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
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 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

URGENT!!: A FEINSTEIN NEW YEAR FOR YOU

Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

The New Year kicks off with Vice President Biden, a super-supporter of “gun control” in general and the “assault weapons ban” in particular chairing a blue ribbon panel on “gun violence.”  When President Obama gave that assignment, he said he wanted all sides heard from, but with the panel about to convene, there is no indication that the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, or any other entity which supports the civil rights of gun owners has been invited to the discussion.

One of the first items on the agenda for Congress in January 2013, if not the first, will be the new and even more Draconian “assault weapons and magazine ban” long since drafted by Dianne Feinstein, Democrat Senator from California. Here, in 1995, Dianne Feinstein explains why she would ban all private ownership of firearms if she could:

 

 

Read this, from GunsAmerica: http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/we-stand-as-one-contact-congress-on-guns-email-your-contacts/.

I’ve been unable to find an actual copy of Senator Feinstein’s Senate Bill regarding this issue, but here’s the synopsis from Senator Feinstein’s website:

Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons 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:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Basically, she’s saying that you can keep your semiautomatic firearm if you register it, as you would a machine gun, as a weapon covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

“Registration” of an NFA weapon begins with a form that looks like this: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf .  It’s what you’d do to get a sound suppressor, or “silencer,” for the .22 rifle you keep at the farm, or to legally purchase a machine gun.  A friend of mine, a Class III dealer whose stock in trade is such items, tells me that the NFA branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is already so overburdened that transfer times are now greatly extended. It used to take six weeks for the paperwork to transfer between the manufacturer and him, the dealer, but it now runs about three months. Transfer from a dealer like him to the Federal Government-investigated and -approved buyer, which used to take some four months, now takes six to eight months. Requiring NFA registration of the many millions of semiautomatic firearms that have been in this country for the last 112 years or so would overwhelm the BATFE like a tsunami.

 

Moreover, THE  TRANSFER TAX (“REGISTRATION TAX”) PER ITEM IS $200 APIECE FOR NFA ITEMS! Only, this would be a transfer “from you to yourself,” an extortionistic demand that you pay to keep something you have already legally purchased and responsibly owned.  It’s your classic example of bad lawmaking, with ex post facto overtones that would criminalize millions of law-abiding Americans.

And, Senator Feinstein, please tell the American Public what happens to these expensive firearms, these investments, after we “grandfathered” owners die? Will we be able to bequeath them to our children? Will we be able to sell them to afford nursing care in our old age…?

All this, let me remind you, would apparently be for your lawfully owned semiautomatic arms capable of working with a magazine of more than ten rounds. That would include the Winchester .351 rifle of 1907 and the Remington Model 8 hunting rifle patented in the year 1900, not just your AR15 or your Mini-14 Ruger Ranch Rifle.  It would include the 1903 model Colt .32 pistol that saved my grandfather’s life in the early 20th Century, and the WWI vintage Colt .45 pistol that sits in my gun safe at the moment.  And it would include the .22 caliber Ruger 10/22 rifle you use when you take your kids to an Appleseed seminar on marksmanship and history, or just plinking at the backyard backstop.

From what brilliant, in-depth research comes this legislation? Well, HERE  we have Senator Feinstein herself explaining how she drafted her first bill after reading a few newsstand gun magazines in 1993, and this newest piece of legislation after reading a few in 2012.

Dear God: it’s as if someone was drafting legislation that would ban you from owning a gasoline-operated vehicle in the time of Volt – and charging you hundreds of dollars to keep the vehicles you already owned, and going in for mug shots and fingerprints like a criminal –  basing her research on having read a few issues of Motor Trend and Car and Driver.

This is going to happen quickly, and time is of the essence. Write or call your representatives on Capitol Hill NOW!  The people putting forth this poorly drafted legislation have a mandate from our own President to pass it in the next two weeks! Links to your Congressional representatives can be found in the GunsAmerica link, above.

 

54 Responses to “URGENT!!: A FEINSTEIN NEW YEAR FOR YOU”

  1. Doc Martin Says:

    Great info Mas. It’s still last year here in Montana, and I don’t ever remember a new year starting out under such dark clouds.

    What the hell is happening around here?

    Oh, and Happy New Year!

  2. Chris Says:

    Mass,
    What should we do if this bill goes through? Should we obey a bad law or what?
    Huge Fan
    Chris Ortego

  3. Patrick Says:

    This no joke this gone punish on us like health care . If we guns owners do not stand up fight for are guns rights well lose them forever. Those that say congress well not let happen need realize Obama and his buddys push all out attack on are gun rights. This frist battle for gun right not gone be last battle.

  4. Chris Malpass Says:

    Trust me, its going to be a fight this time. Thankfully, her proposal is so outlandish I doubt it will pass. Its obvious though, they’ll pare it down till it does…..we MUST stop it now! This is an absolute assault on us legal law abiding citizens, by this Nazi known as Feinstein. Contact your reps NOW! Time is of the essence! Do everything and anything you can….and do it quickly!!!!!

  5. guntotin-mama Says:

    Maybe it’s me…

    but it doesn’t seem to make sense to punish the people who abide by the law, are responsible gun owners and who are born – in this country – with the god given right to keep and bear arms (w/o infringement – i.e., registration or restriction)…

    because of the actions of the mentally ill or the criminals. Back around the time of the last ban… wasn’t it pointed out that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? New rules for the law-abiding won’t make a bit of difference to someone who doesn’t respect the law in the first place.

  6. curtis41 Says:

    Americans are being asked ultimately to trade self-defense, constitutional rights and personal liberties in the name of perceived public safety. This is never a good trade in an open, free republic. In a sense, it is good to have Feinstein makes these proposals. It will show a much wider audience that her agenda is registration, followed by confiscation and destruction. All this is consistent with the far left and “new world order” proponents fearing most a well-educated, informed, armed republic. It is their greatest fear and nighmare, and at the same time, the salvation of those who cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and recognize the direction she and others would take our country.

  7. frank Says:

    What our real risk is that so much of the highly populated states already have these laws so it will be hard to hey them involved. Since they think they have nothing to lose. Rememberthe presidemtal election. People just won’t show up because they think it won’t make a difference.

  8. Chris - VA Says:

    These people are not stupid. They know where they want to take us and are doing it. It’s part of a bigger agenda.

  9. JimmyCZ6 Says:

    Mr. Ayoob
    First I’d like to say I’m a big fan of your writing. Secondly, I was curious if you had any links regarding the “Beckwith Incident”? I can find your original article about the incident but no news stories or reports. Also, any links relating to the “Garry Fadden” incident(where he used a FA AC556) might be helpful.

  10. Old NFO Says:

    Already written my Congresscritters, and only got a form letter response… Will be calling them this week.

  11. Randy Says:

    From what I have seen of Dianne Feinstein’s gun ban wish list, pistols are also included, as long as they accept a magazine. Duh!

    Of course the liberals are going to go after any gun ban, magazine ban, etc. Rahm Emanuel said that,”never let a serious event go to waste”. The liberals have been just chomping on the bit to get their agenda launched and were just waiting for the right moment after a tragic shooting where public opinion would be on their side.

    I have some Glock 17rd magazines that were produced during the first magazine ban and are stamped, “For Law Enforcement Only”. I have no proof as to when they were manufactured. Typical legislative quicksand. I’d say something else, but out of deference to Mas, I’ll calm my zeal. Most of us realize that changing a magazine only takes a few seconds, I have a few 30 rd AR mags and rarely use them as I am usually testing reloads from the bench and they just get in the way. However, I still have them, ready to go. 3-10rd mags or 1-30rd mag? In some cases 3-10rd mags can be advantageous. If you have only one 30rd mag and it malfunctions, you could be in a world of hurt.

    Sometimes I think liberals have their brain wired differently. Reason and logic are foreign to them.

    I was pleasantly surprised this Christmas at my niece’s home. Her husband informed me that he was going to buy a handgun! He wanted to know if a Glock was a good choice. I coached him on the Intricacies in obtaining a firearm in Illinois. (Obtaining a Phooey Card, sometimes called a Firearm Owners I.D. [FOID]) This all came as a shock to me because he was educated in Southern CA, liberal country USA. Did I say that my niece is a teacher in an elementary school? Her mother ( my sister) is a teacher in a High School. I made sure that he would get a personal Gun Vault to keep it in. (he has 2 young girls) There may be some hope on the horizon yet. This is Rockford, now listed as the 11th most dangerous place to live per capita in the US. My son’s home was burglarized 4 days ago, but they didn’t get his guns as they were locked up in a Treadlock chest.

    A local talk show radio host had his home burglarized while he and his wife were sleeping, I think he had one daughter then. I asked if he had acquired a firearm, he said no (he could have been lying). I asked if he had at least gotten a Phooey Card in case he changed his mind and he said no. I was flabbergasted. He says he is gun neutral but just doesn’t want a gun around.

    Many years ago we had a killer on the loose. His M.O. was to shoot and kill first and then rob gas stations and convenience stores, he eventually crossed the state line and went to a Radio Shack and murdered 2 people there. Reward money reached $ 50,000. At that time I was a small part time gun dealer and it was astonishing the number of people that tried to buy a gun without a Phooey Card and didn’t even know they existed. It got so bad that the small gas station/convenience stores had signs posted that said,”when entering store keep hands in plain sight”. None of them stayed open all night as they used to. His name was Ray Lee Stewart . You can Google him on the net. He was caught and executed by the state. I am trying to say that you never know when a firearm may be needed. Stay in condition yellow and don’t be a victim. Being dependent on the government for permission to purchase and register is going to suck. Of course, confiscation is the real plan!

  12. Patrick Says:

    BREAKING: Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms
    Posted on January 1, 2013 by Robert Farago
    Press release:
    “The ISRA has learned from a credible source that IllinoiSenate President John Cullerton [above] will introduce a so called ‘assault weapons’ ban on Wednesday when the legislature returns for its ‘lame duck’ session. Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday. If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police . . .
    “Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called ‘assault weapons’ but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.”

    TTAG’s sources tell us there will be two bills: one for semi-automatic rifles, lever guns, shotguns and handguns with certain features (e.g., threaded barrels); and one for ammunition magazine capacity.

    Mags would be limited to 10 rounds and owners of existing magazines holding more than 10 rounds would have to register them with the state police.

    One [non-ISRA] gun guy on the front lines in the Land of Lincoln tells TTAG that the odds of the bills going through are 50 – 50. He advises gun owners both in and out of state to call Senate President Cullerton at 217 782 2000 and/or find another legislator to pester at ilga.gov.

    “If gun owners around the country melt the phone lines in the next three days we can push this thing back . . . that would be a tremendous morale boost ahead of federal legislation.”

  13. Adriano Says:

    They removed semi automatic weapons from us in the UK in 1988 and then handguns in 1997. Their reasoning was to reduce violent crime with firearms. They only succeeded in alienating law abiding citizens and did nothing to reduce the possession of these weapons in the hands of criminals. Some people called it knee jerk legislation, others called it political expedience. Whatever name you call it, it is based on emotion and not fact. Don’t let this happen to you.

  14. Joe-CT Says:

    I believe that the legislation is so outlandish on purpose so it will be rejected and Obama will have to do an executive order to take charge. Our constitution is toast.

  15. Rick in WA Says:

    Thanks for this post, Mas. I just wrote my congressperson and state senators regarding my opinion of this upcoming legislation. I echo the sentiments (above) from Curtis41.

  16. Mas Says:

    Jimmy CZ6, I wrote about the Harry Beckwith and Gary Fadden incidents, in which good guys used legally registered full auto weapons to prevail against armed criminals. Both appeared in American Handgunner magazine in my “Ayoob Files” series, and may be available in the archives at http://www.americanhandgunner.com.

  17. JimmyCZ6 Says:

    Mas,
    I’ve had no problem finding the articles. It is corroborating news stories or any police reports that are seemingly impossible to find online. That’s not to say that I personally doubt the validity, as it would not be in your best interest to promote “urban legends”. And I know someone such as yourself must fervently guard their reputation. I’m seeking resources concerning the incidents as data to be used against such things as magazine bans.

  18. Patrick Says:

    Australia since gun ban went into effect
    I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
    The first year results are now in:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
    Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
    Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
    The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
    Take note Americans, before it’s too late!
    Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?

  19. Marc-Wi Says:

    A few days ago on Michael Bane’s blog the thought was put up the Feinstein ban that is so bad it would be voted down then Biden’s bill would pass because it wasn’t so bad . The lesser of evils theory. Still evil
    Some happy new year ,huh?

  20. Mas Says:

    Jimmy, Gary Fadden went to trial over his shooting and was — appropriately, I think — found not guilty. You might try Googling Commonwealth of Virginia v. Gary Fadden. The late Harry Beckwith was exonerated by the grand jury but there might still be something on file in the State’s Attorney’s office that serves Alachua County, Florida.

  21. JimmyCZ6 Says:

    Mas,
    Thank you for the leads. I’ve found a PDF of a print paper with the story regarding Gary Fadden. I hope to soon find similar with regards to Harry Beckwith. You truly are a source of indispensable information for the shooting community. I hope you have a wonderful 2013.

  22. JohnB Says:

    I enjoy your writings but the problem is we are all preaching to the choir. How do we get the everyday firearms owner involved? The ones that don’t read gun magazines or participate in online forums.

  23. Vince Says:

    Mas,

    Never in my life have I seen such dark, ominous, clouds over our nation.

    How many will stand against tyranny? If such a law, or any law that infringes on gun owners, were to pass how many would use the courts to let them decide their fate? I’m not so sure that we aren’t past that time of the courts being the decider.

    Vince

  24. Bill Reiland Says:

    “Write or call your representatives on Capital Hill NOW” – and if our representative on Capital Hill is the one and only Senator Feinstein? Waste of ink!

    Best thing I can do, and I strongly recommend everyone else do as well, is send extra money to NRA, SAF, and GOA, and whatever other gun rights groups are in the fight. I just paid off my life membership with the NRA, joined SAF with a life membership, and joined GOA. You may not agree with everything each of these groups do, but they are neck deep in the fight for our rights and need our support now more than ever.

    I’ll also be writing letters to my local paper, and some of the larger regional newspapers in the area in an effort to raise awareness.

    Mas, any other suggestions on what we can do to help in the fight?

  25. Tommy Sewall Says:

    A reference on Gary Fadden can be found in the Feb. 28, 1984 issue of The Washington Post. The article refers to the arrest after the incident. Sorry I haven’t mastered this I Pad well enough to copy the link.

  26. Captain Bob Says:

    Alwys remember that the gov’t does NOT want to ban your guns to enhance public safety. They SAY that to get public support. The real reason is that they simply want to get the guns out of the hands of the populace so there can be no resistance to whatever they plan to implement later. Registration is ALWAYS the first step. Our only chance is civil disobedience using the 2nd Amendment as justification. Never expect things to “go back to normal” if we just cave now like good little boys & girls. Unfortunately, the majority of the gun owners will give in when faced with prison time and fines if they don’t comply. Hopefully, there will be enough true patriots who will use peaceful resistance through civil disobedience to overwhelm their registration threats.
    These are scary times but we still have options…

  27. Mike Sweeney Says:

    Thanks for the post, Mas. I just sent emails out to my representatives and will encourage others to contact theirs as well. In my letters to Michigan Senators Stabenaw and Levin (Ranked F and F- by the NRA) I emphasized that they would be “shooting themselves in the foot” by voting for this bill since the fallout in the mid-term elections against those who support this bill will make the fallout against those who supported Obamacare look miniscule by comparison.

    Mike

  28. Patrick Says:

    This bad sighn thing come for gun control debate in congress.

    Despite a divided Republican majority, the House of Representatives late Tuesday easily approved emergency bipartisan legislation sparing all but a sliver of America’s richest from sharp income tax hikes — while setting up another “fiscal cliff” confrontation in a matter of weeks.

    Lawmakers voted 257-167 to send the compromise to President Barack Obama to sign into law. Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill, which had sailed through the Senate by a lopsided 89-8 margin shortly after 2 a.m. Opposition comprised 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

    Republican House Speaker John Boehner voted in favor of the deal, as did House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, his party’s failed vice presidential candidate. But Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy voted against it.

    As debate began, Republican House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp heralded “a legacy vote” that amounted to a victory for his party because Democrats agreed to make permanent the tax cuts his party enacted in 2001 and 2003. Camp called the bill a step towards reforming the country’s “nightmare” tax code and described it as the largest tax cut in history.

    Representative Sander Levin, the top Democrat on Camp’s committee, claimed victory because the vote shattered “the iron barrier” Republicans maintained for 20 years against raising taxes.

    It fell to Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel to admit “this is no profile in courage for me to be voting for this bill” because “we created this monster.”

    The polarized House approved the measure, unchanged, after House Republican leaders beat back a day-long insurrection within their ranks fueled by conservative anger at the bill’s lack of spending cuts. A final vote was expected late Tuesday evening.

    “They’re crazy, but they’re not that batshit crazy,” Democratic Representative Alcee Hastings told reporters as the Republican plan came into focus.

    Hastings’s blunt assessment came after a day in which Republican leaders at times seemed to be as much political arsonists as firefighters in the face of rank-and-file GOP anger at the bill.

    The House seemed on track to torch the legislation, a hard-fought bipartisan bill crafted by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that sailed through the Senate by a lopsided 89-8 margin in a vote shortly after 2 a.m.

    The compromise bill averts the sharpest tax increase in American history. But it hikes rates on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for households, while exemptions and deductions the wealthiest Americans use to reduce their tax bill face new limits. The accord also raises the taxes paid on large inheritances from 35% to 40% for estates over $5 million. And it extends by one year unemployment benefits for some two million Americans. It also prevents cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients and spares tens of millions of Americans who otherwise would have been hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax. And it extends some stimulus-era tax breaks championed by progressives.

    The middle class will still see its taxes go up: The final deal did not include an extension of the payroll tax holiday. A report released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Tuesday complicated matters further. It said that the Senate-passed compromise would add nearly $4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.

    Despite the overwhelming Senate vote, the accord landed with a thud in the House, where Cantor surprised lawmakers by coming out flatly against the deal during a morning closed-door meeting of House Republicans. Cantor’s announcement fueled conservative anger at the absence of spending cuts in a measure that had originally been considered a likely vehicle for at least some deficit-reduction. The results fed fears that the legislation was doomed.

    Republican leadership aides played down the drama by insisting that “the lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members in today’s meeting.”

    After grappling with the insurrection all day, Republican leaders gave their fractious caucus a choice during an emergency 5:15 p.m. meeting: Try to amend it or go for a straight up-or-down vote on the original deal.

    Cantor and Boehner “cautioned members about the risk in such a strategy,” according to a GOP leadership aide.

    House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, emerging from the gathering, bluntly told reporters “it’s pretty obvious” that amending the legislation and sending it back to the Senate would kill it. Democrats and Republicans in the upper chamber had signaled that lawmakers there would not take up a modified version of what was already a difficult deal.

    The resulting pressure on GOP leaders was immense: Absent action to avert the fiscal cliff, Americans would face hefty across-the-board income-tax hikes, while indiscriminate spending cuts risked devastating domestic and defense programs. Skittish financial markets were watching the dysfunction in Washington carefully amid warnings that going off the so-called cliff could plunge the fragile economy into a new recession.

    Defeat would have handed Boehner a fresh embarrassment by blocking a measure he explicitly asked the Senate and White House to negotiate without him but vowed to act on if Republicans and Democrats could reach a deal. Public opinion polls had shown that Republicans would have borne the brunt of the blame for fiscal cliff-related economic pain.

    Republicans also fretted about the message if final passage came on the back of a majority of Democratic votes, a tricky thing for Boehner two days before he faces reelection as speaker. (In the hours before the vote, conservative lawmakers played down the risks of a rebellion against the Ohio lawmaker).

    Time ran short for another reason: A new Congress will take office at noon on Thursday, forcing efforts to craft a compromise by the current Congress back to the drawing board.

    Efforts to modify the first installment of $1.2 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense programs over 10 years — the other portion of the “fiscal cliff,” known as sequestration — had proved a sticking point late in the game. Democrats had sought a year-long freeze but ultimately caved to Republican pressure and signed on to just a two-month delay while broader deficit-reduction talks continue.

    That would put the next major battle over spending cuts right around the time that the White House and its Republican foes are battling it out over whether to raise the country’s debt limit.

    Republicans have vowed to push for more spending cuts, equivalent to the amount of new borrowing. Obama has vowed not to negotiate as he did in 2011, when a bruising fight threatened the first-ever default on America’s obligations and resulted in the first-ever downgrade of the country’s credit rating. Biden sent that message to Democrats in Congress, two senators said.

    As House Republicans raged at the bill, key House Democrats emerging from a closed-door meeting with Biden expressed support for the compromise and pressed Boehner for a vote on the legislation as written.

    “Our Speaker has said when the Senate acts, we will have a vote in the House. That is what he said, that is what we expect, that is what the American people deserve…a straight up-or-down vote,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters.

    Conservative activist organizations like the anti-tax Club for Growth warned lawmakers to oppose the compromise. The Club charged in a message to Congress that “this bill raises taxes immediately with the promise of cutting spending later.”

    President Barack Obama had previously declared that “this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay.”

    There were signs that the 2016 presidential race shaped the outcome in the Senate. Republican Senator Marco Rubio, widely thought to have his eye on his party’s nomination, voted no. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who could take up the libertarian mantle of his father Ron Paul, did as well.

    In a sign of deep GOP unease over the legislation, Republican leaders Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy did not speak during the debate. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn all did.

    Biden’s visit — his second to Congressional Democrats in two days — aimed to soothe concerns about the bill and about the coming battles on deficit reduction.

    “This is a simple case of trying to Make sure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good,” said Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings, one of the chamber’s most steadfast liberals. “Nobody’s going to like everything about it.”

    Asked whether House progressives, who had hoped for a lower income threshold, would back the bill, Cummings said he could not predict but stressed: “I am one of the most progressive members, and I will vote for it.”

  29. MacBeth51 Says:

    I have a question. In USA vs Miller, in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that a short-barreled shotgun was not covered by the 2nd Amendment, saying “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”. That the Amendment applies only to military grade weapons has been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as 1980.
    Why then has no one taken proper notice of these rulings as they would pertain to automatic weapons

  30. Allan Says:

    Happy New Year to Mr. Ayoob and all of your readers. Significant percentages of law abiding American gun owners are very logical. The anti gun (let’s just ignore for a moment the real agenda behind this legislation) are simply liars and this is why:

    Take a moment and step outside of the USA and look into India and the recent savage rape and murder of an Indian girl. Now most Indian women are trying to get a license to purchase a firearm for their personal protections and the Indian government is denying their requests. To me this is a CRIME by itself. A hand gun is a tool for which the highest and best use is to prevent violence.

    Ghandi understood this only too well. This is why he decried the disarmament of Indians by the British.

    Now the Indian government is denying their female citizens the right to protect themselves against violent rape and murder. Rape and murder are connected. It’s not unusual for rapists to murder their victims, usually by some torturous means which prolong the victim’s agony and terror.

    The vast majority of gun owners hope they never actually have to kill anyone. They just want to use the threat of deadly force to leverage safety for themselves and their loved ones. I wish the gun grabbers could grasp this concept.

  31. AixSponsa Says:

    All the CCW permit schtuff has always just been a way for gov to get a list of gun radicals.

    Never mind that our state published a complete list of CCW holders and addresses, and then said, “opps…. disregard that….. we’re not suppose to do that”.

    Democide: Death by Government

    “A monopoly of violence to the government itself.
    The true purpose of gun restrictions and disarmament legislation is to monopolize the use of force into the government itself: to hold the people of the world into a perpetual state of surrender to those who control the guns— the governments.”

    In the last century:

    1/4 billion people were killed outside of war….

    that’s 6 times more killed by their governments than those killed in war.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Our founding fathers repeatedly warned us about this and wrote the Constitution to protect us.

    When the civil war starts, citizens will eliminate their ammo supply shooting each other so the US Gov can more affectively use that 1.6 billion rounds of NON-Geneva Convention ammo they ordered this year.

  32. Jack Finch Says:

    As was posted by the Illinois rifle folks yesterday, today may be the day the Illinois lame duck session is used to attempt draconian gun laws there. So far, no additional word. May just be a feint in the AWB conflict to test the waters and judge the response there by the NRA and firearms owners. We shall see. I too have contacted my Colorado Republican state and federal lawmakers as there is an AWB push styarting here too. Will start phoning today if I can get through. Gonna be a tough month or longer for we who support the Second Amendment. Be safe…

  33. Richard Says:

    New Details on Illinois Modern Firearm Ban Bill
    Posted on January 2, 2013 by Robert Farago

    The NRA’s Illinois rep confirms Illinois Senate President John Cullerton’s gun ban bill. Posting at illinoiscarry.com, Todd Vandermyde says “Not only are they going after semi-autos and magazines, but they are going after ranges . . . Sources say the new bills would require any range open to the public to be run by an FFL. That they would be licensed under unlimited rules and regulations by the State Police. If you see what the Governor did under his AV of SB-681, you can imagine what kind of rules/standards he would put in place to run a range.” The new bill would also prevent non-FOID card holders from getting firearm safety training with a live fire component. “At this time we have no bill numbers,” Todd says. “But we anticipate them using house bills passed over for floor amendments which would only take a matter of hours to clear committee and be ready for a final vote. Legislative offices are open today.” Any gun owner can call Senator Cullerton at 773-883-0770 to lodge their protest

  34. Mike in VA Says:

    We can all say that the legislation is so outlandish that it won’t pass. I personally thought that there was no way the American people would re-elect the POTUS, but they did. Just sayin.

  35. Larry Nutter Says:

    I know a lot of people are thinking they will somehow hide their semi-automatic firearms to avoid the registration (and eventual confiscation). Feinstein is already looking at a mandatory gun buyback (read confiscation). There is no logic to hiding guns which would then be illegal. Right now, if you are found to be in possession of an illegal MAC-10 (NFA weapon) you will be sentenced to 10 years in Federal prison. The government will gleefully lock up responsible gun owners by the tens of thousands for 10 years without hesitation. I have a significant knowledge of NFA firearms, laws and consequences.
    I am here to tell you to let your Congressman and Senator you will put them out of office if they vote for Feinsteins bill. The one and only thing the congress cares about is getting reelected. Make sure they know you will come out in force to put them out of office if they participate in taking away your constitutional rights.

  36. Jacob Morgan Says:

    Instead of placing more ammo orders on back order, how about sending that money to the NRA-ILA? The ’94 ban cost the Dems the house and senate. Instead of hiding, get out and fight.

    Facts are that none of these proposals would have prevented what happened in Newton, CT already has strict gun laws. The mother was wealthy and could have bought what she wanted anyway, made the right donation and became a reserve deputy, etc.

    The solution to Newtownwas in Newtown already until a long line of idiots shutit down: Fairfield Hills State Hospital for the mentally I’ll was in Newtown from 1931 until 1995. At one point 4,000 patients were there. Then in the silly sixties the front door was locked and the backdoor left open. Instead of providing refuge for the mentally ill, since then they are given psychotropic drugs (which long term, appears to make people more violent as well as having a poorer prognosis of recovery) and left to roam. If this was the year 1960 Adam (and the Colorado shooter and the V Tech shooter and the Giffords shooter) would be weaving baskets, and everyone else free to buy and own pretty much whatever they wanted.

    Granted there has to be due process in committals, but the alternative to having asylums for the mentally ill is to turn the whole country into an asylum. How is it that state hospitals were possible before income taxes existed, but are now unaffordable? What other area has the government withdrawn from? Fienstien and company have offered to be our own Nurse Ratched, and take away our guns, sharp objects, etc., but no thanks.

  37. Richard Says:

    Illinois Modern Firearms Ban and Mag Registration Bills Revealed Posted on January 2, 2013 by Robert Farago
    Yesterday we broke the news that Illinois legislators are preparing to introduce what we’ve been calling the “Nuclear Option” of gun control legislation: a full ban and confiscation on semi-automatic firearms of all types and then some, plus a magazine ban. TTAG has just received the full text of the bills:

    Click here for a pdf of Illinois HB1263 banning semi-automatic rifles (and more).
    Click here for a pdf of the amendment Illinois HB0815 [page 11] that covers ammunition magazine registration.
    If you want the latest status on these bills, click here for the Illinois legislature’s website that shows the latest info:
    HB1263 (Firearms)
    HB0815 (Magazines)
    These bills are set to be introduced in committee this afternoon at 5:30 PM local time for their first reading.

  38. Al Habbershon Says:

    Hey Mas,

    I liked your article. However, have a question that is a little off topic, more of a curiosity. I noted that the executives for the company providing armed security for the Journal News (guys that publicized gun permit holders) in New York all have the same last name as you with similar experience (NYPD). Just thought it would be ironic if you were related! Funny, when the anti-gun folks feel threatened, they call for the good guys with guns. If you wanted to investigate yourself, the article indicating which company is providing security is located here – http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/01/the-journal-news-is-armed-and-dangerous/
    The website for the security company – http://www.rgainvestigations.com/index.php/about-us

  39. Robert Says:

    Contacted 3 of these nincompoops (Washington State) and this is the first reply..expect the rest to echo her. – mistakenly thought a more congruent approach would reap the best results- BUT NOOOOoooo ….need to slam a book down on her desk and ask her what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” Does she not understand?

    Tried the no-attacking/name calling and hoped a less pointed, smooth redirection to enhance solving the problem at hand would work and perhaps draw an iota of reason…I was mistaken. So for those who ponder what tactics to use- I know what doesn’t work. And yes I copied & pasted from several different articles – Just sayin’ it was early and if I sent the crass email I wanted would have gotten more satisfaction. Try a different style and good luck.

    My email to Senator Cantwell:
    Please vote against Senator Feinstein’s anti-gun legislation-
    Those prone to knee jerk reactions spoke as though were it not for assault-style weapons, criminal acts that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary would not happen. That kind of thinking is shallow, delusional and should not be allowed to cloud the issue of school security. Letting the discussion over magazine size and weapon “style” become the focus is a distraction and avoids reality.
    The real cause, an uncontrolled mentally ill sociopath.
    When it comes to school security, we need to examine how to enhance the safety of our children. The first responder should be properly trained teachers. Airline safety improved after pilots were permitted to carry firearms with proper training. Schools should be no exception.
    Making Americans less empowered isn’t how you make us more secure.
    Schools should be the safest places in the world, and someone should always be ready to stand between our children and a monster that comes in.

    Thank you very much
    *******************
    The reply “From the Office of Senator Cantwell”

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

    All Washingtonians – and all Americans – offer our deepest condolences to the families of the 20 children and six school staff members who were killed in this senseless attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with the community of Newtown, as its residents heal from this incomprehensible tragedy.

    This horrific attack highlights several issues that must be addressed promptly in order to better protect against such inexplicable violence. We need to get powerful assault weapons off our streets. And we need to strengthen services for the mentally ill and their families.

    In the past, I supported the original Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill, as well as the Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1993, which prohibits juveniles from possessing or receiving handguns. I look forward to work with my colleagues in the Senate to strengthen responsible legislation to rein in gun violence. We need to work to close the loopholes in existing laws that allow criminals and children to gain access to firearms contrary to the law’s intention. One example is the well-known “gun-show loophole” which allows people to purchase firearms at gun-shows without undergoing the background check required when guns are bought from licensed dealers. Lastly, I believe we must support increased gun-safety and gun-use education.

    I support the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding Washingtonians who own guns. I also remain focused on addressing the deeply troubling violence in this country and making our state and our country as safe as possible for all people, including our most vulnerable citizens, our children. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.

    Along with addressing gun violence, making services for the mentally ill and their families more accessible will encourage those suffering from mental illness to seek needed care and support. Mental health care is a critical component of our healthcare system and an individual’s overall health status. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately one in 17 Americans suffers from a seriously debilitating mental illness. I care deeply about mental health care and understand the important role behavioral health services play in the lives of both those who suffer from mental illness and their family and loved ones.

    Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

    Sincerely,
    Maria Cantwell
    United States Senator

    For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
    http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

  40. Tony Says:

    Mas,
    Thanks for the update.

  41. Patrick Says:

    Illinois Modern Firearms Ban and Mag Cap Bills Pass Out of Committee
    Posted on January 2, 2013 by Robert Farago
    Both Illinois HB1263 (banning various firearms) and HB815 (regulating the bejesus out of magazines and shooting ranges) have passed out of a Public Health hearing (I swear) by a vote of 6 – 3. Before passing HB1263, the Committee added a sixth amendment. According to its dictates, firearms specified in the bill (e.g. a semi-automatic rifle such as the ones shown above only with longer barrels) must be registered with the Illinois State Police within 240 days of the bill’s passage, at $10 per gun ($15 for a .50). If the owner sells an “assault rifle” to an out-of-state buyer, the former owner must provide the State Police with the buyer’s name and address. Question: what does ANY of this have to do with preventing crime?

  42. Lyle_Hines Says:

    We are going to be so incredibly screwed over by these 100% totally insane gun-grabbing lunatics. My DEAR God.

  43. Rmtahoe Says:

    Here’s an idea…find out the state/federal senators and congressmen /women in your district and the nearby districts. Type up email addresses an phone numbers. Print and bring a stack to your local gun store, range or gunsmith. Ask them to hand out to their customers and have people call and email their opposition. Gets more people involved.

  44. Mark A. Cobbeldick Says:

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse… Below is the URL to a column by Donald Kaul which was published in the Des Moines Register. This chap in Des Moines makes radical Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s agenda look tame, and he even criticizes her for NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH. Furthermore, he advocates the murder of NRA members. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121230/OPINION01/312300033/Kaul-Nation-needs-new-agenda-guns

  45. Patrick Says:

    New York Legislature to Introduce Bills Making Posession of Any AWB Firearms Illegal, Remove Grandfathering
    Posted on January 3, 2013 by Nick Leghorn

    The New York Legislature is set to consider a bill that would vastly expand the current “Assault Weapons Ban” that is on the books. Here’s some of the highlights:

    All firearms must either be rendered inoperative or surrendered to the police. No grandfathering, no exceptions.
    Removes the “grandfathering” exception for possession of magazines with a greater than 10 round capacity.
    Bumps up AWB-firearm possession from 3rd degree “criminal possession of a weapon” to first degree, putting simple possession of such a firearm at the same level of punishment as Rape 1 or Manslaughter 1.
    Oh, and the whole thing is severable. So if one section is ever declared unconstitutional, the rest of it stays.

    Full text here. There are also two other bills being considered . . .

    S202-2013 has one heck of a preamble:

    The New York state legislature finds that semi-automatic assault weapons are military-style guns designed to allow rapid and accurate spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans. The shooter can simply point – as opposed to carefully aim – the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with a hail of bullets. Gun manufacturers have for many years made, marketed and sold to civilians semi-automatic versions of military assault weapons designed with features specifically intended to increase lethality for military applications. As a result, approximately 2,000,000 assault weapons are currently in circulation in the United States. These weapons have been the weapon of choice in the most notorious mass shootings of innocent civilians in the United States, including the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School (TEC-DC9 assault pistol and Hi-Point Carbine) and the 2002 Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings (Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle). According to FBI data, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. In 2003, New York lost two of its finest when undercover officers in the elite Firearms Investigation Unit of the NYPD Organized Crime Control Bureau were brutally murdered while attempting to purchase an illegal TEC-9 semi-automatic assault weapon. The availability of military-style assault weapons poses a serious threat to the public health and safety. Most citizens, including most gun owners, believe that assault weapons should not be available for civilian use.

    Note how the figures they pulled about “assault weapon” deaths all took place during the last assault weapons ban, before it went out of effect in 2004? Also note how they illustrate their complete and total lack of understanding of firearms and how they work (“spray” bullets my ass…)? Yeah, that’s the level of misinformation and ignorance that we’re up against.

    If they happen to wander by the site, I just wanted to throw these in here:

    The Truth About Assault Weapons
    The Truth About the AR-15 Rifle
    Also, the statement that “Most citizens, including most gun owners, believe that assault weapons should not be available for civilian use” is a complete and total lie. Which we know, thanks to the latest polling data.

    The other bill, S805-2013, is simply about registering all firearms. previously only handguns were required to be registered, but this widens the field to include all firearms

  46. Richard Says:

    Illinois Democrats Pull Gun Control Bills
    Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dan Zimmerman

    The latest from the NRA’s Todd Vandermyde: it appears that Democrats in the Illinois legislature who have been trying to railroad two gun control measures have pulled their bills. Translation: they counted heads and didn’t have the votes. The latest communique from senate Dems at capitolfax.com:

    It is clear that we will need bipartisan support in order to take floor votes on gun safety and marriage equality this week. We will take some time to work on these important issues to advance them in the near future.

    The executive committee has been delayed, but we still intend to hold a hearing on marriage equality shortly.

    That’s right, it’s a gun safety bill. No word as to what “the near future” means.

  47. Drake Says:

    The latest from the NRA’s Todd Vandermyde: it appears that Democrats in the Illinois legislature who have been trying to railroad two gun control measures have pulled their bills. Translation: they counted heads and didn’t have the votes. The latest communique from senate Dems at capitolfax.com:

    It is clear that we will need bipartisan support in order to take floor votes on gun safety and marriage equality this week. We will take some time to work on these important issues to advance them in the near future.

    The executive committee has been delayed, but we still intend to hold a hearing on marriage equality shortly.

    That’s right, it’s a gun safety bill. No word as to what “the near future” means.

  48. Drake Says:

    The New York Legislature is set to consider a bill that would vastly expand the state’s current “assault weapons ban.” Here’s some of the, er, highlights:
    ■All firearms must either be rendered inoperative or surrendered to the police. No grandfathering, no exceptions.
    ■Removes the “grandfathering” exception for possession of magazines with a greater than 10 round capacity.
    ■Bumps up AWB-firearm possession from 3rd degree “criminal possession of a weapon” to first degree, putting simple possession of such a firearm at the same level of punishment as Rape 1 or Manslaughter 1.

    Oh, and the whole thing is severable. So if one section is ever declared unconstitutional, the rest of it stays. Full text here. There are also two other bills being considered . . .

    S202-2013 has one heck of a preamble:

    The New York state legislature finds that semi-automatic assault weapons are military-style guns designed to allow rapid and accurate spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans. The shooter can simply point – as opposed to carefully aim – the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with a hail of bullets. Gun manufacturers have for many years made, marketed and sold to civilians semi-automatic versions of military assault weapons designed with features specifically intended to increase lethality for military applications. As a result, approximately 2,000,000 assault weapons are currently in circulation in the United States. These weapons have been the weapon of choice in the most notorious mass shootings of innocent civilians in the United States, including the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School (TEC-DC9 assault pistol and Hi-Point Carbine) and the 2002 Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings (Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle). According to FBI data, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. In 2003, New York lost two of its finest when undercover officers in the elite Firearms Investigation Unit of the NYPD Organized Crime Control Bureau were brutally murdered while attempting to purchase an illegal TEC-9 semi-automatic assault weapon. The availability of military-style assault weapons poses a serious threat to the public health and safety. Most citizens, including most gun owners, believe that assault weapons should not be available for civilian use.

    Note how the figures they pulled about “assault weapon” deaths all took place during the last assault weapons ban, before it went out of effect in 2004? Also note how they illustrate their complete and total lack of understanding of firearms and how they work (“spray” bullets my ass…)? Yeah, that’s the level of misinformation and ignorance that we’re up against.

    If they happen to wander by the site (as if), I just wanted to throw these in here for their reading pleasure:
    ■The Truth About Assault Weapons
    ■The Truth About the AR-15 Rifle

    Also, the statement that “Most citizens, including most gun owners, believe that assault weapons should not be available for civilian use” is a bright shining lie. Which we know, thanks to the latest polling data.

    The other bill, S805-2013, is simply about registering all firearms. Previously, only handguns were required to be registered, but this widens the field to include all firearms.

  49. Richard Says:

    A Compromise Gun Control Bill I Can Live With

    Covering for Glenn Beck the other day, Doc Thompson talked about the possibility of the GOP selling out on gun rights. He posted an e-mail exchange in which a high-level Congresscritter’s staffer said (in part):

    So we’re going to stand up for our principles, but I don’t necessarily think that means refusing to do anything…This is just my hunch as a political hack, but I would guess there would be bipartisan, bicameral, in Congress for a bill addressing high-capacity magazines, mental health, enforcement of existing law, and making some tweaks to background check laws.

    Normally I’m loathe to offer Leviathan any help whatsoever. But in this case, I believe we should propose our own gun control bill. Here’s my modest proposal . . .

    ■Repeal the Brady Bill and do away with the NICS system entirely. It was supposed to keep felons from getting firearms but has failed miserably. The solution isn’t to “tweak” the cumbersome and expensive background check process. The answer is to get rid of it entirely.
    ■Repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act limiting ownership of full-auto weapons to those made prior to 1986.
    ■In accordance with the 1968 amendments to the National Firearms Act, there will be a 90-day amnesty registration period every year, from January 1st through April 1st (or February 29th on leap years). The ATF will have 30 days to process any NFA transaction. Failure to complete a transaction in 30 days will result in the refund of all fees to the transferees and issuance of a default registration letter stating that the NFA items in question are legally possessed even if they are not entered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
    ■Any pilot or aircraft crew member who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state will be authorized to carry a firearm while in the air in any manner they deem fit.
    ■Any schoolteacher, school employee or school volunteer who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state is authorized to carry a firearm in any school in any manner they deem fit. Any school district which is found in violation of this law shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.
    ■Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
    ■Congress shall deem that Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly known as the full faith and credit clause) applies to state-issued permits to carry. Any state which fails to honor the permits of any other state shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.
    ■In accordance with Coffin v. United States a person who is attacked in a place s/he has a right to be and who is not engaged in unlawful activity will have no duty to retreat and will have the right to meet force with force, including deadly force if s/he reasonably believes it is necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily harm to him/herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony and shall be presumed to have acted in self-defense until proven otherwise. Law enforcement may not arrest an individual for using deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe that the use of force was unlawful.
    ■The definition of “sporting purposes” shall include all types of sport and competitive shooting and all “military style” and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are hereby deemed suitable for sport shooting.
    ■Any firearm or firearm accessory made by a private individual for their personal use will be beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
    ■“High capacity” magazines will be defined as any ammunition feeding device designed to hold more than 150 rounds.
    ■“Armor piercing” bullets will be defined as any round which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of no more than 4 inches (not including recoil or sound suppressor) can pierce 1 inch of HY-100 steel (or its equivalent) at 200 yards.
    ■Any business will have the right to exclude weapons from their premises and by doing so they accept strict liability for protecting their employees, customers and visitors.

    It would be nice if we could get the ATF Reform and Modernization Act of 2009 passed too, but let’s not get greedy.

    Anyway, this is my “good first step” bill to keep nut-jobs from murdering schoolchildren and movie-goers; and this time the Dems can “compromise” with our side for once.

  50. Drake Says:

    Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette – whose district includes Columbine High School and abuts Aurora – has introduced a bill to ban “high capacity” magazines on the first day of the new Congress. From AP via denverpost.com: “DeGette co-authored the bill with New York Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was killed in a 1993 mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad.” May DeGette enjoy as much success as McCarthy’s has in her past efforts to limit Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Details of the bill to follow as they’re available. Expectations were strong that DiFi would introduce her “assault weapons” ban bill today as well, but so far . . . no dice. Watch this space.

  51. Jessie Says:

    Well said as always Massad.

    The conservatives are going to hide our heads in the sand while the liberals destroy the constitution.

    Wake up and fight.

    I wrote my Congresswoman today.

  52. Brogan Says:

    If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” ban, they MUST address these questions:

    – Why ban cosmetic features?
    – Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
    – Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
    – Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
    – How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time?
    – How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?

    And most importantly:

    After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?

  53. Joseph Trimmer Says:

    Why YOU should Oppose Gun Control:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhG8PjgvgFY

  54. Dennis Dailey Says:

    I am an Vietnam era veteran honorably discharged who like many others was not received well by country and friends on my return.I have voted,paid my taxes,served on two juries and have been an honorable and decent citizen in my community.Regarding proposed new firearms laws my government wants to group me with mentally ill criminals,or make an outlaw out of me.I’m near 70 years old and probably don’t have that much longer to live.I pray that we won’t roll over for this insult by our country.

Leave a Reply

 
 


 
 

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