No mention as to whether she will forgo all armed security for herself
Now, the Californian senator has posted a summary of this legislation that would be introduced in 2013, showing more details about the provisions that she would hope would be included. And it doesn’t just have to do with what she calls “assault” weapons.
Here are a few bullet points on the guns that would be banned from sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing:
- 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
Those who have acquired weapons recently under the pretense of being “grandfathered” in under prior laws see mention in Feinstein’s provisions as well. It requires these weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act that will include collecting the following information…..
Hmm, one military characteristic? One could argue that since it shoots bullets, it has a military characteristic. And she has only provided a summary of the legislation, so no one knows which guns are included.
The legislation would re-institute the 1994 assault weapons ban, but change it from “a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.”
- 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
Wait, it leaves most guns legal? Ah, there’s a catch: If you own a grandfathered weapon, you would need to undergo a background check, register the serial number, and, hey, look, have your photo and fingerprints taken and kept on file. Just like they would with a criminal! No mention in the summary of her legislation would consider the need to register any magazine which takes more than 10 rounds.
She also mentions several studies in the summary, which includes a letter to the editor and a Washington Post story, but, interestingly, she leaves out the CDC sponsored study which noted that there is “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
Now, all you Democrat voters who are for people, er, gun control, will you all voluntarily give up your guns?