.

Feinstein Says Bills to Ban Assault Weapons Will Be a Priority

The California senator tells “Meet the Press” that bills will be introduced on the first day Congress returns.

Bills to return a ban on assault weapons in the United States will be introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives on the first day they are in session next month, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein vowed on national television Sunday.

“We’ve tried to take my bill from ’94 to 2004 and perfect it,” the California Democrat said on the NBC “Meet The Press” program.

Feinstein authored a federal ban on assault weapons in 1994, a ban that was allowed to expire by Congress during the George W. Bush administration. On NBC today, Feinstein agreed with gun control proponent Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor, who said he wants “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

On the NBC program, California’s senior senator said her lawyers have carefully crafted a constitutional bill that will “exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not ... fall under the bill.”

She said the 1994 assault rifle bill that she wrote was never challenged in court by the National Rifle Association.

“Back in ’93, when I told Joe Biden who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I was going to move this as an amendment on the Crime Bill, he laughed at me,” Feinstein said.

“He said, ‘you’re new here. Wait till you learn,’” Feinstein related.

“And we got it through the Senate, we got it through the House, the White

House came alive and ... the bill was passed.”

The NRA has declined to comment on gun issues since Friday’s slaying of 20 grade school children and seven adults in Connecticut.

Police have said the children were shot multiple times in rapid succession, but have not said if the murder weapons had been in automatic mode—illegal under current laws—or semi-automatic mode—possibly illegal under the 1994 law.

Feinstein, who just won her fourth Senate election, was propelled to the forefront of California politics when she suddenly became mayor of San Francisco when two politicians were murdered there in 1978. She has been a leading voice for gun control since then.

Feinstein’s quotes were transcribed by NBC News.

-City News Service

mateo December 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM
met00 TO MANY BROWNIES DUDE.YOU HAVE NO VALUE OF LIFE. AND YOU BROUGHT THIS UP STOP TUGIN ON THE TOOTSIE. YOU GOT CHINESE EYE'S YOU AND CAN'T SEE STRAIT. SO TAKE YOUR ANTI GUN LAW AND USE IT TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS. AND REMEMBER TO SLEEP WITH YOUR HAND'S ON TOP OF THE BLANKET'S. COCHINO. DAM NO SHAME
met00 December 20, 2012 at 10:26 AM
wow, like you have no idea how unintelligent you appear using all caps do you? I can deal with your post having no style or grace, and your inability to put together a coherent flame. I can even deal with the fact that you have no ability to understand how absurd your little abortion rant was in the middle of a conversation on a totally different topic, or how sarcasm was lost on you in my reply. But dude, get a grip on the caps lock key. Your inability to post in both upper and lowercase makes you look like one of Sarah Palin's kids (playing with one suit of cards and arguing that you have a full deck).
tiny December 20, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Right on shedule: www.infowars.com/cnns-piers-morgan-blows-up-on-larry-pratt-over-gun-rights
George Miller December 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Feinstein the uber hypocrite carries a weapon, but would ban yours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBbLeqZbPA
George Miller December 20, 2012 at 04:40 PM
@met00 re: "Actually, there are a number of fetus' who are terminated every day, but not one single child. " Most of them have a heartbeat, brain waves, thoughts, can feel pain. Your crude attempts at dehumanization are non-starters http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/homicide/DefinitionsofLifeandDeath.asp
George Miller December 20, 2012 at 04:41 PM
:-) There are millions of us.
Joker Joe December 20, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Phil Otto Hey Phil... Since I have no knowledge like you on mini-pistols I was wondering if you could check mine out and give me your opinion.
met00 December 20, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Geeze, it always comes down to this. Just WHEN is that fetus an independent human life? You either come down to the moment of conception (when the sperm and the egg meet) on one side and not until it can live outside the host on the other. Those are the two extremes. MOST people try to come up with a point in time somewhere between those two extremes where they feel that termination of the fetus is no longer a viable option unless the choice is between the host or the fetus. Where you come down on that is what defines you as pro-choice or pro-life, but the reality is that "life" does begin at the zygote level, so any time past that and you are pro-choice, but just drawing that choice point at where YOU feel comfortable making it and enforcing that choice on others (yes on zygote, no on embryo). An IUD is an abortive contraception device. It forces the zygote to be expelled from the body. A number of forms of "the pill" are abortive as they force hormonal changes that cause a zygote or embryo to be expelled from the host. Society has made a distinct line that at entering the third trimester of embryo development the embryo has a chance of survival outside the host and has developed enough so that it is considered a distinct life form from the host. Thus a line has been drawn at that point by most pro-choice for society. This isn't "dehumanization", this is just the facts. Once past zygote you are pro-choice, it's just a mater of when.
George Miller December 20, 2012 at 05:43 PM
@met00, re: "As you can see the Second Amendment was NOT about the right to own a gun, it was about the concerns of the States from a standing army of the Federal and how to ensure that there was a mechanism in place to ensure that no standing army would be necessary, and that the States would maintain for the common defense to be called upon by the Federal." Sorry, Met, but 2nd covers both private and militia use of guns, This goes back to colonial times and has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. Please extend your research to the Federalist Papers as well. More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687643/posts
carole mason December 20, 2012 at 05:56 PM
let's make it very clear. The 2nd amendment provides the citizens the right to bear arms. Period. We can protect oursleves from tyranny. Funny a senator ( part of the government) wants to limit our ability to protect ourselves from the same government she is a part of? Open your eyes... you may not like guns don't buy one the constitution protects me, my right to. you all do not want to complicate the issue. Evil exists face it get a grip and deal. I am assuming most of you posting are men? Think this is for the low information voter
Joker Joe December 20, 2012 at 06:07 PM
met00 Kinda petty... Even for you.
mateo December 20, 2012 at 06:17 PM
i do what i want with my cap lock key. when two cells join to become one that is when live is conceived.we have these rovers on mars looking for life.if they found what you call a fetus they would declare all over the world we found life on mars. and sarcasm lost you lost that back when you brought up MASTURBATION. and style and grace? this is the patch. and you look like one of the barbara bush kid's when you try to make a point.your a pseudo intellectual. GOOD LUCK WITH TAKING AWAY PEOPLES RIGHT'S. DID YOU CLEAN UP YOUR MESS?and stop trying to take intellectual high ground it's not you remember your one of the barbara bush kid's.
met00 December 20, 2012 at 06:43 PM
@William, If he is gonna flame, at least he should have a model of what a good flame looks like, right?
mateo December 20, 2012 at 06:46 PM
the bottom line is that the second amendment is all about stopping tyranny. not high capacity clip's or ar15's. but the anti gun nut's take advantage of a tragedy to push there anti gun agenda. just like hitler, mao zedong, stallen, lenin. using a hegelian dialectic. this has been done all over the world at different time's throughout history. so if the anti gun nut's or PALIN'S KID'S would have respect and back off. and stop trying to capitalize on a tragedy. and if you don't like gun's don't own any.
Joker Joe December 20, 2012 at 07:04 PM
met lol lol
Joker Joe December 20, 2012 at 07:05 PM
It's Bushes fault!!!!
met00 December 20, 2012 at 07:33 PM
Great, you are in the zygote is life camp. That's nice. You want to ban IUD's and other forms of birth control. The far end, just like those few that feel that until the host pushes the fetus out, it's not a "life". Most of us actually are somewhere on the pro-choice spectrum, but it's nice to know that you believe you have a right to deny women contraception devices like the IUD and some of the forms of "the pill" since they are all abortive. Personally, I don't care what you believe, as long as you are consistent. For instance I believe in choice. But I show my consistency in that I believe the state doesn't have a right to put anyone to death unless they choose to have that done to them. I also believe in choice when it comes to end of life decisions. See how nice it is to communicate with people when you don't flame them in all caps. Now in a normal conversation one would question if you came to this position via the "god route" or some other process. This is important for the person to understand if this is an article of faith, or something you have actually thought about and could describe your thinking process (articles of faith rely on belief in a fantasy figure and don't use logic, so are not discussable). If you came to this conclusion by way of rational thought, then odds are that the other person who doesn't agree with you would love to understand how you did that since they came to a different conclusion. Would you like to discuss the topic now?
met00 December 20, 2012 at 07:47 PM
George, I have provided links to source documents, not liberal websites. Do you think you could do better than posting a freeper link and actually do the research and post a cite to something that is more original source. Freeper and lilgreenfootballs are the equivalent of me posting a link to democraticunderground. It may make me feel like I accomplished something, but in reality it's just a lot of left-wing hot air. Here was the source for the cut and paste. http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm note that it is not a lefty blog, but is actually the site for the Constitution Society. "The Constitution Society is a private, not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting principles of constitutional republican government." I may not agree with them on some specific issues, but they have developed a fine resource of work from which you can study. If you want to debate this, feel free, but please stop thinking that the freeper website is a valid reference link in a serious discussion on constitutional issues.
met00 December 20, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Interesting take on the Second Amendment. Of course the way that the founders felt they should stop tyranny was to not allow for a Federal standing army (please note that they do have a standing Navy in the Constitution). The mechanisms they sought to do that by were (1) only could be financed for two years and (2) State militias. In order to ensure that the State militias were protected, they put in the Bill of Rights that the Federal government could never disarm the citizens of the States so that there would be well regulated militias. In 1903 Congress passed an act that was signed into law that disallowed States to have militias as envisioned as the protection from the Founders. We also have a Federal standing army (Army, Marines, Air Force) that is clearly unconstitutional based on intent. . So, since the Federal government has undone the original intent of the Founders in terms of providing protection from Federal overreach and potential tyranny, the questions are: 1) Do we want to return to the original intent as expressed in the Second Amendment? 2) If not, then what purpose does the Second Amendment serve and should it remain? 3) If so, then how do we unwind the 1903 Act and eliminate the standing army? The recent tragedy in CT and the response from firearm supporters has opened up an opportunity to explore the three questions above, and it is a series of questions we should be discussing.
George Miller December 20, 2012 at 08:20 PM
@met00: Not just an interesting take, but the Second Amendment original intention, the de facto practice and upheld since day 1. Nothing in the law forbids militias. In fact, have a look at Title10 Federal code on militias.and state laws. http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html Also note that there are organized and "unorganized" militias. If what you said is true, wouldn't the statists be arresting all the unorganized militia participants like mad? Wouldn't sites like these: http://modernmilitiamovement.com http://wramsite.com ... be illegal?
met00 December 20, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Try Theodore Roosevelt, who signed The Militia Act of 1903 (also known as the Dick Act - and I will leave all the associated bad puns out of this post). Prior to the war of 1812 Federal armies were created and disbanded (with the exception of a small regiment at West Point and a regiment on the western most borders of the growing country). With the war of 1812 it was determined that the Federal government needed a better trained fighting force, so a more permanent structure was established and that was the true beginnings of a standing army. So, if you were to point the finger at who created the Federal standing army, the finger ends up pointing at James Madison. The humor in this is that in June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” and Madison was, if not the largest proponent of militias instead of a standing army, one of the largest. Yet it was he who ushered in the Federal standing army. Ain't history grand?!
carole mason December 20, 2012 at 08:26 PM
http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-busted-mark-levin-exposes-diann
met00 December 20, 2012 at 08:36 PM
@George, "Not just an interesting take, but the Second Amendment original intention, the de facto practice and upheld since day 1" That is part of the debate. As I said, I have looked at what was debated and it wasn't about personal firearm ownership, it was about standing armies and militias, so I find that the claimed intent is not matching the actual debate. "Nothing in the law forbids militias.... Also note that there are organized and "unorganized" militias. If what you said is true, wouldn't the statists be arresting all the unorganized militia participants like mad?" Good question. Here we get into the concepts of what is and is not "well regulated". Under one theory it means operated by the States. Under another it means following the rules and codes as set forth by the States. So, under the second definition it could even encompass what we today call a Neighborhood Watch. A group over which the State provides no actual control, but works withing the scope of the rules and regulations as established by the States. So, are militias well regulated when under direct command and control of the States, or are they well regulated when they are operating on their own direction, but under the rules and regulations established by the State? As with everything, since there is no clear definition of which is accurate, the debate over the meaning and intent of ":well regulated" has two sides as well. :-)
mateo December 20, 2012 at 08:49 PM
metoo bush. the point's you make just go around and around in circles. you try to bedazzle people with your so called intellect to push your anti gun agenda. the founding fathers of the country knew what tyranny was and have lived through it. they didn't have the concept of fabian socialism back in there day's. bottom line is that the u.n. for many years has wanted to ban t sign on to there anti gun treaty. and you and your anti gun people take advantage of this tragedy to push proxy u.n. gun law's. and all of your constitutional quotes are just a distraction from your true intent. and you say that we need to explore these three questions.by what authority do you speak.and who are you to decide we need to explore these questions. stop trying to be suggestive you don't impress us. your barbra bushes son
mateo December 20, 2012 at 08:49 PM
metoo bush. the point's you make just go around and around in circles. you try to bedazzle people with your so called intellect to push your anti gun agenda. the founding fathers of the country knew what tyranny was and have lived through it. they didn't have the concept of fabian socialism back in there day's. bottom line is that the u.n. for many years has wanted to ban t sign on to there anti gun treaty. and you and your anti gun people take advantage of this tragedy to push proxy u.n. gun law's. and all of your constitutional quotes are just a distraction from your true intent. and you say that we need to explore these three questions.by what authority do you speak.and who are you to decide we need to explore these questions. stop trying to be suggestive you don't impress us. your barbra bushes son
met00 December 20, 2012 at 09:30 PM
1) you posted the same thing twice 2) you should try to reply in the thread for consistency of the debate. Circles? I have actually been rather consistent in my statements here that I believe that the Second Amendment is being misinterpreted by the gun lobby based on the historical record. I have supplied more than enough documentation to support what I believe. If the facts I have posed "bedazzle" you, then may I suggest a good class at one of the local colleges on US History covering the period of 1770-1790. As for your UN rant, that's really a bad case of projection. I have no idea what gun laws the UN is trying to push, nor do I care. This recent tragedy in CT is just the latest in an ongoing series of tragedies in which mass murder was either attempted or done by someone having in their possession a weapon of mass destruction. The defenders of owning these weapons always claim the Second Amendment as their protection, or worse, their right to have and even use these weapons. Since I clearly believe that those claims are false, and have presented factual documentation to support my case, I believe that the other side should want to clear up any misinterpretations they believe I may have and present theirs. Instead I get wild conspiracy theories about the UN. While George and I may not agree, and may never change either's mind, you can look at our thread as one where ideas are being discussed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Stephen Longo December 20, 2012 at 09:56 PM
But who needs a gun when you have body guards
Stephen Longo December 20, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Again, remember that when you and your phone (calling 911) are the only thing between the bad guy and your family, the police are 5 minutes away at best.
Panglonymous December 20, 2012 at 11:16 PM
If the Federal government has not clarified an ambiguous amendment definitively, is it possible that its ambiguity better serves it? If the Federal government has allowed a popular interpretation to develop and persist "in error" for many generations, does that popular interpretation not eventually become the law (similar to the way a word's popular usage may come to dominate/supplant its earlier/original senses?)
barium March 15, 2013 at 01:00 AM
Isn't it predictable but funny how lefties like Feinstein resort to bullying attacks and non-response to logic & reason when they can't engage in debate and discussion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCehCjuB7AM

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something