It’s on! Feinstein unveiling gun-grab plan


The Washington campaign to control guns moves into high gear tomorrow when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the nation’s original “assault” gun ban in the 1990s, announces her new proposal to fingerprint, photograph and investigate Americans who already have weapons.

Her office told the Washington Times she will hold a press conference Thursday. Her original ban, which existed from 1994 until 2004, was not renewed by Congress after law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, testified it was ineffective in cutting crime.

Nevertheless, the ban on “assault” weapons is being proposed again, only this time it’s on steroids.

Feinstein earlier announced her plan to ban the “sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of 120 specifically named firearms, certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.”

She claims her plan will strengthen the 1994 ban by outlawing weapons that have a particular characteristic, such as a “thumbhole stock.”

Feinstein also wants to outlaw ammunition magazines that take more than 10 rounds.

She claims it would protect “rights of existing gun owners” because it would grandfather weapons already legally owned and exempt “disabled” weapons.

But for any weapons that are “grandfathered,” she would demand that the owners be investigated, photographed and fingerprinted; the type and serial number of the weapon be registered and local law enforcement certify that it is legal.

The Washington Examiner points out that Feinstein’s plan would cost every owner of a semiautomatic rifle another $200 in taxes for weapons they already have purchased and on which they already have paid taxes.

The report said a $200 tax is imposed each time a National Firearms Act weapon is registered or transferred. “Presumably, each weapon registered as an NFA firearm would be subject to the same restrictions,” the report said.

It also points out that Feinstein’s ban on any transfers would include “assault” weapons, which means owners of semiautomatic rifles would be allowed to pay the tax and keep them until they die, when they would be forfeited to the government.

For support, Feinstein cites a letter to the editor on the American Journal of Public Health in which two people wrote that “when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.”

She also applauded Barack Obama’s recent strategy for controlling guns.

“He was exactly right when he said ‘weapons designed for the theater of war have no place’ in our society. I couldn’t agree more,” said Feinstein, who once had her own concealed carry permit because she perceived a threat to herself.

The moves were prompted by the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in which a 20-year-old man killed his own mother, then took her guns and went to a nearby school and killed 20 students and five adults.

Ironically, perhaps because of the coming ban, school officials have been buying weapons. It was reported this week that the Fontana Unified School District Police Department had purchased 14 AR-15 “assault” weapons to protect students.

Supt. Carl. Olsen-Binks said the “assault” rifles are being stored in locked safes on campuses for officers to use if needed.

Whether the extreme measures Feinstein is proposing will succeed remains to be seen. While the White House and Senate are led by Democrats, the U.S. House of Representatives has a Republican majority.

And the National Rifle Association has blasted the concept. In a recent ad, the NRA pointed out Obama’s own children go to a school with armed guards, and he recently signed legislation giving himself lifetime protection, but he wants to deprive the average American of the same rights.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA executive director, said, “We’re told that to stop insane killers, we must accept less freedom, less than the criminal class and the political elites, less than they keep for themselves.”

He said, “We believe we deserve and have every right to the same freedom that our government leaders keep for themselves and the same capabilities and the same technologies that criminals use to prey upon us and our families.”

He warned that the federal government never is happy simply with knowing information about gun owners.

“He wants to put every firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government and he wants to keep all of those names in a national federal gun database. There are only two reasons for a federal list on gun owners: to either tax them or take them,” LePierre said.

Feinstein’s inconsistency on gun control was captured on video:

At a U.S. Senate hearing on terrorism after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, she told “a little anecdote” of how she carried concealed to protect herself after two assassination attempts by the New World Liberation Front, the NWLF.

She explained: “I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, asked in an interview with WND, “Do we need any more proof that she is a hypocrite?”

Hammond said Feinstein “has no problem getting Congress to buy armed guards for Capitol Hill.”

“Does she consider herself more precious and more valuable than our children?” he asked.

Feinstein reportedly no longer has her concealed carry permit.

She championed her private firearm ownership the same year she called for banning “all” firearm ownership.

In an interview with “60 Minutes” in 1995 she said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it.”

See her comments in the “60 Minutes” interview:

Another video shows Vice President Joe Biden in a 2008 campaign speech in Virginia opposing gun control.

“I guarantee ya, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns so don’t buy that malarkey, [anti-gun Democrats] gonna start peddling that to you. I’ve got two if he tries to fool with my Baretta he’s got a problem.”

See the Biden video:

However, in 1989, as a senator, Biden introduced legislation for an assault weapons ban that was defeated but then revived by Feinstein.

Ironically, Feinstein serves in Congress with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who spoke once at a fundraiser for Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson, who was part of the NWLF, the group accused of attempting to bomb Feinstein’s home.

13 thoughts on “It’s on! Feinstein unveiling gun-grab plan

  1. Right, I can just see a huge mob complying with this driving to see their local office of fat, overpaid bureaucratic slobs to pay $200 to keep what they already own!
    Moreover, you can’t leave the weapon to your wife or kids when you die.
    The ATF offices tasked with this registration will resemble the Maytag repairman sitting around waiting for someone, anyone to show up!

  2. “She also applauded Barack Obama’s recent strategy for controlling guns.

    “He was exactly right when he said ‘weapons designed for the theater of war have no place’ in our society. I couldn’t agree more,” said Feinstein”

    The same man re-defined America as a battlefield.

    Not to mention that he wants and has decreed his own militia/brownshirts/SA/hitlerjugend that has the same budget/capabilities as the Army, under the new Gestapo/DHS that is not under control of the people, and without the posse comitatus limitations that can operate fully armed INSIDE America.

  3. This is very simple folks..

    A UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW is not required to be followed. The supreme court has already covered this, so let them have their moment. It shows us who the traitors are, and we are not legally bound to follow their laws.

  4. yea,,, right,,,, that would mean they would have to get me to actually go down to some office to be documented,,,, that is the first problem, the second problem is that even if they sent me registerd certified letters, or sent a server,,, they would have to get me to comply,,, and what do we all think the odds are that that would be only one or two people who werent going to comply???? and what do we all think the odds are on millions of men and women all over the states flat out refusing to comply no matter what????

  5. Another Treasonous Traitor to add to the list! oop’s, she is already on the list! With so many who can keep track. haha

    Let’s use their words against them…
    Obama said those weapons need to be off the streets and kept on the battlefield.
    Not to long ago, I think is was the NDAA he declared America a battle zone. I think it was when he was saying that he will disappear us with no charges because this is a battle zone or something like that.

  6. She is a criminal, prosecute and remove her from office for crimes against the Constitution, or just escort her to the curb.

  7. Just ran into a Loomis man, carrying besides a semi-auto sidearm a bag of money.

    Is money more important and does it come with inherent more rights to be defended by its corporate owner with, for other Americans illegal to own weapons?
    Also interesting the inventory of the Armory of Blackwater/Xe. These are weapons of war, owned by a “person” in the US.

    This is going to be interesting how they are going to twist now that corporate personhood is special for the law with more rights then normal persons..

  8. Why is it that some of the most despicable (and butt-ugly) politicians usually come from this state.

    I thought only ‘beautiful people’ lived here in Crazifornia.

    1. No, #1… Us beautiful people moved out of Cali years ago!!! haha You’re the only one left, you better hurry up and get your a$$ out of there. That’s occupied territory. lol

  9. So some of you are saying that the 2nd amendment was written 200 years ago and that the founding fathers never envisioned semi automatic weapons. So the amendment must only pertain to muskets. I ask you this.. the 1st amendment which guarantees everyone the right to free speech.. it must only pertain to books since TV, Movies, Internet and Radio werent invented yet.

    As passed by the Congress:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The fact of the matter is this. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.. means the US Citizens.. thats what it meant back then and thats what it means now. NEINF NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. Means if the Government gets too big for its britches we have the means to take em down to where they should be through the threat of force of ARMS. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Means that no matter what big Government and Obama try to do through executive order it will be a violation of our constitution and whomsoever tries should be tried for treason..

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Circumventing our 2nd amendment by executive order is a breach of his oath of office. Impeach his lying ass!

Join the Conversation

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