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
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.
- 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?
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
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.