Can Feinstein’s 2013 Assault Weapon Ban Pass Government Standards?

By Dave Dolbee published on in General, News

Rather than looking to capability or crime statistics, Feinstein’s bill starts by attempting to ban weapons by name.

AK47, Rock River Arms LAR–47, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Sturm Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF, Kel-Tec PLR 16, IZHMASH Saiga 12… You can read the complete list here.

banned-ar
Beyond banning guns by name, the are several other “characteristics” that could cause a weapon to land on the banned list, which is even sillier, but we’ll get into that later. First lets look at what prompted the latest assault on the Second Amendment and the definition of a Personal Defense Weapon.

During the past 12 months the media has focused on several tragedies involving mentally ill individuals and illegally obtained firearms. Listening to the rhetoric of the anti-gun lobby, you would think this was all based on the events of a couple of high-profile shootings, but that is not true. According to Feinstein’s website, her new proposed legislation is the culmination of over 12 months of effort—long before the tragedies of Aurora Colorado or Newtown Connecticut.

According to the rhetoric spewing from Feinstein and Schumer, semi-automatic weapons—such as the above list—have no place in society or the hands of individual citizens. The above weapons are too dangerous, designed for military use only, not suitable or necessary for hunting and most importantly, go beyond the scope necessary for personal defense.

Hmmm. Personal Defense. We’ll get into the specific definition of a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) in a minute. We must first examine why a citizen would need a PDW.

Who is responsible for your safety? The Government? The Police? Or You?

I have a degree in Criminal Justice and recall several cases we studied. On numerous occasions, even the uber-liberal leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that police do not have any specific duty to protect you or your property. The police only have a general responsibility to investigate and prosecute a crime after it has been committed. Ever called a Marine or the Air Force because your home was being robbed?

Last week Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke stated that calling 911 is not your best option when facing a violent criminal. Individuals have to take responsibility for their personal safety and the safety of those close to them. Fortunately, there are elements of the government that get it and this patriot just shot to the front of the list. And here is the part you are not going to believe: President Obama and the federal government get it too—stay tuned, and I’ll prove it below.

Cosmetic changes do not make an otherwise legal firearm an assault weapon.

Cosmetic changes do not make an otherwise legal firearm an assault weapon.

On the surface and in front of the media, you have the kooks publicly pushing their agenda and trying to capitalize on tragedies such as Sandy Hook. These are the very same people who claim to be taking the high road while parading the parents and loved ones of victims around to promote their agenda.

If the antis in the government were consistent with their actions, I would have to agree to disagree. I would state they have a right to their opinion, as I have a right to mine, and I would not seek to trample their rights or opinions, but would still defend mine. However, that is not the case. Recently, I a became privy to a document that should make each of us stand up and shout, “We agree with the government’s definition of a Personal Defense Weapon!”

That’s right. You and I have been wrong in the past. Our narrow thinking has blinded us. They led us to believe that an AR-15 defines the limits of a PDW. If that is what you think you are wrong and the government is right. We have been selling ourselves short, at least by a major department of the Federal Government’s own definition.

Exhibit A – The Government Definition of a Personal Defense Weapon

Let me introduce Exhibit “A” otherwise known as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation. Solicitation Number HSCEMS-12-R-00011

According to this requisition request, the Federal Government’s Department of Homeland Security, office of ICE defines a Personal Defense Weapon as a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm.

Section C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

This section has a couple of items of particular note that directly contradicts Feinstein’s proposed legislation.

3.9.2 – The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).

3.9.10 – The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

3.10.1 - The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic.

3.12.1 – The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 30 inches with the stock fully extended.

3.12.2 – The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 20 inches with the stock fully retracted and/or folded.

3.14.3 – The barrel shall be equipped with a flash suppressor and/or muzzle brake. The muzzle device will be rated on its ability to reduce muzzle signature. It is desired that the muzzle device effectively reduces muzzle rise during firing.

3.16.1 – The pistol grip shall be a fixed, vertical pistol grip constructed of a durable material.

3.18.3 – The forend shall be constructed of durable, heat resistant material.

3.21.1 - Magazines shall be compatible with standard NATO STANAG M16 design.

3.21.2 – The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

3.21.3 – Two (2) magazines shall be supplied with each firearm shipped under contract.

These, along with other specs are all requirements the government uses to define a Personal Defense Weapon. So let’s take a look and see how Feinstein’s 2013 Assault Weapon Ban compares.

Feinstein’s legislation seeks to ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

(3.12.1, 3.12.2, 3.16.1, 3.18.3)

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3.9.10)

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

(3.21.2, 3.21.3)

It also moves from a two-characteristic threshold to a one-characteristic test—this has to be the craziest part of the entire proposal. This makes it illegal to own weapons with features such as a muzzle break or flash suppressor (3.14.3), thumbhole or adjustable stock (3.14.3) or threaded barrel (3.14.3).

This sounds as if Feinstein and her cronies believe that a gun—with all of the exact same capabilities—suddenly becomes more lethal if it has a quick detach bayonet mount, a plastic pistol grip or the stock is changed to a thumbhole or adjustable model. Would a ban on muzzle breaks or flash suppressors have stopped a mass shooting? Really? Are they so misinformed as believe this will stop or reduce future tragedies?

Of course not. This legislation has nothing to do with mass shootings. It does not now, nor did it ever. Even by government standards, Feinstein’s proposed legislation is overreaching and classifies everyday sporting arms as assault weapons.

What do you consider an acceptable Personal Defense Weapon for the masses? Let us know in the comments section below.

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 (209)

  • Mike Cook

    |

    Has anyone ever read the Dick Act of 1902? Also known as the Efficiency Of Militia Bill H.R.11654 of June 28th 1902, It invalidates all so called gun-control laws. It also divides the Militia into three distinct and separate entitles

    The three classes H.R.11654 provides for are the organized militia; henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, territory of District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular Army. The Militia encompasses every able male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type and as many as they can afford.

    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S.
    Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Etc. Etc.

    If you can obtain a copy of this Bill(H.R.11654) it is very en-lighting, and as important in some ways as the Bill Of Rights. So to answer the question which gun would I want for my personal defense is, what ever is comparable to what our military has.

    Reply

  • sled29

    |

    this country is under attack from the enemy within…..meaning your government does not give two hoots in hell about you its citizens. this ban on guns is just a diversion to keep everyone focussed and upset while they rape and pillage the very country they take an oath to protect. hell they just don’t want to ban certain weapons….the government despite what they say, want all of our weapons. WAKE UP PEOPLE. they did it in germany, what happened? the whole populace was disarmed under the guise of homeland security…then the military had free reign to act and do anything they wanted to its own citizenry. they built camps aka like fema camps…..they slaughtered millions. if you think it can’t happen here, why do they build fema camps with fences and razor wire? THINK ABOUT IT . YOUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU AT ALL.

    Reply

  • maddog458

    |

    Folks it’s far worse then most of you think this is not only about guns now. Obama and Holden through J. Brennan the soon to be director of the CIA, Have given themself extrajudicial authority to kill any American here or abroad they decide is a threat. All your constitutional protections and RIGHTS ARE NO LONGER IN PLACE. No more innocent until proven guilty, NO MORE due process. The Government can Murder you freely and with impunity anytime they decide too. They have already murdered 3 American Citizens without a trial. All they need is to decide YOU ARE A THREAT AND BANG YOU ARE DEAD!!! COMPLIMENTS OF THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE CIA and the blind eye of congress and the Supreme Court. GO Democrats!

    Reply

  • steve houser

    |

    By Feinstein’s standards, my 1896 bolt action Mauser is a feared weapon of modern warfare because the original 29″ barrel is threaded to accept a flash suppressor and it has an integral bayonet lug. I lived in San Francisco the first time they pulled this crap and I am amazed how they have dusted off the exact rhetoric the same voices blathered back then. Rust never sleeps, you can’t fix stupid, and just when you think it might be safe to drop your pack, the idiots prove why term limits are an excellent idea. Refuse to do nothing – get involved or get ready for even more “reasonable” restrictions on our freedoms.

    Reply

  • Ricardo

    |

    Americans need to wake up and see what is going on in Washington DC. Government is out of control, its obvious to me that Tyranny is going on. First the president does 23 executive orders to disarm law bidding Americans then today feb 7 2013 they are pushing to have the right to kill Americans if they are labeled domestic terrorist. If this is not Tyranny than what is?

    Reply

  • Michael

    |

    An acceptable personal defense weapon is adequate training. I don’t care if you have a nuke, if you don’t know how to use it you won’t be defending anybody with it. An unarmed but capable black belt is more lethal than any Sandy Hook shooter ever was.

    Reply

  • Kenny from The Fed

    |

    Lets see. According to Professor Feinstein, the only firearm I have that I should be able to legally posses is my 4 shot Marlin .45-70 Guide Gun. My 14 shot, bought at a gun store in New Jersey, Marlin 60 .22LR is much too dangerous with it’s high capacity, non removable tube-feed magazine. Just forget about my .223/5.56mm Stag Arms Model 1 Carbine I bought at the Penn Gun show at the Armory a few years ago. Don’t be alarmed Ms. Feinstein, the thorough, professional Licensed Gun Dealer selling said firearm pointed out the ones I could not buy, being a resident of New Jersey. He found a nice New Jersey compliant Model 1 I could call my own. Don’t be alarmed Ms. Feinstein, he checked my NJDL and my NJ Firearms ID, with my right thump print on the back of it. Those fella’s even did a backround check on me, because they couldn’t legally take my word that I was, “OK”. Ms. Feinstein. You should go to work with me one day to meet some of the fine upstanding convicted felons I deal with on a daily basis. Yes. I work at a prison. No. Rehabilitation DOES NOT WORK. Yes. When, I’m guessing, over half these guys get out, they will commit more crimes. They will hit the streets to slash their way through a sea of sheep, because all the sheep dogs had their canines removed and were declawed. One more thing mama. Have you seen any of these dangerous gun weilding individuals run into a Police Station, shooting everything that moves? How about a Miltary Base like say…. Ft. Knox, where probably, even the secretaries are armed? The reason why Ms. Feinstein is they are all SHEEP DOGS. Coyotes and Wolves generally avoid Sheep Dogs because it is way to risky. Ms. Feinstein, please sleep well knowing there are alot of Coyotes and Wolves release from prison everyday. Good night mama. Have to get up early to try and be the best Sheep Dog I can be.

    Reply

  • Ricky Bobby

    |

    Many great comments on this blog. I especially like John’s (197) regarding George Washington and Bruce’s (154). I hope many of you have read Barrack Obama’s Rules for Revolution by David Horowitz ( http://frontpagemag.com/2009/david-horowitz/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-rules-for-revolution-the-alinsky-model-by-david-horowitz/).
    It’s frightening but quite true I’m afraid. If we do not keep our eye on things we’re going to be in a really bad place most like to call America. Land of the free and home of the brave, not so if the radicals continue to brainwash people and dilute basic values. The crazy thing is their idea of a Utopian Society and overthrowing our way of life comes with no plan, just that the current one is no good and it should be changed by any means possible. Which includes lying, cheating etc… per Saul Alinsky. The President has on many occasions quoted Alinsky’s teaching, very scary!

    Reply

  • Andy

    |

    I haven’t read the list yet, but from what the previous posters have said about it confirms my suspicions that Feinstein and ALL like her are poster kids for IDIOTS. The single most important thing ingrained into my mind and all others that served in the military is this…THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE WILL NEVER BE DENIED! Maybe all worthless politicians should consider that when they make it to where the criminals are the only ones that have firearms. I took and oath to defend this country from all enemies foriegn and domestic and it seems there are an awful lot of domestic enemies now days.

    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.


9 − = six