-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

What no one is telling us about Feinstein’s gun legislation – Part 1

Dianne_Feinstein_gun_banSen. Dianne Feinstein has been on a mission since the original Clinton gun ban failed to meet her expectations – the complete and total revocation of the second amendment rights for any and all private persons.

Right after the Sandy Hook tragedy, she was able to pull out an all-encompassing piece of gun legislation that went much further than Clinton dared while using the murder of innocents to affect her political agenda. The question everyone should be asking is – what’s in it? (and no, we shouldn’t wait until they pass it to ask – we know what happens when they do that.)

The intermediate goal of the bill is apparent in section 1: ‘This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2013’’’ – the long term goal is up to the reader to discern. The question is what do they intend next?

The way that Congress tries to bury the details is by only showing the amendments to existing U.S. code and/or bills, amendments and laws. We’ll spend the time to show you the existing codified law referenced in the Senators’ bill so you can best judge what the changes mean. Otherwise, the bill seems harmless…

First, is how the Senator and her compatriots choose to define things. Several types of firearms definitions are added to section 921(a) of the U.S. code, which is the definitions section.

Their first change is to add “semiautomatic pistol” to the list of definitions just after paragraph 29. Previously, only “handguns” were defined in this section of the U.S. code. Even though the bill is supposedly about assault rifles, this new definition is included :

(1) by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

(30) The term ‘semiautomatic pistol’ means any re-peating pistol that

(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round; and

(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

Why is the new definition of a semi-auto pistols necessary if the bill isn’t about them? In chess, one must not take a single move at its face value – the player must calculate what moves the first makes possible. Many further actions are possible once a simple definition is codified. To make something evil, first you have to define it. Then everyone knows what they should hate when you use that well-defined term – kind of like “assault rifle”.

Next, Feinstein takes care of to define semiautomatic shoguns. Is this necessary in an assault gun ban? Of course not, but that would assume the bill is totally about keeping schools safe or theaters or some other public space. The bill adds paragraph 31, just after the semi-auto handgun definition in 921(a) as:

The term ‘semiautomatic shotgun’ means any repeating shotgun that—

(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round; and
(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.’’

The Senator’s bill takes care to define semi-automatic shotguns like those used by duck and goose hunters, for home defense or by competitive shooters . Even some skeet shooters use “auto-loaders” – right Mr. President?

What comes next is the most confusing definition in the history of gun terminology. “Semautomatic assault weapon” is to be added to paragraph 36 of 921(a). Which is it? A Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle is no more an assault rifle than any other detachable magazine rifle. Under certain circumstances – your semiauto will be considered a “Semiautomatic assault weapon” under paragraph 36 of U.S. Code 921(a). Those who do not understand the law are destined to get run over by it. I’ll have to break this up in several parts to clarify what each part means.

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A pistol grip.
(ii) A forward grip.
(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
(v) A barrel shroud.
(vi) A threaded barrel.

Sub paragraph A above is where the “single military characteristic” rule comes in. In the prior ban, two or more of these characteristics had to be present in order to meet the definition.

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device de-signed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

This next section should cause many gun owners to take pause:

(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Sub paragraph C is open to interpretation. Would a certain buffer spring, buffer, lighter bolt or carrier be considered one of these devices? Could this be used to take a grandfathered (we’ll get to this later) rifle and make it un-grandfathered?

(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A threaded barrel.

(ii) A second pistol grip.

(iii) A barrel shroud

(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

And now we know why they had to define semiautomatic handguns. So they could then turn them into banned weapons.

(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any of the following:

(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(ii) A pistol grip.
(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(v) A forward grip.
(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

This makes shotguns popular with 3-gun competitors illegal. It also explains why they had to define semiauto shotguns – so they could ban them. A semiauto with more than 5 shot capacity is a popular choice for home defense. These defense shotguns are almost always configured with collapsible stock, pistol grip and 7+ round capacity.

(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof: (the list is expansive – we’ll put it up as a separate post here)

There are several things that should get the attention of current gun owners. “Barrel Shroud” is defined as “(A) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel.” That’s right, your shotgun’s forend, your rifles handgaurd or any other device that keeps you from the heat of a gun barrel is now one of the things that defines a banned gun. Don’t think they won’t refine these definitions to include even more innocuous guns. While they may not be trying to limit the guns you like today – they won’t stop at just these. Soon, the evil guns you like will be limited.

This bill goes after guns that weren’t previously thought evil: hadguns and shotguns used for personal defense and competitive shooting. The bill is not as innocuous as the mainstream media would have us believe – probably because they don’t understand it.

There are several more terms defined by the Democrat sponsors of this bill (Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Lautenberg, Menendez –alleged child prostitute user?), Carden, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren) – it’s time to think deeper about what our public servants are pushing.

Understand that politicians are only starting with gun sales. In Colorado they believe that the ownership of a gun is, in itself a dangerous action. They seek to force gun owners, sporting goods store owners and manufacturers of sporting goods to be liable should anyone use their products to commit a crime. It is as if all gun owners seek to attack schools, theaters or whatever.

America is losing the belief in itself and its people. Government officials believe they are better people than the average citizen and should therefore decide for us how we should live – the same things that King George III believed. Either we are different than that or we are the same. If we are the same, we are negating the risk that our forefathers took to allow a freer nation, a true Republic - our America.

Ceding any right to the Federal is a weakening of the individual. Believe wholly or believe not at all. The belief in human rights is absolute – not relativistic. When you hear your government officials disparaging the absolute, they are taking a bite out of your absolutely guaranteed human rights in order to give them greater power and profit. The enemy is not the top earners – it is the elitists in government.

We’ll continue tearing apart this dangerous legislation in parts 2 and 3 where we’ll discuss: grandfathering, who can and can’t acquire banned weapons, serializing of magazines, seizure of large capacity magazines, some guns exempted by the bill and more.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , ,

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. WillofLa says:

    Dianne Feinstein is a criminal. She and her husband were involved in “war profiteering” during the Iraq war when she was head of the appropriations committee. When it was leaked that she had awarded ten billion dollars worth of contracts to her husbands companies working in Iraq, she conveniently excused herself from the committee for a few weeks until she dealt with whoever or whatever generated the stories. After she saw that no more was going to be exposed about her crimes she reappointed herself back to committee head where she resumed awarding contracts for work done in Iraq. She didn’t have to award anymore to her husbands companies since he had made hundreds of millions of dollars worth of profit that she and her husband enjoyed. This woman and her husband should be wearing orange jumpsuits not firs and jewelery, vacation homes in France, and expensive cars. I say that without knowing what they do with their money, because I wonder, what do rich people like her and Nancy Pelosi after her and her husband made thirteen million on insider trading on stocks during a sell off where it was leaked to the press of the profits she made. Then she conveniently declaired that little known Congressional rule removed since she admits that after all, no one else gets to do that legally. But she got to keep all the money, just like Ms. Feinstein got to keep all her blood money to.

  2. Jan Brown says:

    Good Grief! Here you give us ‘facts’ & accurate info…just when I thought Nancy whatshername had made it vogue to “passing the bill first to find out what in it”…looking forward to Part II & III