Dianne Feinstein and Her Backdoor Gun Control

By Suzanne Wiley published on in News

Dianne Feinstein and her fellow anti-gun cronies are at it again. Since 1992, Feinstein hasn’t faltered in pushing her complete gun ban agenda. Though some of her purposed bills have fallen flat, lest we forget she authored the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

Once you understand the details of her latest bill—The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015—it is easy to speculate the law serves as backdoor gun control, even though we all know Dianne has never been “backdoor” about her feelings on firearms.

Public Enemy #1

Red crossed-out AR-15 rifle image

Though some of her purposed bills have fallen flat, lest we forget she authored the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

Since taking office in 1992, the former mayor of San Francisco—who successfully banned handguns in the city—has purposed strict firearms legislation every year since she has been in Washington. In my research, I found over 50 bills she either wrote or sponsored to ban certain firearms, ban magazine capacities, restrict the sale of ammunition, or otherwise tighten gun control laws and infringe on Americans’ 2A rights.

Most notably:

  • High-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban of 2013
  • Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, 2005, 2004, and 2003
  • Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2015 and 2013
  • Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013, 2012
  • Pause for Safety Act of 2014 (essentially legal confiscation)
  • Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013, 2011, 2009 and 2008
  • Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2013, 2011, 2009 and 2008
  • Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
  • Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Violence Prevention Act of 1993
  • Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1993
  • Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995
  • Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 1999 and 1997 (prevents the sale of more than one handgun per person in a 30-day period)
  • Ban Importation Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act and Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 2013, 2011, 2001 and 1999
  • American Handgun Standards Act of 1999 (bans “junk guns”)
  • Gun Show Accountability Act
  • Permanent Brady Waiting Period Act of 1999
  • Targeted Gun Dealer Enforcement Act of 1999
  • Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001 and 2000
  • Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003

Feinstein has proven than when her out-right bans won’t pass muster, she purposes other legislations that open the doors for loose interpretation, leading to bans, restrictions and even confiscation. Though she neither authored nor sponsored the bill, Feinstein supported and introduced California AB1014 the Gun Violence Restraining Order bill passed into law in September 2014.

This law essentially gives anyone the right to judge who should or should not have a gun, regardless if it is a truly justifiable reason.

The law says, “Any person may submit an application to the court, on a form designed by the Judicial Council, detailing the facts and circumstances necessitating that a gun violence restraining order be issued.”

Unfortunately, there are many vengeful people in this world and they will use this law to their advantage. Because the law uses vague language such as “reasonable specificity” to describe what constitutes a person who is likely to harm themselves or others, scorned ex-spouses, angry family members, as well as Judges, can interpret the meaning. This leads to confiscation.

That is why we call these types of laws “backdoor” gun control. These types of laws use seemingly “innocent” language, much the same as anti-gunners love to use the phrase “common sense” to, in essence, trick others into believing the bill has only the public’s safety in mind. Loose definitions allow judges and lawmakers enough wiggle room to twist the law whichever way they feel fit. And that’s scary.

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015

Ask the question, “Do you think known terrorists should have access to firearms?” and anyone in their right mind will most likely say, “No.” However, when making a law, shouldn’t we determine without a doubt what we mean by “known terrorists?” Authors of the bill Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Peter King give power to the Attorney General to prevent the sale of a gun to anyone that is known to be a terrorist, suspect to use the firearm in an act of terrorism or who is “appropriately suspect.”

Let’s read that again. “Appropriately suspect.”

The bill reads that the Attorney General can deny the sale of a firearm to anyone if they have “a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism” or is “appropriately suspect, and “Conduct constituting in preparation for in aid of, or related to terrorism…”

This is where the law gets dangerous.

Never defined in the bill, what exactly does “appropriately suspect” mean? Who gets to decide what constitutes preparation for terrorism? Is stockpiling ammo—especially ammo that is about to be banned by executive order—the definition of preparing for terrorism? Would handing out fliers for a local rally of the Tea Party constitute preparation for terrorism? What about members of the open-carry advocacy group Open Carry Tarrant County?

I am sure in the hoplophobia’s mind it does.

Another concern is would this bill lead to federally mandated waiting periods? What will this bill mean for states such as Texas that virtually have no waiting period?

Senator Dianne Feinstein holding an AR-15

Senator Dianne Feinstein said these weapons are not for hunting deer – they’re for hunting people.

Feinstein says the Government Accountability Office studied people on the no-fly list—i.e. suspected or known terrorists—for 10 years from 2004 to 2014. The study found that 91 percent of the time, these people on the list would pass a background check when filling out paperwork to purchase a firearm. However, delve further and this statistic means nothing.

Take for example my story. I had a family member with serious issues getting back to Texas from California, because he shared the same name as someone on the no-fly list. This family member isn’t a terrorist, criminal or have any sketchy background whatsoever. His name is also as common as John Smith. Of course, he would pass a background check to purchase a firearm.

Further, we know that speculation and suspicion can get us into hot water. Jan Morgan, who owns The Gun Cave shooting range in Hot Springs, Arkansas faced media backlash, both from inside and outside the gun community when she declared her gun range a “Muslim-Free Zone.” Did that mean she would refuse service to anyone who appeared to be of Arabian-descent? Is that legal?

In January 2015, a U.S.-born college student from Hot Springs went to the Gun Cave to shoot guns with his father because it was something they enjoyed doing for “father-son time.” Upon entering, the two were asked if they were Muslim and were told to leave the range, or the cops would be called. The young man and his father are from India—a country comprised of 80 percent Hindus. After the incident, the son Tweeted, “I’m not Muslim; I’m just brown.”

Under the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists law, would Massad Ayoob be prohibited from buying a gun? Massad Ayoob is one of the most well-known firearms and self-defense instructors in the world, but for those who have no idea who he is, his name might be a red flag. After all, Ayoob is a variation of the name, “Ayoub,” which is a Muslim prophet.

This bill would not only limit those who appear to either be from an Arabic country or have Arabic-sounding names, but also target those suspected of domestic terrorism. Look at what you are wearing right now. Are you wearing cargo pants, a shooting vest, boots? Are you wearing a hat that says, “Don’t tread on me?” Is your AK or AR within an arm’s reach? You don’t think Feinstein would label you a domestic terrorist? If you are in doubt, then you need to pay close attention to this next part.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 was introduced around the exact same time an intelligence report was released from the Department of Homeland Security stating its concerns with right-wing groups in America. The report says that members of these “domestic militia groups” will target law enforcement officials enforcing the law. The report also compares right-wing groups and “sovereign citizen terrorists” worse than ISIS in some cases.

Just as Jan Morgan and her employees mistook a kid whose ancestors are Indian for a Muslim extremist, so could the Attorney General mistake you for part of a “domestic militia group” because you purchased more than one firearm at a time, subscribe to a shooting magazine, pay for a membership at the NRA, pay dues at a shooting club, stockpile ammo, voted Libertarian, and/or own a large piece of land outside of town.

Gun Owning Americans

Not all gun owners are well-fed white guys.

Not all gun owners are well-fed white guys.

The face of gun ownership has changed: more women than ever are gun owners; we have bearded socially-liberal hipsters hunting in a growing movement of field to fork; we have openly gay successful shooting competitors, and of course, people from all ethnic backgrounds who love guns. Bills such as these pigeonhole gun owners. The Second Amendment doesn’t discriminate. Though no one wants a real terrorist to have access to a gun, this act walks the fine line between true homeland security and safety and discrimination, not to mention tramples all over our right to freedom of speech and expression.

Don’t allow backdoor gun control legislation like these to move forward. Don’t let hoplophobes such as Dianne Feinstein deny the rights of innocent, gun-owning Americans.

Write your representatives and tell them not to support Feinstein’s bill.

What do you think about the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015? Tell us in the comment section.

SLRule

Introduced to shooting at young age by her older brother, Suzanne Wiley took to the shooting sports and developed a deep love for it over the years. Today, she enjoys plinking with her S&W M&P 15-22, loves revolvers, the 1911, short-barreled AR-15s, and shooting full auto when she gets the chance. Suzanne specializes in writing for the female shooter, beginner shooter, and the modern-day prepper. Suzanne is a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by CTD Suzanne

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (131)

  • steve b

    |

    If you think we havent gotten our monies worth out of the military then offer an alternative to our defense.The reason Putin is doing what he pleases is because El Barack Hussein has projected weakness.First he pulled the missile program out of Poland,then he refuses to arm Ukraine.Most of the world hates us because we are a superpower able to project strength and stability.Our few stalwart Allies El Barack has managed to alienate.If you think Iran cares about treaties or Intl law you have your head stuck far up your ass.A Bomb is the worst nightmare the radical muslims can throw your way.Try living abroad for awhile and mature your opinions’

    Reply

    • Mc Ruger

      |

      Amen Steve

      Reply

    • Michael

      |

      @ steve b.

      The West through Covert Funding, have been Rearming the Ukraine Republic since at least February 2015. Including the United States, one shipment included US Made TOW II Ant-Tank Missile Launchers and Missiles and also Humvee’s.

      Reply

  • steve b

    |

    shayla -you are do for some education. Red Adairs company was called in to put out the fires in Kuwait.Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO COULD DO IT. Haliburt was called into Iraq for the same reason.Of course they got paid alot -it was a WAR zone and they were entitled to combat wages.Besides what do you have against the only American Company doing the work that Haliburton does. Ive spent time in a war zone {LDF-73} and unless youve experienced that you really dont know what the hell youre talking about.

    Reply

    • Shayla

      |

      I’m talking about the contract to provide logistics support to the military. Haliburton built bases, cooked and served meals, etc. Remember the story of soldiers getting electrocuted in the shower due to faulty wiring? Instead of having soldiers in the mess hall serving meals that can pick up a gun and fight beside our troops, we had a contractor who had to be protected should there be a fire fight.
      What I have against them is the NO BID CONTRACT WASTING OUT TAX DOLLARS.

      Reply

    • steve b

      |

      If you dont like wasted taxpayer dollars then you should be upset about the billions that obama tacked onto the interest debt.Look Shayla about the ONLY place Americans get their their monies worth is in the military.That obama is so willing to cut our defense and so unwilling to curb Entitlements shows us where his priorities are.Sure you can find fault in any Operational Theater but recognize that the rise of Isis was made possible by the premature pullout of Iraq but El Barack Hussein.

      Reply

    • Shayla

      |

      How are taxpayers getting our moneys worth on the military? We spend more than the next ten countries combined, spending billions on systems that never see combat before being declared obsolete so we can spend billions more to build their replacements.
      Obama didn’t cut defense spending, sequestration did because congress couldn’t agree on a budget. We pulled out of Iraq per the SOPA agreement signed by George Bush. Staying where we weren’t wanted would have been a violation of international laws.

      Reply

    • Mc Ruger

      |

      Ahhhh Shayla another brainwashed socialist speaks. 1. Sequestration was Obamas proposal. After he proposed it he turned around and said it was a bad idea for the sole purpose of being able to blame republicans…Fact 2. Obama campaigned and claimed pulling out of Iraq as a victory. He claimed he ended the war. Fact.
      Typical for Obamites it is always someone else fault.

      Reply

    • Shayla

      |

      McRuger, how about answering my question instead of spewing insults.

      Reply

    • Mc Ruger

      |

      I ENJOY SPEWING INSULTS.
      If your question is: “How are taxpayers getting our moneys worth on the military?” Very simple. You are still free to post uninformed trash on the internet. Although the administration is working hard to make this a socialist country, he has not yet won. You are still free and I would say that is worth the cost of the military. Perhaps you see it differently. I suppose we could take the military budget and put it into climate change seeing as Obama says that is now the biggest crises facing our country.

      Reply

    • Shayla

      |

      Then Pentagon could spend half of what it currently does and we would still outspend any nation that wants to oppose us. Why is it okay to start expensive wars that aren’t paid for, but food stamps (many to military families) have to have a spending offset? How com they can’t spend some money to help veterans? If you can’t help those injured in war, then stop starting wars.
      I want to see our tax dollars spent on Americans instead of giving billions to countries that don’t like us. We spent billions in Iraq rebuilding their infrastructure, but god forbid we need a new bridge or highway in the states.
      Since you cannot have an intelligent conversation, maybe it’s time for you to move out of your parents basement and get a job loser.

      Reply

    • Mc Ruger

      |

      I don’t live in the basement. I live in a house my parents are both dead but thanks.
      See dopey if you would have started this way instead of the crap about blaming Bush (who I don’t like either) and congress for what was clearly Obamas responsibility, and saying we don’t get our moneys worth we would not have an argument.
      I have no problem reallocating military budget to raise military wages. There is no way we should have military personal on assistance. We should also provide more funding to injured military. That is my biggest charity and yes I do give considerably. I also agree that we need to stop giving money to other nation and for God sake quit rebuilding there damn countries. However to ask how we get our moneys worth out of military spending is at best narrow minded.

      As far as spend on military. To make it simple for you, everything we do in this country costs more. It costs more to build a car here than is does in Korea, China, Japan, Russia, etc. It also costs more to build a gun, tank, jet, or uniform. Added to it that we are providing military for several nation without charge and providing troops for things like fighting Ebola all of which is part of the military budget. It may not be good or right but it is the way it is. There is no question that the military budget can be cut and or better used. However that is not what your posting was about was it super genius.

      Reply

  • fishunter

    |

    Had Senator Feinstein been in the military, she would have had the right to own a gun taken away. Perhaps she would have received some help with her past also. I would bet she has had psychological help, we will never know what the Dr. evaluated but it is interesting to speculate on.

    Reply

  • Sam

    |

    Ms Feinstein submits these ridiculous bills in hope that she will get colleagues to join her mad pursuit to kill the 2nd amendment. Won’t work crazy person!

    Reply

  • Michael Anderson

    |

    I’m really surprised that almost nobody remembers one very simple fact — Ms. Feinstein has a very serious mental trauma caused by her friend dying on her hands after having been shot to death. It happened many years ago, but Ms. Feinstein has recalled that tragedy many times and in the Internet era it takes a few minutes to find this info. This trauma, this emotional and mental wound, in fact, do not allow her to serve in public offices and, moreover, take any participation in creating and promoting any laws and regulation that would affect our constitutional rights to own firearms. Her judgement is clouded, and everything she’s done for the last 25 years is nothing else but her personal vendetta. A public servant cannot take his/her decisions based exclusively on his/her personal feelings and pain these feelings may be causing…
    Ms. Feinstein, maybe it’s time to stop?! Maybe it’s time to retire and start healing those emotional wounds which make you absolutely subjective, anti-constitutional, anti-American and utterly bias when it comes to gun-related discussions? Just take a break, please…

    Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Michael Anderson

      With all due respect to the departed, I think Ms. Feinstein has exaggerated and milked her supposed “pain” from Harvey Milk’s and George Moscone’s deaths in a way that is entirely disrespectful to those involved, and is a ghastly attempt to seem victimized by what really was the fallout from her own bad behavior.

      I think her real angst is over the fact that she participated in very dirty local politics that got the murderer (a former cop and former Airborne Sergeant who had served in Vietnam) upset enough to do what he did.

      The incident certainly does not in any way serve to “justify” Feinstein’s rabid attacks on gun rights, particularly given that the weapon used was a .38 police revolver — not an “assault weapon” nor any other of the many kinds of legal firearms Feinstein has tried to take away from law-abiding citizens while using that incident as her excuse.

      The solution is for scumbag thugs like Feinstein to stop engaging in dirty politics, not to try to deprive law-abiding citizens of our God-given right of armed self-defense.

      Another part of the solution is for people in our society to understand that we can’t just train guys to be killers and then expect those skills to just suddenly disappear when we bring soldiers home and put them back into the real world. A person is fundamentally changed by that training and experience, and people should know better than to play the kind of dirty, dishonest games Feinstein et al. played with a guy who was entirely capable of killing a lot more people than he did.

      There is no excuse for what White did, but Feinstein and her merry gang of thugs very wrongfully put White into a terrible position with no real escape — all over petty personal BS not worth dying or killing for, and certainly not even worth harming a man’s livelihood over.

      Reply

    • jonny

      |

      I have to say again that no mention of Hypocrite is mentioned here. If she has PTSD for her pain as a public servant she should have done more for the VA. She should probably recuse herself from any issues that touch that raw nerve she brings out only when it suits her needs. Back to the hypocrite, Her husband Richard C. Blum is an avid collector of firearms and has even given Diane her very own ar15. Take faces of of arguments and look at only the facts and hypocrisy will surface especially in politics.

      Reply

  • Frank Husak

    |

    As a Nam veteran and as ex police officer , Im livid to see how our country has turned against the very people who are supposed to protect our rights. I just don’t understand why millions of gun owners refuse to join the NRA and help fight these politicians who think by banning firearms crime will just go away. People have been killed long before the invention of firearms. Maybe Feinstein and President Obama should read the bible.

    Reply

    • Mitch

      |

      Yeah Frank… Why don’t gun owners join the NRA that loves Harry Reid??? WHY OH WHY don’t some gun owners just eat the porridge that is served to them and realize the NRA is the holy grail of the 2nd Amendment and all the gold seas flow through Wayne and his helping agendas…

      Because those gun owners figured out that the NAGR and the GOA don’t drink the politician’s kool aid and don’t sell out to them like the NRA… That’s why… The NAGR and GOA work for the people, not the bought and sold beltway

      Reply

    • PeteDub

      |

      @Frank

      There actually is a very sound answer to your question why people are not jumping on the NRA bandwagon — the NRA is not fighting for us.

      If the NRA was doing its job, the ATF would not have banned the green tip you used in ‘Nam. If the NRA was doing its job, they would not be up on Capitol Hill trying to give powers to the states to prohibit concealed carry that the Supreme Court has said the states don’t have.

      With “friends” like the NRA, people who believe in gun rights and the oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution don’t need enemies.

      Reply

  • fishunter

    |

    This comment is very appropriate! Most of us dearly love our country and have put ourselves in harms way, and would be willing to do it again if the circumstances warrant it.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: