Senator Dianne Feinstein is planning to introduce a new gun ban bill to Congress in January 2013 in direct response to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December of 2012. If this bill becomes law, it will have significant effects on gun owners and collectors. Here is an overview of what the proposed ban would entail.
While there are many problems with this bill, there are two key points of concern, in my opinion. First, the bill essentially disregards the portion of the Second Amendment that states, "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, this bill would infringe upon the rights of many law-abiding gun owners.
This brings me to the second point. Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. In the case of the Sandy Hook shootings, Adam Lanza was not the owner of the guns. Had he attempted to purchase a gun through legal avenues, existing guns laws would have likely prevented him from doing so due to his history of mental illness.
Some people will argue that a gun ban would have kept these weapons out of Lanza’s house to begin with, thereby preventing the tragedy. That is simply not the case. First of all—and most importantly--no amount of legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Secondly, a person intent on causing physical harm can do so without a so-called assault weapon. He or she could kill or injure multiple people with a revolver, a hunting rifle, or even a knife—as in the case of the Chenpeng Village Primary School attack.
In the days to come, I will be addressing more points of the bill and their affects on gun owners and collectors. In the meantime, you can read a summary of the bill on Dianne Feinstein’s website. If you agree that this bill is not in our best interested, I would urge you to contact your Senator or Congressperson.
- New Bans
The bill bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specific firearms that were not banned during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. It also bans some other guns that have detachable magazines and a single military characteristic. In addition, semiautomatic guns with an 11+ round fixed magazine will also be included in the ban.
These points will affect many gun owners. For example, if you own a Glock 26 or an XD Subcompact (to name a couple), they would be banned because they are semiautomatic guns with fixed magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. Unfortunately, a lot of handguns will fall within these prohibited parameters.
- Modifications to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
The 1994 ban prohibited firearms that had more than one of a list of external characteristics. The newly proposed ban would prohibit firearms that have even one of these characteristics. Bayonet mounts and flash suppressors, however, will be removed from this list of prohibited characteristics. Other features will be added to the prohibited list, however, and include thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons which are perceived to be workarounds to the previous assault weapon ban. Furthermore, the bill also bands high capacity (more than 10) magazines and other ammo feeding devices. - "Allowances" for Existing Gun Owners
Feinstein’s bill would grandfather weapons that were legally possessed on the date the bill is enacted. It would also exempt several hundred specific weapons used for hunting and other sporting purposes. Further exemptions would be provided for antiques, manually operated firearms, and permanently disabled weapons.
Unfortunately, any weapon that is grandfathered in would have to be registered under the National Firearms Act. Currently, this registration requires paying a $200 tax as well as being photographed and fingerprinted. Furthermore, since the transfer of such weapons will be prohibited, these guns can be confiscated by the government upon the death of the registered owner.
While there are many problems with this bill, there are two key points of concern, in my opinion. First, the bill essentially disregards the portion of the Second Amendment that states, "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, this bill would infringe upon the rights of many law-abiding gun owners.
This brings me to the second point. Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. In the case of the Sandy Hook shootings, Adam Lanza was not the owner of the guns. Had he attempted to purchase a gun through legal avenues, existing guns laws would have likely prevented him from doing so due to his history of mental illness.
Some people will argue that a gun ban would have kept these weapons out of Lanza’s house to begin with, thereby preventing the tragedy. That is simply not the case. First of all—and most importantly--no amount of legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Secondly, a person intent on causing physical harm can do so without a so-called assault weapon. He or she could kill or injure multiple people with a revolver, a hunting rifle, or even a knife—as in the case of the Chenpeng Village Primary School attack.
In the days to come, I will be addressing more points of the bill and their affects on gun owners and collectors. In the meantime, you can read a summary of the bill on Dianne Feinstein’s website. If you agree that this bill is not in our best interested, I would urge you to contact your Senator or Congressperson.