Posted in: News

Senator Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban: Give Us Your Guns, No Exceptions

Feinstein Wants All Assault Weapons Banned

Commentary | California’s United States Senator, Diane Feinstein, has outraged Second Amendment advocates with the news of her plans to introduce a new law to ban all assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and pistol grips. Unlike the ban on assault weapons enacted under Bill Clinton, the bill would eliminate grandfathering, possibly requiring all Americans to surrender any banned items they owned prior to the passage of the proposed law. The still unseen law raises the specter of government agents knocking on citizen’s doors and demanding the surrender of previously legal guns and other equipment.

According to, Mac Salvo of The Shooting Wire was the first to break the news about Feinstein’s renewed attack on gun ownership:

“I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection. This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession.”

Feinstein is known to gun enthusiasts as a hardcore gun grabber who makes Mayor Bloomberg seem like an owner of a shooting range. In 2004, the Senator spoke about a total prohibition on all gun ownership in America. She gave a quote to the San Francisco Chronicle that probably had the founding fathers spinning in their collective graves:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

During the 2012 campaign Obama breathed a major sigh of relief when the UN backed down on the noxious Small Arms Treaty, which gun owners, and constitutional scholars alike, fear is designed to chip away at American sovereignty, create an international gun registry and even restrict the rights of nations to supply their allies with weapons for defense.

Critics of the UN have no doubt that any gun control treaty passed by the UN might be used to stop the United States from supplying Israel with the weapons she needs to defend her nation against implacable enemies who surround the tiny Jewish state and are sworn to her utter destruction. They envision a scenario in which China uses the treaty to prevent the US from sending weapons to Taiwan or Russia uses it to block weapons being sent to opponents of the Mullahs in Iran.

Once the election was over and Obama had his “four more years,” it took the White House less than 24 hours to support the UN’s call for a new round of talks on the treaty from March 18-28, 2012.

The US Mission to the UN announced Obama’s renewed support for the treaty:

“We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, spoke about how quickly the President embraced reviving the Small Arms Treaty:

“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true. The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning (November 7), we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”

It should also be pointed out that assault weapons play a minuscule part in violent crime. They are involved in one percent of gun crimes and 0.20 percent of all violent crime. Most violent crimes are committed with household objects and even when a gun is involved, 99 percent of the time it isn’t an AR15, an AK47 or any other type of assault weapon.

Even the ultra liberal Washington Post admitted the truth about how few assault weapons are used in violent crimes. In a self incriminating editorial, the Post tipped the hands of the gun grabbers in our government and exposed the real reason they support a ban on assault weapons:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

Examiner columnist Ryan Keller spoke about the reasoning behind the renewed attack on gun ownership in America:

“With Obama, who supports the ban, in the White House for another term and the Democrats fully in control of the Senate, Feinstein will most likely be able to introduce the legislation. If any trouble is encountered in the Republican-held House of Representatives, then gun control advocates should fear not, as Obama would most likely issue an executive order to get around it as he’s done in the past when he doesn’t get his way. After all, “we can’t wait,” the dictator needs to erode our rights now.”

The most likely scenario that will occur over the next few months will probably read like this: Obama will continue to say UN Small Arms Treaty is harmless and if it is ever passed he will sign it, even if the United States Senate makes it overwhelmingly clear they will vote against the treaty.

Feinstein will introduce an assault weapon ban in the Senate, the bill will be passed in the dark of night with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican opposed. The bill will be killed by the House of Representatives and Obama will ignore the Constitution and write an Executive Order banning assault weapons.

That is the scenario most gun rights advocates and conservatives are predicting. Once again, it looks like we are headed for a full blown constitutional crisis between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government and I am betting the do nothing Republicans will let Obama get away with another Presidential power grab.

Most gun owners are horrified by any thought of a background check and a waiting period to buy a gun. I am a libertarian and I support the right to own and bear arms but I am about to say something that will upset quite a few people. While owning a gun is a right, it is also a privilege and I do not have an issue with background checks and a waiting period to buy a pistol or a long arm.

If a fair and equitable standard is put in place by the combined effort of the House and Senate, signed by the President, and found to be constitutional by The Supreme Court, I see no difficulty with filling out a form and waiting a few days to pick up my weapon.

What do you think? Is gun ownership an absolute right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Is it unconstitutional or unfair to ask gun owners to go through a background check and a short waiting period to buy a gun? What is your opinion on this highly important issue?

A great big Thank You to Kim LaCapria for the absolutely fabulous title for this column. Thank you Kimmy.

Articles And Offers From The Web


72 Responses to “Senator Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban: Give Us Your Guns, No Exceptions”

  1. Timothy Dous

    But she can carry and so can her security. Why dont you try to balance a budget in Cali and a federal one too before you worry about guns

  2. Michael Sweeney

    As a US Marine, I support and defend the Constitution including the 2nd Amendment. But this "opinion" article is skewed way to the right. Don't buy in to everything you read people.

  3. Wolff Bachner

    actually my article is pretty centered. all the statements are verified quotes and i even spoke in support of background checks and a short waiting period for gun purchases. i think any right leaning person would say that is a way left position. all the other information in the article is directly linked to the person or group responsible and they are properly identified. I will admit to having a dislike for politicians like feinstein who have no regard for the constitution ans would presume to tell an entire nation what to do. if that's leaning right then i stand proudly guilty. re-read the piece and follow through on all my links to see how deeply sourced my article is. and many of the sources are not right wing at all. forbes and the Washington post certainly are not right wing. but you are entitled to your opinion. at least you read the article and took time to comment so i accomplished my purpose.

  4. Wolff Bachner

    Michael Sweeney i don't see this as a right- left issue. i see this as a pure constitutional issue. I believe American citizens have the right to own guns, as per the second amendment. however, i also am fine with reasonable back ground checks and a short waiting period, which is hardly a right wing position.. As for believing what you read, that is why the article has so many links. to allow people to read more and get even more information about the subject.

    so i beg to differ with your opinion, but i am pleased you read mt article and took the time to comment. Im pleased the article achieved its purpose and made you consider the issue. how about answering the questions at the end of the article. id like to know your stand on the issues. that's why i asked the questions to close the piece. so i could see what my readers think. what do you think about gun rights, gun control, back ground checks, waiting periods and assault weapons?

  5. Timothy Dous

    Assault weapons are not the problem. Someone could do just much damage with two revolvers and a bunch of moon clips with any kind of practice. A revolver is also easier to hide and is one of the most basic of firearms.

  6. Todd Smith

    Balanciing the budget would set people at ease and let them think about other things besides how they're going to pay their next round of bills if they get layed off due to cut backs to save money at the business. People could feel good and advance their lives with a comfortable position with a balanced budget. They don't want that. They want you weak depending on them. If you depent on them and they're putting an image out making it look like their struggling. You hang on to them for dear life. That's wahat they want so they have the control.

  7. Jason Brunt

    Short waiting period, not an issue for me. The ban is a joke, law abiding don't commit heinous gun crimes generally, why penalize them?

  8. Donovan Johnson

    Because you can't be trusted with a thousand round sniper rifle machine gun. You don't need it!

  9. Chad Shoults

    I have a problem with both. Lets first look at the background check. The BATFE has time and agin proven they have no regard for the laws of this country. They have illeaglly users the background check as a from of gun registry and confiscating firearms in times of " emergency ". They have also used it to confiscate previously legal item when they made them illegal. Next lets look at the waiting period. Does it reduce crime no. But what it does do is prevent people from defending them self and their loved ones. We have all heard the stories of women killed after leaving their absive ex even when they have a restraining order. How ever what the news won't cover is how many of thoes women were killed while waiting the seven days for the government to alow them their right to self defense.

  10. Patrick Worsham

    Senator Feinstein is a hypocrite of the highest order. She has possessed a concealed carry permit ever since supervisor Milk was assassinated in 1978.

  11. Lawrence Vian

    Your sentence is easily spoken but very difficult to carry out when there are a multitude of barrels pointed at you yelling and screaming to surrender. Bravery, comes at a high price, with brash behavior. sometimes its better to retreat to fight another day when you have better odds.

  12. Darren Duvall

    Background checks as currently performed are not particularly intrusive. There are still numerous issues, namely getting the names right as confusion with others on the no-buy list that share your name causes trouble for some people, and the other thing about lists is that people seem to constantly want lists to be used for things for which they are not intended. The "no-fly" list is not public and placement on that list is not subject to appeal. It would seem to be a serious constitutional issue if the "no-fly" list became the "no-buy" list with the government able to curtail your constitutional rights without an avenue for appeal.

    If you have a CHL in Texas and show documentation of same (a card issued by the Department of Public Safety) then there is no background check because you have already been fingerprinted, background-checked and licensed by the state. Not everyone can afford a CHL and the associated classes, so this system is imperfect but works well for CHL owners. The issue with psychiatric patients and the mentally-unwell-but-not-yet-diagnosed is troubling but there are privacy issues there that can run afoul of constitutional rights. Congress has mandated for years that there is no computerized database of firearms purchases based on Form 4473s, this is a feature and not a bug as such a system is de facto registration. Until or unless Congress decides to register firearms purchases this is the law and if that is a proposal the NRA and associated groups will fight tooth and nail to keep it from occurring.

    Waiting periods have been tried, extensively. People determined to commit crimes are willing to wait through the waiting period, crimes of passion immediately preceded by the purchase of a firearm are not unheard of, but public shootings by people who waited patiently for their firearm purchase to clear have happened in Stockton, CA and on the Long Island Railroad in the past, just to name two. While it may not seem to be a significant imposition on a constitutional right, I would suggest that part of libertarian though is practicality and practically speaking there is no evidence that waiting periods deter crime.

    Gun control laws themselves do not deter crime, there is hardly a place with more restrictive gun control laws than Illinois and Chicago in particular and there is hardly a more dangerous place to be right now than Chicago if you're concerned about murders and shootings than Chicago. For those that point to the UK as an example of "successful" gun control, a more complete assessment of their crime statistics is sobering. Also, I'll see the UK and raise Mexico in this rhetorical poker game, which has firearms laws that would bring a smile to Senators Feinstein and Boxer's faces (assuming they hadn't been recently botoxed) and has a murder rate in some localities that would be the envy of some low-intensity wars.

    If you want to deter crime you need to deter criminals. Nothing deters criminals like an armed civilian giving them a good view of the muzzle of a weapon. Criminals interviewed in prison have stated this fact explicitly. Police have rules and regulations and protocols, civilians have the Castle Doctrine. There are a lot of armed police and a lot of armed civilians, it is worth considering that only the police regularly carry and expect to use handcuffs. This difference has not escaped the notice of criminals.

    Fundamentally, gun control laws only control those predisposed to obey the law in the first place. If you're willing to commit murder, a firearms violation is small potatoes by comparison.

  13. Tom Sasser

    Regarding Jeffrey Murray's comment: All he has to do is kill or maim one government agent. The law will be repealed if all gun owners offer resistance. Government agents will refuse to engage in such activities if they know there is a significant chance one of their teammates could be shot.

    The acceptance of background checks turns a right into a privilege. This has been done by abusing the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. It was never intended to be used as a means to get around rights.

    "A right delayed is a right denied."

    –Martin Luther King, Jr.

  14. Tom Sasser

    Additionally, the data from the background checks is supposed to be only kept for a limited time. We know that the government is maintaining the data beyond the statutory limits. If you have bought one gun from an FFL anywhere in the country, the US government knows who you are. This will automatically place you on a list of people to investigate and search. My guess is that the database will be used as probable cause for a search.

  15. Patrick Frye

    I'm just guessing but I'd imagine the majority of crimes are committed with pistols. They're easier to wield while doing something else since they are not as large and cumbersome. My experience is limited to target range practice and airsoft, though.

  16. Jeffrey Murray

    What part of over my dead body didn't you understand? I will never surrender my second amendment right this country was founded on. Many people have died to protect those freedoms. If you think people like me and others are going to peacefully surrender our weapons we have a right to posess then you are gravely mistaken.

  17. Adam Santoro

    Stupid bitch. She tries that and millions of firearm owners will be knocking at her front door, and they ain't going to be nice. She sounds like the typical tyrant.

  18. Jason Brunt

    My only gripe with your stance Donovan Johnson Is you routinely state that government shouldn't be allowed to say what you can and can't own in terms of firearms, but when I come over the top with the RPG example you claim no one should be allowed to own one. Well, why? Your logic is a little flawed to me because you're not applying it to everything. I'm not a fan of my states' ridiculous rules about what I can own, but I don't have a problem with what I deem to be reasonable restrictions, like not being allowed to use or own explosives, silencers (at least in MA), etc.

  19. The Russian Patriot

    Good news for us gun owners! Pat Quinn's "Assault weapons" ban was vetoed by the Illinois state senate by a huge margin, 49-4. I think that is great news, considering Illinois is ruled by so many left-leaning politicians. This pro-gun sentiment is likely echoed in Congress. Democrats saw what happened in 1994 after they first assault weapons ban, so I doubt they will vote in favor of an assault weapons ban. I guess all we have to worry about is that executive order. I tell Obama good luck with that one.

  20. Bill Seiber

    If we let them get a way with this. It will act as a vitamin pill and will encourage them to push it even father. Any time we let the government mess with our constitutional rights we the citizens of this country and up on the losing end. Background checks will never stop a criminal from getting his hands on a gun. Criminals don't buy guns from a gun store or pawn shop they buy them on the street. Any time you go into a gun shop to buy a gun they're going to run a background check on you anyway. George Washington said and I quote and on unarmed person is not a citizen, but a subject. Thomas Jefferson wrote it is the duty of every able-bodied man to be armed so he can protect himself his family his neighbors his community and his country. If there is ever been a time in history that our Second Amendment rights are threatened. It is now under the Obama administration, and with people like Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Feinstein. We cannot turn our backs or trust these people with such an important issue as our second amendment. Up on our Second Amendment. All other rights rest!

  21. Walter Jacque

    I take it you've never read the Constitution, nor its footnotes, the Federalist Papers.

    I strongly suggest you read them Darren, then pop off.

  22. Steve Okruhlica

    Lawrence, some of us will get killed when this takes place, no doubt. But there's more of us then there are of them. You can be a serf if you wish, but I'll take as many of those freedom stealing bastards with me as I can before I go. The day this happens is the first day of the 2nd revolution.

  23. Steve Okruhlica

    You'd be thinking correctly. The majority of gun crime is down with small, cheap, .22 and .25 caliber pistols, the old "Saturday Night Specials." Her bill has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with disarming the populace so that the eiltes can run roughshod over them without fear of retribution.

  24. Steve Okruhlica

    Donovan, I hope that's sarcasm. Because there is no such thing as a "sniper machine gun." We're not talking about machine guns anyway. Those have been illegal since the 1930's.

  25. Anonymous

    EVERY person who takes an oath to protect and defend the US CONSTITUTION in any government office is guilty of treason if they violate that oath, IT is our military and police who have first chance to arrest them, IF they don't their guilty of treason too, that being the case, lets see if that ugly whore tries to ban anything in the us constitution, cause she'll be guilty of treason when she does, and besides no one but an IDIOT would give their guns to a government as out of control as the nazi bastards in washington dc are……………………..

  26. Anonymous

    LETS join reallity here and realize KNIVES are the number one weapon of choice for criminals,not guns as they would have everyone believe……….

  27. Anonymous

    HOW'D YOU like to wake up after a night at the bar and see that ugly bitch laying on your arm, IF anyone thinks losing their guns would be bad, what would you do if you woke up to that ugly whore on your arm………………

  28. Anonymous

    TO the Illinois state police, do your job and arrest that coward and traitor governor PAT QUINN, he's guilty of treason and this is your big chance to prove your americans and not just a pack of cowards with guns in a large gang………….

  29. Christopher Mockenhaupt

    The long list of potential reasons that the government could come up with to deny someone during the "waiting period" is ridiculous. He's pro-life — denied. She's a Ron Paul supporter — denied. That guy smoked weed in high school — denied. This grandma looks suspicious — denied. Only cops and Solyndra executives will ever get approved. That's the problem. The 2nd Amendment is for all Americans and it say this right "Shall not be infringed." A waiting period with all sorts of nebulous possibilities for denials is infringement. Look at the "No Fly" List. People get put on that list who have never done anything wrong. Yet, they're there. They are not allowed to know why and they can't get their names removed. Trusting the government to issue permits is like asking Lucy to hold the football while Charlie Brown tries to kick it.

  30. Natalie Florez

    I think something like this might actually incite revolutionary forces. Apparently, that is what they are trying to do. It would be a perfect excuse to institute martial law. I cannot wait for these old ugly cunt bags to die off.

  31. Bobbi Jones

    Isn't it called the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of Privileges"? To claim to be a libertarian and then say a part of the bill of rights is a privilege… that seems pretty hypocritical to me. The senator may go ahead an introduce her bill, and it may actually go to an executive order as you say… and if it does… there will be a very ugly chapter for this country coming ahead. Whether it be the ATT or just the bill Feinstein introduces, the goal is still the same, disarming the american people. The path to get there doesn't matter. The scary part is, if somehow it does become law of the land… I know a million or two Texans that won't just give up those thousands of dollars in firearms they purchased so nicely. I hear the argument that people will act different when the feds come knocking at the door… and you are right.. they will… at least for a time. Soon enough people will catch wind of what is happening, and then someone will stand up and say no. That will be the match that sparks the fire… which very well could lead to an explosion all across our country… I hope it doesn't come to this, but if it does, god help us all! The second amendment is not about hunting… it is about resisting tyranny… and if tyrants come to my door to take away my RIGHT… I'm sure me a nd a few neighbors mught have something to say about that.

  32. Bobbi Jones

    Isn't it called the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of Privileges"? To claim to be a libertarian and then say a part of the bill of rights is a privilege… that seems pretty hypocritical to me. The senator may go ahead an introduce her bill, and it may actually go to an executive order as you say… and if it does… there will be a very ugly chapter for this country coming ahead. Whether it be the ATT or just the bill Feinstein introduces, the goal is still the same, disarming the american people. The path to get there doesn't matter. The scary part is, if somehow it does become law of the land… I know a million or two Texans that won't just give up those thousands of dollars in firearms they purchased so nicely. I hear the argument that people will act different when the feds come knocking at the door… and you are right.. they will… at least for a time. Soon enough people will catch wind of what is happening, and then someone will stand up and say no. That will be the match that sparks the fire… which very well could lead to an explosion all across our country… I hope it doesn't come to this, but if it does, god help us all! The second amendment is not about hunting… it is about resisting tyranny… and if tyrants come to my door to take away my RIGHT… I'm sure me and a few neighbors might have something to say about that.

  33. Pat Lingo Ashcraft

    Since the slightly less than honest folks seem to get guns under the radar, I think honest folks should be able to do the same. If you know where the good guys keep their guns but don't know where the bad guys have theirs then who is the government really targeting for punishment? Home invasions gun versus baseball bat?

  34. Jay Bowling

    Look at countries where it is illegal to own or have a gun….bad guys still get guns and crime runs rampant….i would rather die on my feet with a fighting chance than live on my knees in tyranny.

  35. Darren Duvall

    Hey Walter, any time you want to swing by my place and go shooting with me then you're welcome to do so.

    I have read the Constitution, and Heller, and Miller, and bunch of other SCOTUS rulings. If you'll read my post in the context of the article originally written (see link at the bottom), you'll realize that the original author was proposing MORE background checks and MORE gun control, and I was rebutting his proposal. I don't favor any additional gun control, and in fact I state a lot of reasons to do away with "common sense" gun control measures that are "common sense" to people who don't know anything about firearms, firearms law, or the history of gun control legislation and crime in the United States. I'm on your side, dude.

    How about you read the first article, my response to it in context, and then reconsider telling me to "pop off"?

  36. Anonymous

    The whole point behind the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with recreation or hunting rifles. It's about being able to arm yourself with any firearm you choose to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. That's why the GOV wants your guns, so they can do whatever they want without fear of the citizens fighting back.

  37. Anonymous

    We cannot comply to any more erosion of our sovereign rights. Any law that is passed banning something which was previously legal, with no grandfather clause, is an ex post facto law, automatically null and void by the provision of the Constitution which prohibits these types of laws.
    Furthermore, if the fraudulent POTUS occupying the people's White House decrees any type of outright ban, it is a violation of the very Constitution he has sworn to defend and uphold. This is truly more evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, punishable by impeachment. We have got to somehow get this apathetic, spineless GOP to start taking their job of representing the people seriously. They have got to stand up for the inalienable rights of the people or Obama will be faced with a revolution, the very thing he wants in order to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution and habeus corpus. And by the way, no, I DO NOT agree with any more infringement of our Second Amendment protection of our inalienable right to keep and bear arms…any kind of arms, especially military types. Our very wise and far thinking Founding Fathers intended the freedom of arms to be the final, ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical government, the kind of government this country is seeing more and more of. I WILL NOT COMPLY!

  38. Anonymous

    The Constitution doesn't give me the right to own guns. That is an inherent, inalienable right given to me by God, the ability to defend myself. No man can take it away. The Constitution simply guarantees that right will not be taken away. That's how it works in a Republic, Liberals. Sorry 'bout your luck.

  39. Bob Dunshee

    Will Fienstien give up her gun? Will she have here armed body guards give up their guns? This is about controlling the masses not guns!

  40. Ben Harp

    People it's time to arm up and prepare to fight this goverment this is there new found fight to disarm the American public

  41. Genesis Maya

    People it's time to put an arm up and prepare to fight this government this is their new found fight to disarm the American public.
    I'm fixing your grammar and punctuation, you're welcome!

Around The Web