What Feinstein’s Failed to Tell You – Every Gun With a Grip is BANNED!

Everything with a grip is Banned
What Feinstein’s Failed to Tell You – Every Gun With a Grip is BANNED!
Gunlaws.com
Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you:

[Composite summary: Sen. Diane Feinstein, a long-time crusader for justice and peace, motivated by unspeakable tragedy, has introduced her wonderful brand new bill designed to make children safe and take those awful killing machines off the street to stop crime and make everyone safer. The powerful gun lobby will fight her because they are evil.]

NY Times version:] WASHINGTON — by Jennifer Steinhauer — During a lengthy and at times emotionally wrenching news conference, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Thursday announced legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition…

Surrounded by victims of gun violence, colleagues in the Senate and House and several law enforcement officials, and standing near pegboards with several large guns attached, Ms. Feinstein acknowledged the difficulty in pursuing such legislation, even when harnessing the shock and grief over the shooting of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., last month. “This is really an uphill road,” Ms. Feinstein said…

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
I’ve just finished reading the 122 pages of Diane Feinstein’s latest “gun-control” bill, Senate Bill S.150, and was surprised to find some important things missing.

Even more surprising was one small item briefly mentioned on page 13 that has not been reported in any “news” coverage I have seen.

It’s a whopper — it invalidates her entire list of guns, and I’ve written ten books on this topic, I know what I’m saying! — but first, here’s what’s missing:

1. Criminals.
Nothing addresses criminals — everything is aimed at innocent people who haven’t done anything wrong. There is not even any “malum in se” (legalese for intent to do wrong) or criminal intention. It is all “malum prohibitum” (wrong because we say so), the worst kind of bureaucratic and government abuse — crime by decree. The critics appear to be right. This is not about gun control, it is purely about control. The bill simply removes the right to own property Americans currently own.

(That’s not completely accurate about criminals; there is one small requirement for anyone carrying a “grandfathered semi-auto ‘assault’ weapon” or having one in ‘such close proximity’ to yourself that you could retrieve it and use it as if you carried it, if a “prohibited possessor” came near, so that the prohibited individual has no ability to access the weapon, or else keep it protected with ‘a secure gun storage or safety device‘. Yes, it’s complicated. It seems to mean you can machine gun (or otherwise shoot) criminals without being charged with having a gun near bad people. And of course, prohibited possessors are prohibited.) Licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers are exempt.

2. Crazy people.
Please forgive my use of common English — nothing addresses people who are nuts, borderline nuts, formerly nuts or no longer nuts and still perpetually banned from their rights. The entire problem of psychology — screamed about in the media and by politicians — is nowhere to be found in Feinstein’s bill, despite claims and mountains of evidence that this is a root cause of the problem.

Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, whose husband Mark Kelly testified before Congress today (Wed. Jan. 30, 2013) that she owns a gun, would not be hampered by Feinstein’s bill in any way, even though she is severely brain damaged due to a criminal assault.

3. Drugs issued by Big Pharma.
Despite labels that warn psychotropic drugs may cause psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, manic behavior, sudden death and various social and psychological disturbances, this is unaddressed in the democrat’s proposed solution to mass murder by people hopped up on psychologically prescribed medications. Reports indicate that virtually all the mass murders were “deaths under the influence” (DUI) it is missing in the bill, an omission of Feinsteinian proportions. (The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International has a researched list of perps and their drugs here: http://www.cchrint.org/tag/columbine)

4. Make-believe gun-free zones.
Overwhelming evidence repeatedly and clearly demonstrates that the massacres driving the frenzy toward civil-rights infringement occur in these make-believe gun-free zones, yet no inkling of an effort to reduce or mitigate this problem is addressed in Mrs. Feinstein’s proposed hardware solution.

“If we don’t address the problem, how can we hope for a solution,” one expert democrat asked, who requested anonymity to avoid retribution from her fellow party members.

5. Revolvers.
Mrs. Feinstein appears to have completely overlooked normal capacity, fast-shooting revolvers, that can release a powerful volley of dangerous hollowpoint cop-killer bullets. We don’t want her to expand her list of course, but her plan is deliberately “allowing” criminals to murder people everywhere using her approved list of guns — the ones she hasn’t banned yet. The ones, like six-guns, cowboys used in every bloody Western you’ve ever watched.

Why would she do such a reckless thing? She could not be reached for comment before press time.

For that matter, why is Mrs. Feinstein and her supporters in the press and elsewhere so intent on arming everyone with ten-shooters (the bill calls for a free market in sales of ten-round magazines)? Why isn’t anyone questioning that? That makes no sense at all. If the goal is to protect innocent defenseless little doe-eyed children, which everyone agrees is a really good idea, forcing psychopaths to use ten-shooters is a really bad idea. Steps should be taken to disarm criminals completely. Fortunately, current law covers that completely. This bill does absolutely nothing in that regard.

6. Gun Safety.
Nothing in her 122-page bill deals with gun safety. No training, no marksmanship, nothing for teachers, no self-defense awareness, no public education, nothing for schools, everything the president has asked for to increase child safety is missing in her long list of guns she would remove from the hands of the innocent. Even the slightest measure of increased gun safety is missing in her plans. Maybe it’s just an oversight and will come in floor negotiations and the inevitable amendments. The chilling suggestion that her bill is just cover so that less extreme bills will seem moderate could not be confirmed as we went to press.

7. Constitutional Validity.
Every aspect of this bill appears to be an infringement on the Bill Of Rights, with no legitimate justification. Congress cannot pass infringements by majority vote. That is forbidden, although the word “infringement” itself is universally missing in “news” reports, in case you haven’t noticed.

Congress can’t just enact whatever they want by majority rule. If they could, we would not have government of limited delegated powers, the hallmark of freedom and The American Way. It must just be a typo, on page two, continuing for 121 pages. If it’s not a typo, it is grounds for removal from office for violation of her oath of office. Boy, would that be an embarrassment.

The problem on page 13:
All semi-autos are outlawed, not just some.

Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein’s bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal.

Here’s the problem none of the “news” reports have spotted:

  • The list of guns doesn’t matter.
  • Magazine size doesn’t matter.
  • If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned.
  • It’s very clever actually.

According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine — handgun, rifle or shotgun — equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.

A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as “a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!

Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that.

Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s black. If you can grip it, it’s banned under this bill.

Have a nice day.

The law (if this passes):

  • “(36) 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.”
  • “(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”

[The same language is repeated for handguns and shotguns; magazine includes belt fed; also included: "Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled;"]

  • “(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

[All government agencies of every kind, including school officers, are excluded from all of this. In other words, they can have all the firearms you now own that Feinstein's bill would outlaw for you. This means that rights you now have to own property would be stripped from you. That is rights denial, not crime prevention.]

The proper role of government is to protect people’s rights. It says so right there in the Declaration of Independence, the document and principles that got this country going and launched individual freedom across the entire surface of the Earth. When government gets to the business of taking away rights we already have — no matter what justification or reasoning it uses, as Mrs. Feinstein is now doing — it is doing exactly opposite of what its legitimate role is, and that has a very dangerous and ugly name.

As a refresher on basic principles:

  • All men are created equal…
  • They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
  • Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
  • To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
  • deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
  • Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends
  • it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

That’s plain enough.

P.S. There is a section in Feinstein’s bill referring to “grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons” illegal under federal law section 922(v). Someone should tell her lawyers that 922(v) expired eight years ago and is no longer valid, so that section makes no sense, doesn’t describe anything, and someone should slap those lawyers upside the head. It’s a small point.

Gun Laws Of America
Gun Laws Of America

If you want to read and understand federal gun law the way I do (well, almost) get Gun Laws of America, It has all the federal gun statutes in simple numerical order and describes them all in plain English. All our books, DVDs and other goods are listed here by category and alphabetically http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

P.P.S. When your “representative” says, “I read the bill,” you know that’s not true, because the bills say things like (this is from Feinstein’s bill): “(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 14 (1) SECTION 922.—Section 922(y)(2) of title 15 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter 16 preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘,17 (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)’’ and inserting ‘‘and 18 (g)(5)(B)’’.

You can’t “read” that. You have to decipher it, with the help of law clerks, over a long period of time. There are 122 pages of that in Feinstein’s bill. Fortunately, most of her bill is just long lists of guns that don’t really matter, since they’re all banned by banning anything with a grip.

What, didn’t the “news” people read this like I did before reporting?

Good night.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

  • 15 thoughts on “What Feinstein’s Failed to Tell You – Every Gun With a Grip is BANNED!

    1. It’s worse than that, at one point it says any Thompson. So if your engineer, company, salesman or whatever has the last or first name Thomspon your in trouble. I realize she was aiming for the Tommy gun, but this is terribly badly worded. Thompson Center would have to go out of business, as no weapon could ever be made by that label.

    2. This is not a gun control bill, it is an invitation to start a civil war. What the Democrats do not understand is, if the SHTF, the Liberals in society for the most part will be the ones without the guns. Republican gun loving Constitutionalists are armed to the teeth and sitting on 50X the ammo per shooter than the government is. Every Bubba Redneck, hick, and Tea Partier is going to clean the Liberal gun control advocates clock. With American bankruptcy being inevitable- and when we suffer that dreadful day- things are going to get ugly. Those who advocated gun control will have nothing to protect themselves from anyone with a gun who wants what they have… I seriously can not believe the Liberals would be so naive. Go Ahead Diane, THIS TIME, we are not going to give one inch. If you want them, you are going to have to come and get them.

    3. I agree with what you’re saying, but please note the following:
      Malum in se means to be evil/bad in it’s self. Mens Rea means is the intent to do wrong or guilty mind.

    4. Yes Paul, under this ban if it passed you could own a BAR, provided you do not add an aftermarket stock for it that has a pistol grip or add any other evil features…but yeah BAR’s as sold stock only have a detachable magazine, so they would still be acceptable…,which makes perfect sense you know, one of my grandfathers would tell you his old BAR from WWII is deadlier than my little m-forgery any day, if he still had the mind to say that much, as it is, he used to outshoot me with that thing quite often, and throwing those 30-06 rounds, well, he had a point about how powerful that rifle is.

    5. Riddle me this – in order to put Prohibition into effect, a constitutional amendment was necessary to give Congress the authority to prohibit the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcohol in interstate commerce. If an amendment was necessary to authorize Congress to ban the commercial production and distribution of alcohol (it did not affect production of alcohol for personal/family consumption because Prohibition, while authorized by amendment, was administered through the previously-existing Congressional authority over interstate commerce and it therefore did not affect state citizens or their rights), from whence does Congress receive its authority to prevent the manufacture, transportation, and transfer of the only class of article of production and property specifically protected in the Bill of Rights – firearms? If you reply “the Commerce Clause,” I am forced to inquire, “Why wasn’t the Commerce Clause adequate to the institution of Prohibition?”

      The only possible answer to that question is “Because Congress had no native authority to prevent the production or distribution of anything in commerce.” This is because the Commerce Clause was intended to do two things, and two things only – it was intended to put interstate commerce under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, after it was removed from the jurisdictions of the States (in order to prevent the states from squabbling about interstate commerce and the denial of subject matter jurisdiction over same worked hand in hand with Article 1, Section 10’s prohibition on interstate agreements without congressional assent), and it was meant to authorize Congress to “regulate” in order to encourage, improve, and facilitate commerce. The Commerce Clause did not and does not authorize Congress to obstruct or prevent commerce, nor does it permit Congress to ban the production, transportation, or transfer of any article of commerce. This latter reason is why Congress needed an amendment in order to prohibit commerce in alcohol; the power is not native to Congress through the organic Constitution.

      With this in mind, notice the reference to the Commerce Clause in Feinstein’s proposed legislation. This legislation, like other federal firearms laws, alleges that it draws its constitutional authority from the Commerce Clause. But, as we have seen, because the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to promote commerce and not to prohibit it (a fact evidenced by the 18th Amendment, which was necessary to allow Congress to utilize its authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit a type of commerce, a power not found in the language or the intent of the clause), the Commerce Clause by itself is not adequate to Senator Feinstein’s task. In order for Congress to use its authority under the Commerce Clause to obstruct or prohibit commerce in any firearms, a constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress understood this limitation when it wanted to make similar legislation regarding alcohol. That limit on congressional power has not been lifted by any subsequent amendments, so it must still apply. All it takes to prove the fact is a small army of attorneys and a pile of money. NRA? GOA? Second Amendment Foundation? Anybody? (Of course, this same argument applies equally to drug prohibition. The federal government simply has no native power to obstruct or prevent any form of commerce between the states, only the authority to make regulations for the improvement and facilitation of said commerce.)

      Congress apparently understood that appeals to public health, safety, and good morals were not adequate to the imposition of Prohibition because instead of making such appeals and simply passing the legislation, they took the time to first acquire the proper authority via a constitutional amendment. Appeals to “common sense” and “reasonableness” are equally inadequate today. Congress must be brought to heel and made to realize there are limits to its authority even when seemingly plenary authority is granted in the Constitution.

      Couple this with a claim that many state statutes concerning firearms types, magazine limits, and so on, violate the federal government’s exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce (using the Obama administration’s own arguments concerning immigration law and border security) and there’s real potential to destroy most restrictive firearms statutes at all levels of government.

    6. You would be able to own a BAR under the grandfather clause but you would not be able to purchase/sell one under the new law, read the notes about page 13! Any semi-auto firearm with a way to grip it would be banned!!

    7. Maybe I’m misinterpreting the proposed bill, but I read that firearms with a pistol grip being banned as referring to the categories it is listed under – “rifles” (such as an AR or AK), and “shotguns”. Under “pistols”, it only refers to a “second” pistol grip.
      I’m not saying DiFi wouldn’t love to ban ALL firearms… obviously, that’s her/their ultimate goal… but I don’t read it as banning semi-auto pistols that only have the normal, single grip, wherein the magazine typically is inserted.

    8. Read the part about “grips” again ….. “anything that could function as a grip” would be banned …. because they define ANY “grip” as being a “pistol grip”.

      “(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”

    9. Lets not waste time going thru word by word, The overall result of this piece of Cr@p bill is to remove all firearms. Period. Grips, magazines, functions, appearance, they all add up to virtually all guns. And when have you seen this lousy govt do anything to agree with a word or phrase that is against their agenda? That can be taken care of with a quick presidential order to re-arrange the words. Wake up guys and girls, this is part of the socialist take over of our once great country.

    10. DiFi’s bill didn’t specifically say that pistols were banned. Page 13 only defined what a pistol grip is (apparently in regards to one being on a rifle). It is assumed that pistols have grips; and the bill does not ban pistols in general – only pistols with certain characteristics. Unless I’m missing something, your article has not provided sufficient references that back up your title. However, the wording on rifles not allowing rifles to have anything that functions as a grip is scary – this would make all the California-style ARs illegal. I picture a “legal” AR with the buffer going back to the shoulder, with nothing at all to grab on to behind the trigger – not even a conventional rifle stock grip.

    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>