US Progressive Senator Diane Feinstein – Yup, she’s got confiscation in her bill. Gun removal by regulation.

by Skip

At the Corner, a snippet of an interview with Samuel L. Jackson

 Q: This movie has a fair amount of gun violence and can be a bit flippant about it. Does that give you pause in the wake of what happened in Connecticut?

 A: I don’t think movies or video games have anything to do with it. I don’t think [stopping gun violence] is about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere, and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”

 It seems that Progressives like Diane Feinstein have not understood that simple phrase.  The problems that we see in mass murders (or single murders, or any other crime committed against another) is either one of a mental illness (who shoots their Mom or defenseless little kids as in Newtown?), or the latest where that previously incarcerated oldster (for killing his mom with a hammer) proclaimed “do what I do best – kill people – just plain black as night Evil.  Or those that simply wish what others have for either the reasons of “I want what they have” and justify it with “they don’t need it” (just like Progressives / Liberals / Democrats) – its about control.

Diane Feinstein combines that latter part, control, with another.  That is, Progressives so untrust their fellow citizens, they feel that they have the mandate to take away “all the toys” because we, the “unprogressed”, “uncivilized”, “uneducated”, stubborn, selfish, should-be-demonized ungrown-up child-citizen should not be allowed to have guns simply because those things either 1) insult their sensibilities (as guns do) or 2) have a longer range motive in mind.

As to #1, if “we” won’t cooperate and compromise with the Progressives as they head us from being the Land of the Free to that of the Land of We Submitted to Despotism, they will keep at changing the laws and changing the regulations to enforce their way to their Utopian version of Freedom (“you are free to do what we allow you to do – it’s not just for the common good but it’s good for you too – you’ll see!).   Yes, it was enable citizens to protect themselves and their families at a personal level.

And more; from Soldier Systems comes this retweet:

Jeremy Clarkson Sec Amend protect against Tyranny - of Piers MorganAs to #2 above, it seems that this Brit, host of the hit British show called Top Gear (for hard core high end car aficionados ), knows our Constitution better than most Americans as he understands the true meaning and need for a Second Amendment (the knock on Piers Morgan is simply a bonus).

It is to ensure that Citizens have the means to protect themselves.  Yes, it does mean that, plainly and simply.  It is also to ensure that Citizens have the means to protect themselves from tyranny.  Yes, that also means tyranny from outside of our borders.  It also was put in to ensure that Citizens have the means to protect themselves from tyranny from inside our borders as well.  It is not to make sure that hunters can hunt, no matter what the soft words of folks of the ilk of Feinstein put out for public consumption.

Progressives believe that only the State has a mandate on force – that if you are in trouble, you are to retreat and not defend yourself.  After all, in all the gun free zones, victims had to wait for the police to show up – and in the case of Newtown, that was 20 minutes.  Twenty long minutes.  The gun grabbers are SCREAMING about how fast someone can use a semi-automatic gun to empty a 30 round magazine – Lanza could have easily taken out all of the women in that office, the female teacher, and then dispatch all of those kids with a knife or bat in 20 minutes IF he had obeyed all of the CT gun laws.  Ask yourself – HOW many laws did he break in killing 20 kids and 6 adults?  Remember, adult males are stronger than females and a young male is much stronger than older females; it is rare for the opposite to be true (all feminists outcries to the contrary).

But it is the part that Jeremy Clarkson brings up – defense against an internally tyrannical  Government as well.  Look at all of the laws that lovers of Big Government have passed and ask yourself – how many of them are simply because Progressives have decided that you are incapabile of making the right decision for either you or for “the common good” (as defined by them)?  You can’t do this, you can’t  do that, you have to do this, you have to do that, you MUST give your money to us so we can take care of others because you are racist, cold-hearted….you ‘ve read the drill here over and over.  It comes down to this:

Progressives believe you can’t take care of yourself or other properly.  They believe they have the right to force you to help others, especially those they say are victims.  In fact, they are more than willing to take your “freedom” (what’s left of it) to compensate them for previous discrimination.  And they will use Government freely to make that happen.

Just ask Zandra Rice-Hawkins of GraniteStateProgress (sent here to NH and supported by out-of-state progressive money to make NH be like their States).  Go ahead, ask her – and parse her words very carefully.  And there are others – any time they want Government to “allow you” to do something, or require that you ask permission of government, or they tell you don’t need something, or ask why would ANYONE want something.  But I digress.

A Right is one that does not have to be explained.  A Right exists external to anyone’s exercising of that Right.  However, as we have seen over and over again these last 100 years of the Progressive era in America:

  • Many of those Rights, that Progressives don’t believe we should have are under attack
  • Progressives hate the Constitution since it enumerates those Rights – they prefer that Government dole them out on their terms and under their sense of what is right and wrong – and that changes depending what what they think that they can get away with politically.

With what Feinstein has said she is putting in the bill for Jan. 3, it is CLEAR that she doesn’t believe that anyone should have a gun bigger than a one shot derringer.  And at that point, even if every citizen had two, there would be no way for a tyrannical despotic government that instituted iteself in America could be removed (and remember, here in NH, Article 10 (like it or not, Big Government lovers) reserves an explicit right to revolution – and actually the responsibility to do so).  So what does she want (and I believe she truly wants it all and believes that with the state of politics in DC, she can get it)?  Again, from Soldier Systems (who called it ” ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ but with a vengeance”):

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
    • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
    • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

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

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

Look at the above – for all their hemming and hawing and hang wringing and screaming and “it’s for the kids” and “it’s for the common good and the common safety”, she has given lie to other Progressives that have said “this is not about taking away the Liberal manufactured label “assault weapons” (as opposed to what they really are which is modern sporting rifles).  Which, btw, the 1994 law had a grouping of about 5 items that redefined a modern sporting rifle as an “assault weapon” if it had 2 of those 5 things.  Now, all it takes is one.

All guns are included except single shots (depending on the ammo yet to be described) and revolvers (and those for now – who knows what will happen once this large step on the slippery slope is taken).

It also establishes by a de facto standard of reclassifying all semi-automatics to covered like fully automatic weapons (which are legal to posses IF you want to spend the money and endure the hassle – which is exactly the reason for the move by Feinstein: to turn the United States as a whole into California or Illinois (bastions of Progressivism)).

All the easier to do what has been done in other countries – full confiscation under some other pretext.  That is the end game.  And if you look below on what the NRA has found in a “copy” they obtained, there will no longer be the time honored tradition of a father handing down his guns to his children.  I will not be able to give my two boys my firearms as Diane Feinstein is decreeing that upon my death, they HAVE to be turned into the Government.

Such a deal – confiscation by death.  Heck, this is worse than the estate tax that is now going to pretty much confiscate any wealth you have worked for your whole life – at least you get something left over after paying the tax bill.  Here, they will just take it all all.  Just another facet of Progressivism – what is yours really is ours.

Soldier System has a few other observations:

  • Outlawing guns by name is straight out if the California textbook and is laughable. Folks will just change names and features and be right back in business.
  • This notion of placing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act is… a very, very sticky issue.. Sure, the proposed legislation appears to direct local law enforcement to accept NFA weapons in their jurisdictions but the legality of various NFA items varies from State to State. It would seem that Feinstein proposes to invalidate local laws regarding firearms ownership.

And another whack at Federalism at the same time?

  • Naturally, this will entail registration of all assault weapons. Not bad how they snuck that in there, huh? You’ll be able to keep your guns, but only if you register them as NFA items.

Breitbart noticed the same thing I did – with the language used, and the new definitions applied, this will get rid of all handguns:

After all the Democrats’ emphasis the dangers of so-called “assault weapons,” the details of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s pending assault weapons ban show that her real goal is to ban handguns.

That’s right, after all the criticism of the AR-15 and the holier-than-thou speeches about how no one needs a military-style rifle with a 30-round magazine the details of the ban betray a gun grab that includes semi-automatic pistols that use “a detachable magazine” and have “one military characteristic.”

This can only mean that the most popular handguns in the world for both civilian and military use are being targeted. These would include Glocks, Sig Sauers, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, H&K, and Colt, yet would by no means be limited to these handguns alone.

The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon.

The NRA – ILA got a copy of the bill and here is what they had to say:

  • Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
  • Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:
    • Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine(introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
    • Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
    • Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
  • Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

This alone would cost a gun owner with a modest number of firearms thousands.  It also creates the first steps of taking away the ability for Citizens to travel freely within the United States without the Government’s permission – just like some convicted criminal.   If I want to go to a competition on the spur of the moment in Vermont, I would be breaking the law.  Given that this is Big Government, what would be the lead time for that?

Yet another Freedom lost because of the power hungry, power grabbing Progressive.

  • Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

You buy it, you use it – and the government takes it without compensation!

  • Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection.

In other words, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent – yet another case of Progressives transgressing one of the Founders fixes for a tyrannical Government (the Brits at the time, and most countries now) – innocent until proven guilty.

Another basic slippery slope against the Principles of American Exceptionalism (after all, we are no more exceptional than any other country, according to our “No Longer Exceptional-in-Chief” Obama).

  • The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Which means that she will outlaw ALL existing magazines – yet another “illegal” taking of private property (except she is redefining yet another part of the Constitution by just ignoring – a favorite tactic amongst the Constitution Haters which depend on the fact that most people will not dispute it in court, which then makes it “settled Democrat Law”).

  • Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

For more information about the history of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.

Powerline also has some thoughts:

  • Dianne Feinstein has announced that she will introduce sweeping gun control legislation in the Senate. Under her bill, countless standard handguns apparently would now be banned, and for the first time a federal register that may include many millions of gun owners, fingerprinted and photographed, would be created.

And given other examples of how Government workers have abused government databases with Citizen information in it (e.g., IRS lookups, Illinois state workers looking up Joe “The Plumber” info when he argued with Obama over spreading the wealth in 2008, and the anti-Prop 8 militant guys threatening the other side’s supporters when the names were  made public), I have exactly ZERO trust that it would be kept safe (after all, look at the NY paper did with that interactive map of gun permit holders)

  • If the Democrats wanted to do something to boost the standing of John Boehner and his colleagues in the House with conservatives, they couldn’t come up with anything much better than Feinstein’s proposal.

Hmmm, that assumes one very important thing – they don’t turn into the Extra-Special Double Duty Stupid Party Clown Posse.  This could be a very high bar indeed.

  • The Democrats could work from there to establish a universal registration system in the years to come.I own one such full-sized pistol, an Armalite AR-24 with a 16-round magazine. Under Feinstein’s bill, would I would be required to register it, undergo a background check, and be photographed and finger-printed so that I can be enrolled on the federal register of gun owners? I can’t tell from Feinstein’s description. If so, I would have lots of company; most handgun owners, I am pretty certain, have at least one pistol equipped with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds.

EVERY single handgun I own and every rifle I own fits this description.

This isn’t about “gun safety”, not “gun control” – this is “gun elimination”but yet another Progressive  hellbent on removing another Right.  Sure,  she absolutely is convinced that , in invisible pneumbra words, the Right to an abortion is in the Constitution (somewhere, in there, that has lead to the killing of 50 million American babies).

A Right, that may be needed soon, that will keep us enslaved in a Progressive despotic State.  After all, at the time that the Constitution was written, muskets were the state of the art for military gear.  So why do Progressives wish to restrict otherwise law abiding, careful, safety conscious adults having the freedom to bother no one else?

Feinstein, just DHS before it, has declared me (and folks like me) to be akin to terrorists.  This day, Progressives have made it very clear that they no longer trust a large minority (if not an actual majority) of their citizens.  They perceive us as a danger to everyone else around.  They just cannot stomach the idea that we can (and have) made the right decisions over and over and over again.

How long can a country last  when the rulers  no longer trust the citizens?  How long can a country last when the citizens, due to the actual actions by their rulers, see that lack of trust? How long can a country last when the citizens have no recourse against the step-by-step soft despotism that now marches “Forward!”?

Trust me – it ISN’T about anything but Freedom.

 

Like it? Share it!

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: