listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Feinstein’s ‘assault weapon’ ban would be tantamount to confiscation

Examiner – by Kurt Hofmann

When Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced her intention to introduce a bill banning so-called “assault weapons” on the first day of the 113th Congress next month, the implication was that it would work much like her previous handiwork, the 1994-2004 federal AWB, in that firearms and magazines manufactured before the effective date of the ban would remain legal, and not restricted more oppressively than other firearms. In other words, her legislation would have a “grandfather clause” (although the protection provided by such a clause is often far less than one might expect). She gave this impression on NBC News (quoted in the Huffington Post):

“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said.

The “not retroactively” wording would seem to imply that firearms already in private hands would not be subject to the new restrictions.

In a press conference last Friday with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), however, she painted a far different picture. In this short C-SPAN video clip (which cannot be embedded inExaminer articles), she spills some previously unreleased details about her proposed legislation. She explains that all existing “assault weapons” would be–just as machine guns are currently–put under National Firearms Act (NFA) regulation, with all the legal hoops such regulation entails.

The guns would be registered (presumably, like machine guns, subject to periodic inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives); owners would be subject to invasive background checks, presumably fingerprinting, etc. She did not mention the $200 tax stamp for every transfer (and would that also apply to magazines–each magazine?), but if they are to be regulated “like machine guns,” that would be part of it. And ownership of the gun would apparently be contingent on a local judge or chief law enforcement officer approving that ownership–with the official in question not required to provide that approval, or even a reason for disapproval.

Failure to meet any of these requirements would be grounds for confiscation.

By the way, she justifies this exponential escalation of the war on guns earlier in the press conference–and no paraphrase would do this insanity justice:

Um–1993, I got a whole bunch of gun magazines, and went through them, and sort of did a study of the state of the art of these guns then ["a whole bunch of gun magazines"--that's some "study"]. We just re-did that, and I have on my desk, sort of these magazines, which will show the state of the art today, 2012. I cannot tell you how much more sophisticated and technologically advanced these weapons are, all stemming from military weapons. There are even devices which can be put in them legally, which make them fully automatic.

These “devices” she mentions are almost certainly stocks like those made by Slide Fire Solutions and Fostech Outdoors (the Bumpski), which mechanize the process of “bump firing.” This is very obviously not fully automatic, because only one shot is fired per trigger pull. Nevertheless, this seems to be her primary justification for treating semi-automatic firearms like machine guns.

She is not without allies ready to order gun confiscations. The judge who heard the Tucson rampage shooting case is on board, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says that confiscation “is an option,” NBC blowhard Ed Shultz demands confiscation and New York police are already worried (as they should be) that they will be given the mortally dangerous job of seizing decent, peaceable citizens’ legally purchased life and liberty preservation tools.

Feinstein’s plan would seem to necessitate a massively expanded BATFE, in order to administer this vast registry (BATFE cannot be counted on to competently–or honestly–administer thevastly smaller registry of legal machine guns).

Even without confiscation, Feinstein’s bill is a new “Intolerable Act,” and a direct violation of her oath of office. With it, it’s an act of war against the American people. That is a war that she and her allies will lose.

http://www.examiner.com/article/feinstein-s-assault-weapon-ban-would-be-tantamount-to-confiscation

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
4771
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

7 Responses to Feinstein’s ‘assault weapon’ ban would be tantamount to confiscation

  1. dave says:

    I have no idea why, but I’m actually looking forward to seeing this happen…
    Sort of like wanting to see a big car wreck at the Indy, except the “car wreck” will be any control freak bureaucrat who thinks they can achieve the impossible goal of taking away the tools Americans need to keep tyranny, abuse & possibly genocide away.

  2. Schuba says:

    We have the second amendment because our founding fathers new America would one day face scum like Dianne Feinstein.

  3. Joe says:

    Interestingly, in their haste, the existing “bans” on machineguns and various other heavy weaponry seem to have been overlooked. They haven’t been proposed to be any worse than they currently are. In other words, once you’ve jumped through all the National Firearms Act hoops, if you have the cash, you might as well just buy a BAR or a Thompson, as they will then have the same status as the newly to be banned guns.

    Observing all the blowback from the left’s pipe-dream of substantially disarming the entire population of the US will certainly be interesting.

    The other big question in my mind is where all the funding will come from to drive the process. Confiscations, registrations, and buybacks are expensive.

  4. DDearborn says:

    Hmmm

    What should be most upsetting, in fact down right scary is how the entire media and Congress is framing this in terms of how many kinds of guns they will ban/take. Of course this is NOT the question that must be answered. The question that must be answered is; why is the media and the Congress demanding that we the people except that they can violate the Constitution and break the law by infringing on our inalienable right to bear arms? And why isnt the Congress following the rule of law and demanding a change in the Bill of Rights via a constitutional convention which is the ONLY legal why to ban/limit our right to bear arms? These are the questions the people must force the Congress/media to address directly.

    • Henry Shivley says:

      No, by God. The Bill of Rights belongs to the people as individuals and no collective can vote them away in any forum. They are not like the Constitution. They are articles added to the Constitution that make up a Bill of Rights that existed before the Constitution. The are unalienable, meaning they cannot be given away or taken away under any circumstance. They were won in blood and the only way they can cease to exist for any American national is for that American national’s life to be removed.
      The communists know this, even if your dumb ass doesn’t. Even to suggest a Con Con to repeal any part of our Bill of Rights is an act of treason. You cannot even talk about my rights because they are mine, absolute. They are like my hands and feet. The only way you can remove them is by removing me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 14 + 13 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)