowboy action-shooting event? They are using primitive firearms and can shoot very quickly. What I am getting at is there is many people who can do a lot of harm and kill mass amounts of people those old style guns. Now take modern Glocks, Beretta’s with 10 round magazines, six shot revolvers with speed loaders, pump shotguns, lever action rifles and so on that are not being banned and what do we have??? Guns that can kill really fast. Your assault weapon ban will accomplished nothing. This is what gun folks have been saying all along but get frustrated when the media, public and most ordinary folks who know nothing about guns think it will solve all the mass shootings.

    Put police officers in schools, because with just one officer assigned to a school, the probability of a mass murder in that school drops to almost zero.

  20. Roger in NC Says:

    Mas, The Kontra article was spot on. If only one thing is taken from this piece it should be the quote: “When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.”
    This clearly and succinctly exposes the heart of the current debate. Then again, it also explains the results of the last election.
    Although I believe in armed security of some description for our schools, I am not sure how many of the teachers in our “government schools” would be qualifiable as armed sheepdogs, either because of their own bias against guns or their penchant for non-violent problem resolution. I favor the professional approach using current/former LEOs and ex-military personnel. Once the “gun free zone” signs are torn down, those with evil intent will still find places to try to do their worst. But then they will be in much less friendly territory.

  21. Tommy Sewall Says:

    @Allan, You hit the nail on the head. Anti-gun sentiment has decreased but is still ever present. Those whom we will never bring to our side depend on isolated incidents to sway legislation in their favor. If I remember correctly, the Clinton administration supported putting 10,000 cops on the streets with increased funds. As this was in response to increased gang/drug related violence, schools saw a lot of effort put into school resource officers. That was a good idea overall. Kids had mostly positive interactions with LEOs and the school environment was safer (my experience in my home and work school districts). Other than the cost, I can’t see any issues with the NRA’s suggestion for immediately placing armed officers in schools. The students are definitely worth the money, so the funding is also a no brainer. Of course if anti second amendment groups support this, it’s makes schools safe havens for children but if we support it we turn schools into armed camp.

  22. John Mohan Says:

    Dear Mas,

    Please look into and publish info about the following. This was on TV just tonight, but it needs to be addressed. From my Facebook page:

    Just watched “The Ed Show” on MSNBC. Each and every time I watch MSNBC, without fail I find that within minutes of whatever show of theirs I try to watch, I catch them lying to and misleading their audience.

    This time, they played the video clip of U.S. Representive Louie Gohmert saying, “I wish to God she had had an M4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”

    And then, MSNBC immediately cut to a video of some guy spraying various objects with a FULLY AUTOMATIC MILITARY VERSION of the M4/AR-15 type weapon. All fully automatic weapons manufactured since 1986 are completely illegal for civilians to possess under all circumstances (the automatic M4 version of the AR-15 was adopted by the Army in 1994). The good Representative was obviously talking about the civilian version of the M4 that shoots just one bullet at a time. Said civilian version has been the most popular rifle sold in America for years now. But MSNBC didn’t let these facts get in the way. As they played the footage of the machine gun blazing away at trashcans, pumpkins and jugs of water, the scary-movie announcement voice asked ominously, “Is THIS the type of weapon you want your teachers spraying away with in school hallways?!”

    Why on God’s earth does ANYONE take such a pathetic, propaganda spewing media outlet seriously? But they do. Millions (okay, maybe thousands) are sitting in their homes tonight all riled up because they now think a Republican congressman wants to arm teachers with machine guns.

  23. John Mohan Says:

    ■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;

    Perfect. The grandfathered guns are by definition already legally owned. Their serial numbers make it clear that they existed before the new proposed law would take effect. The only reason for the above part of the proposed legislation is the anticipation of using said collected information when the grandfathered weapons are eventually also banned and due to be confiscated.

    I now feel we are really reaching the end of that great experiment our Founding Fathers set about.

  24. Dale Says:

    Thank you Mas, great article.
    HighPockets

  25. AixSponsa Says:

    NOTE:
    MOST teachers are left leaning or very liberal. Protecting students is an oxymoron for them.

  26. Fruitbat44 Says:

    Hmmm . . .

    The CBS article was interesting, and did point out that the situation in Israel is not the same as in the US, and that Israelis seem to accept a much, much higher level of gun-control than the US does.

    The line “armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen” did make me smile (or wince) though.

    However, and disclaimer, this is based on my recollections of a conversation written about in ‘Combat Handguns’ magazine which I read *years* ago. Israeli to American; “I don’t understand this American obsession with owning guns. In my country if you need a gun you go down to the police station and they give you one!” The American commented that Israel is obviously a socialist country. -g-

    Peter and/or Marc-Wi; do you have any references for Clinton proposing armed guards in schools, and Obama pulling funding for it?

    Elm Creek Smith: Lightly armed is relative, I guess, compared to a SWAT team member or GI on patrol, a slung M1 carbine is pretty light. And a couple of threads back there was: “Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas . . . I wish to God she had had an M-4.”

    Disclaimer: All that follows is the opinions of a – largely – armchair gunfighter, but there is a school of thought that an M-1 Carbine, or even an M-4 fired semi-auto, is a good tool for the job. Shots fired from the shoulder have much greater accuracy and an M-1 carbine although often considered under-powered delivers more force than a .357 Magnum, and with a fifteen round magazine has enough fire-power to deal with multiple bad-guys.

    Actually is the M-1 Carbine a politically correct firearm? Lots of wood, made in America, used by the good guys in World War Two and while it does have a detachable magazine, it does only hold fifteen rounds and not the “evil” thirty.

  27. Paul Edwards Says:

    @ 5minutes

    To give your an alternative, and also my own opinion.

    While I am a Life member of the NRA, since the 1960s, their actions regarding the Clinton Gun Ban, was less than wholehearted, and they seemed to rather find a middle ground and a path to compromise, and so I have lost faith in the NRA to take hard action and stick to their guns (principles), when it come to opposing further gun control, which leads to Registration and ultimately to the confiscation of all civilian firearms.

    Since the Clinton era guns bans, I have also come to have a great deal of faith, and satisfaction with the actions of, and ability to stick to the founding Father’s principals, by the Gun Owners of America (GOA) (http://www.gunowners.org/), of which I am now also a Life member, and whose willingness to fight the hard, long, bitter battle of keeping our Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment, free from the actions of the Left wing, Liberal Democratic Anti-Firearms attempts, by the current Obama Administration, are far better served by the GOA, than by the current leadership of the NRA.

  28. Roadking Says:

    I think we already have professionals capable and willing to protect our schools in our nations Armed Forces. Lets bring them home from protecting those in third world countries and put them to work protecting our children. An armed soldier in every school would be a good preventive measure against mass murder, don’t you think? Do we really need over 600 overseas bases?

  29. Captain Bob Says:

    “The grandfathered guns are by definition already legally owned. Their serial numbers make it clear that they existed before the new proposed law would take effect. The only reason for the above part of the proposed legislation is the anticipation of using said collected information when the grandfathered weapons are eventually also banned and due to be confiscated.”
    This exactly true. Remember what happened in California when they said, “You can keep your ‘assault weapons,’ we jus want you to register them.” Then, not too long after, they banned them and told the owners they had to get them out of town. AND they knew exactly who had what. Wasn’t exactly confiscation but close. With national registration of “grandfathered guns” we can expect eventual confiscation attempts (if they say they won’t take them but we have to get them ‘out of town’ where would they go? The ocean?). Remember, once you tell a secret you can never take it back. Once you give your guns’ info you can never take it back. Right now, even of you buy a gun and fill out the 4473 form you can still legally “sell” (wink, wink) it to someone else in your state and say you don’t have it anymore. Once NICS checks for every transfer go into effect you will lose that advantage and they will have a paper trail for every gun you own or owned. Ever hear of “civil disobedience?” It might be our only resort.

  30. Mick Says:

    Glad to read that the general public is, as usual, smarter than the anti-gun crowd who dance in the blood of the innocents before the bodies reach room temperature. One survey shows 64% support armed teachers/staff in schools. Now let’s get the feds OUT of the schools, period!

  31. Patrick Says:

    Federal High Cap Mag Ban Bill on January 3
    Posted on December 28, 2012 by Robert Farago
    House Democrats will introduce a bill to ban the production of high-capacity magazines on the first day of the next congressional session. This according to someone at the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), one of the lawmakers sponsoring the bill, who had a little chinwag with huffingtonpost.com. Who said this about that: “The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act will mirror a failed bill introduced during the 112th Congress. Its authors hope that in the wake of the shooting deaths of 20 first grade students in Newtown, Conn., there will be heightened political urgency to act when it is reintroduced on Jan. 3. Backed by DeGette and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), the legislation has gained a wave of Democratic co-sponsors since the shooting, which also claimed the lives of 7 adults. But few Republicans have come forward to offer their support. Even more critical to the bill’s political prospects, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not indicated whether he will allow it to come to the floor for a vote.” I wonder why that is . . .

  32. Sian Says:

    @Captain Bob Oh sorry officer, I lost all my Assault Weapons in an unfortunate canoe accident.

    @Paul Edwards The NRA was instrumental in getting the 10 year sunset clause in the Clinton AWB. Clinton had the ability to ram the ban through. The compromise was the difference between it being permanent or not. I’d call that a good job.

  33. Paul Edwards Says:

    @ Sian

    That may be, but if the NRA had fought against the Clinton Ban, while it was still a “Bill”, instead of looking for a private deal for themselves, we might not have had suffer under that law, at all?

  34. Patrick Says:

    NRA-ILA on DiFi’s RKBA Full Frontal Assault
    Posted on December 29, 2012 by Dan Zimmerman

    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 ( http://tiny.cc/t5l1pw ) 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 hear 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

    Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about thehistory of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit http://www.GunBanFacts.com.

  35. Richard Says:

    Here what other side think about are gun rights staring Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

    I believe the Second Amendment precludes concealed carry permits, pre-gun sales background checks, state handgun registries, taxes on firearms or ammunition; any government involvement with firearms (other than laws re: their misuse). Which is why you don’t see me strolling the corridors of power in Washington protecting our gun rights or sipping Grey Goose martinis with Emily Miller and the Donald. But make no mistake: gun control advocates are equally “extreme.” They want to ban all civilian gun ownership. They say they support the Second Amendment. But there’s always a but. The road to hell is paved with their butts. Or something like that. The DiFi money shot came after the video above, when the Senator cites U.S. murder stats and says “you don’t have guns you don’t have those murders.” No guns, no gun deaths. That’s their plan. Whether they admit it or not. Whether they know it or not. Whether we like it or not. Anyway, here’s something we do like . . .
    It’s all about the money, money, money. “While the sheriff’s posse is all volunteer, even paying for all their own guns and equipment, posse members are insured by MCSO. The county would therefore likely be on the hook for any liability if some kind of accident happened during a school patrol.” azfamily.com
    Why someone will buy Bushmaster from the Borg—I mean Freedom Group. Newtown Victims’ Legal Options Curbed By NRA-Backed Law [via huffingtonpost.com]
    Someone ought to send that link to Neal Pierce. States can lead effort to curb deadliest guns seattletimes.com
    It’s all about the money, money, money. Again. Still. “Gun buyers at the Tanner Gun Show are not too happy about having to wait a week for the [Colorado] background check to be completed. But some lawmakers think they have a solution that might make speed up the process and might be more fair to everybody — have the gun buyers pay for their own background check.” denver.cbs.local.com
    Guns are for killing (a.k.a., stopping the threat). But if a bad guy wears body armor armed citizens are a non-starter. Go figure.
    Concealed carry much? I didn’t think so. “Trying to guarantee safety via armed protection of any venue that might attract a maniac bent on killing as many people as possible before being killed or killing himself would require armed guards in many other places: playgrounds, daycare centers, amusement parks, theatres, shopping malls—anyplace where a shooter might find a crowd.” newyorker.com

    When seconds count, the police have just left.

  36. Amter Says:

    Mass,

    Did you hear about The Journal News (Gannett) in Westchester New York printing a map of all legal firearm permits in Westchester and Rockland Counties? They assembled and placed on their website an interactive map that shows the address and name of law abiding civilians and LEO’s who have handgun permits.

    They are threatening to post Putnam County NY next.

    Someone posted all The Journal News senior manager and those directly involved with the projects names, addresses, and phone numbers online too.

    Here’s a link:
    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=46188

    Well it just came out that Cynthia Lambert, The Journal News Editor, has hired a NYC armed guard firm to provide security to protect her home. There haven’t been any takers as the guards have been outed on her website and she is only paying $35.00 an hour.

  37. Amter Says:

    I think it was Janet Hasson the publisher not the Editor, yet.

Leave a Reply

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.