EXCLUSIVE: Is Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban DOA?

The good news is, the requirement to register semi-automatics and pay a transfer tax is no longer part of Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “assault weapons” ban, a bill that includes in its title the ominous purpose “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.”

At this writing, over one week after she referred it to committee, the bill has still not been posted on the Library of Congress THOMAS online legislative database, although I have posted at my website a draft copy received from a trusted legal source. What stands out, probably because most of the bill is occupied by a list of what her nibs will and will not allow us to own, is that she’s employing a classic “divide and conquer” strategy by exempting so-called “sporting arms.” She’s counting on that keeping enough sport shooters out of the fray, at least those who don’t realize their scoped deer rifles will be next up for demonization simply by manipulating the public discourse into one about “sniper rifles.”

That Feinstein’s bill will even get out of committee is something of a disappointment, but Harry Reid has guaranteed her it will get a floor vote, possibly, according to a Reuters report, as an amendment to “a broader package to curb gun violence.”

The hypocrisy of even having this discussion in the first place could not be made more evident than by a solicitation from the Department of Homeland Security for 7,000 select-fire rifles it calls “personal defense weapons” in the procurement specs. This ought to also expose the deception being perpetrated by labeling standard “personal defense capacity” magazines “high capacity clips,” or it would if we only had a non-agenda driven mass media.

Still, this may be much ado about nothing, perhaps a useful glimpse into the goals of the anti-gunners, but not a genuine clear and present danger, as politically-savvy odds makers assess chances of Feinstein’s bill passing between “slim” and “none.” Still, others on the watch for more nuanced maneuverings caution it may provide cover to make concessions on a due-process-violating mental health blanket dragnet, or on ending private sales at gun shows, yet still allow a claim of “victory” for turning back the larger threat of a gun ban.

Informed gun owners need to keep the potential for that in mind, and insist the only acceptable position from lobbying leaders, and the politicians they would have us support, is that we will not be scapegoated. No concessions are acceptable, and simple observation tells us the only rational response to mass shootings is to end fraudulent “gun free zones.”

Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.
Have they?
By David Codrea

Get More Rights Watch

7 thoughts on “EXCLUSIVE: Is Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban DOA?

  1. Stumper

    We are almost at the 3 month mark since the Sandy Hook School Shootings. Our Government officials all claim the proposed gun control is to prevent another tragedy from ever happening again. 3 months and they have not taken a single step to truly protect our kids.
    Note, The Previous “Assault weapons ban” and 10 round Mag. Limit was in effect when Columbine took place. 10 round mags made no difference there. (Yes, I checked. About 40 or more 10 round mags is what was used.)
    Knowing this, They continue beating the drum for control of the law abiding and Offer nothing to control the actual criminal.
    If the proposed gun control was TRULY about protecting our kids.
    Why have they not stationed the National guards at schools while figuring out a proper measure to make schools safe? Simple. Because they don’t care. Its not about safety of the kids. Its ALL about the control of the people.
    Doing nothing other than beating their drum to gun control proves they really could care less about the safety of kids.
    Otherwise, you and I wouldn’t get on any school grounds without an armed national guardsman asking what our business is with the school.
    Seems our government has no problem doing this very thing anywhere they are hiding behind the protection of armed guards.

    1. MamaLiberty

      Why would anyone send their children to indoctrination camps run by the SAME people who want to create helpless victims of us all?

      Don’t send more cops or the National Guard to government “schools.” Take personal responsibility for the education of your children, one way or another, just as you take full responsibility for self defense against all aggressors. Get the children OUT of the victim disarmament zones.

      No government has any legitimate authority to control either your children’s education or the measures you take for the safety of your family.

  2. Yardbird

    Saul Alinsky lives large in DC. Many politicians want an unarmed citizenry for reasons other than the “public safety.”

  3. LadyGunfighter

    I don’t much care what sort of dance they do in the Senate or the Congress as we will not comply. I am more afraid of what is going on at the UN in March after “the king” made a call to the UN approving the small arms treaty. The next round of discussions is due the middle of March. Blue Helmet = Target.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(Spamcheck Enabled)