Key Provisions Of Feinstein’s New AWB (Updated)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reintroduced her assault weapon ban yesterday. It is S. 66 and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill has 28 co-sponsors – 27 Democrats and one Independent (Bernie Sanders).

The full text is not yet available. However, from Feinstein’s press release we can see she aiming wide and deep.

Key provisions:

  • Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.


  • Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

  • Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to bill:

  • The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.


  • The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Other provisions:

  • Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.


  • Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.

  • Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

  • Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

Updates to Assault Weapons Ban of 2017:

  • Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”


  • Bans assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.

  • Bans assault pistol stabilizing braces that transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.

  • Bans Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons.

I had to look up Thordsen-type grips. She is referring to stocks and grips from Thordsen Customs which are meant to allow firearms to be California and New York compliant.

You can tell by the updates to her AWB of 2017 that she is after any adjustable stock and AR-pistols with or without a stabilizing brace.

Looking at the Key Provisions, firearms like the Ruger PCC pistol caliber carbine would be banned as it has a threaded barrel. I think she learned her lesson from the original AWB which allowed no more than two features. Not that I think this bill will pass the Senate but I could foresee the development of pump carbines that feed from a detachable magazine. Remington used to have such a rifle called the Model 7615. You can see an example here.

It will be interesting to read the full text of this bill when it is published. To get an idea you might want to look at her 2017 version.

UPDATE: Ryan Cleckner, attorney and former Director of Governmental Affairs for NSSF, has this analysis of the Feinstein’s new AWB. Given his background in the industry and his shooting background, it is well worth a read.

UPDATE II: Ryan informs me that he has now read the actual text of the bill and has more comments on it. He thinks it is even more dangerous than before.

She’s Right You Know

This is something that I thought that I’d ever write but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is correct. To be more precise, she is correct on one thing. That is that any ban on bump stocks is the business of Congress and not a regulatory agency.

In an op-ed published Wednesday in the Washington Post, she wrote:

Automatic weapons produced before 1986 are highly regulated, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracks them. Despite this, the agency has consistently stated that bump stocks could not be regulated under the current law. That was because they do not fit the legal definition of an automatic weapon under the National Firearms Act.

Automatic weapons are defined by their ability to fire a continuous number of rounds by holding down the trigger. Bump stocks and other accessories have made this definition largely obsolete, creating a loophole that circumvents Congress’s intent to bar civilians from achieving automatic rates of fire. That’s because the recoil of the stock “bumps” the finger against the trigger, allowing the weapon to achieve automatic fire. Because of this technicality, bump stocks have not run afoul of the law.

ATF initially concluded that it could not ban these devices through regulation in 2008. And after the 2012 shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., ATF further explained in a 2013 letter to Congress that it could not take unilateral action because “stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes.” In addition, internal ATF documents made public through Freedom of Information Act requests by Giffords Law Center and Democracy Forward show that the agency had reiterated its lack of authority to ban bump stocks unilaterally and that it had approved similar devices as recently as April 2017 — under the Trump administration.

In March 2018, the Justice Department did an about-face, claiming that bump stocks do, in fact, fall under the legal definition of a machine gun and therefore can be banned through regulations. The administration’s position hinges on a dubious analysis claiming that bumping the trigger is not the same as pulling it.

Feinstein goes on to say that banning bump stocks by executive fiat opens it to legal challenge and that the Final Rule provides a roadmap for the “gun lobby” to do just that. This is not to say that Feinstein is pro-bump stock. Far from it. She wants them banned along with “trigger cranks” but says it should be done by Congress. Part of her rationale is that if it is done by Congress a future President can’t change his or her mind about bump stocks and ditch the ban. The other part of her rationale is the feeling that President Trump and the BATFE with the ban are intruding upon a Congressional prerogative.

The bump stock ban is already being challenged in District Court in Guedes et al v. BATFE et al. Gun Owners of America have also been promising a lawsuit which as of this afternoon still hasn’t been filed.

Grassley Statement On Kavanaugh’s Accuser (Updated)

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement today regarding Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her allegations of an attack by Judge Brett Kavanaugh while they were teenagers. The statement below does a good job at being respectful to Ford, calling out Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats, and nailing those in the media who leaked Ford’s name. Grassley has always championed whistle blowers and he brings that credibility to this statement.

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley issued the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

“Anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard, so I will continue working on a way to hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner.

“The standard procedure for updates to any nominee’s background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties. In this case, that would entail phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Consistent with that practice, I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up.

“Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person’s identity from news reports for less than 24 hours and known about her allegations for less than a week. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs. The Minority withheld even the anonymous allegations for six weeks, only to later decide that they were serious enough to investigate on the eve of the committee vote, after the vetting process had been completed.

“It’s deeply disturbing that the existence of these allegations were leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality.

“Over my nearly four decades in the Senate I have worked diligently to protect whistleblowers and get to the bottom of any issue. Dr. Ford’s attorney could have approached my office, while keeping her client confidential and anonymous, so that these allegations could be thoroughly investigated. Nevertheless, we are working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims.”

UPDATE: A special meeting is scheduled for Monday and both Ford and Kavanaugh will appear.

Judiciary Committee to Hear from Kavanaugh, Ford in Public Hearing


WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today announced that the Committee will hold a public hearing with Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.


“As I said earlier, anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has done deserves to be heard. My staff has reached out to Dr. Ford to hear her account, and they held a follow-up call with Judge Kavanaugh this afternoon. Unfortunately, committee Democrats have refused to join us in this effort. However, to provide ample transparency, we will hold a public hearing Monday to give these recent allegations a full airing,” Grassley said.


Below is the official notice for Monday’s hearing.


NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION


The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.
By order of the Chairman.

A New Word For The Political Lexicon – Feinsteined

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for Pres. George W. Bush, has come up with a new word for the political lexicon. It is Feinsteined. This is when an anonymous letter from an anonymous source with an unknown allegation is supposedly sent to the FBI in an effort to derail the nomination of a judicial candidate. In this case, the nominee is Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations may or may not be something non-sexual he did at a party with a girl when he and she were 17 years old.

In the interest of full disclosure, I may or may not have gotten drunk at a New Year’s Eve party when I was 17 and may or may not have kissed a girl at the stroke of midnight who was another guy’s girlfriend and may or may not have gotten in trouble with my mom for coming home drunk from a party.

“Stabbing with a Bullet”

Oh, Di, you are so unbelievably stupid.

Chris Baker at Lucky Gunner Labs has done yeoman’s work testing all manner of handgun self-defense ammo. Everything from .380 ACP to .45 ACP in pistol cartridges as well as both .38 Special and .357 Magnum in revolver cartridges were tested in ballistic gelatin. I don’t consider a .380 ACP expanding to half an inch to be “like a nail”.

As a reminder, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money blog is an affiliate of LuckyGunner.com. Any commissions earned are donated to Second Amendment organizations to protect our rights.

H/T The Captain’s Journal

BOHICA: Feinstein’s AWB of 2017 Introduced

Democrats live by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s aphorism “don’t let a crisis go to waste” and they are wasting little time in using the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced her new and updated Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. It goes well beyond her original bill from 1994. Not content to apply it just to rifles and carbines, it will also apply to semi-automatic pistols that include a threaded barrel. It would also mandate “safe storage” of existing firearms that would be covered under the bill that had been grandfathered. Finally, the bill will limit mag capacity to 10 rounds.

You can read the entire 125 pages of the bill here. While it goes into great detail, Appendix A is rather meaningless as it lists the firearms that are exempted such as the single shot Ruger Number 1.

According to her press release, she is joined in sponsoring the bill by:

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

 There are no surprises on that list. Even Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) who represents the relatively gun friendly state of Pennsylvania threw in with the gun prohibitionists a long time ago. I’m sure he rationalizes it by noting that Pennsylvania doesn’t allow semi-autos for deer hunting.

NRA Opposes Both Feinstein’s S.1916 And Curbelo’s HR 3999

The NRA announced yesterday that it opposed both Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S.1916 and Rep. Carlos Curbelo’s HR 3999. These bills would ban any part that could increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic fire.

The opposition was announced via an interview with the Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski.

“We are opposed to the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation,” Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon.

The text for Sen. Feinstein’s S.1916 can be found here while the text of  Rep. Curbelo’s HR 3999 can be found here. The Trojan Horse in both bills is this language.

any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi- automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

As I noted in earlier blog posts on the issue, this could be anything from a replacement trigger reset spring to a Geissele trigger to a lightweight AR bolt carrier to a heavier AR buffer. In other words, the BATFE Technology Division could use this to ban anything and everything related to a semi-automatic rifle short of the gritty mil-spec trigger.

Feinstein’s S.1916 – Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act

This past Wednesday, October 4th, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S.1916 – Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act – in response to the Las Vegas mass casualty event. As of today, the bill has 38 co-sponsors. All the co-sponsors are Democrats with the exception of Bernie Sanders who is still listed as an Independent.

The operative part of the bill reads:

(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and
after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to
import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank,
a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts,
component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-
automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
into a machinegun
.

The prohibition would not apply to any agency or department of the United States or to those of any state or local government. The full text of the bill is here.

As I’ve said many a time when it comes to legislation, the devil is in the details. More importantly, it will be in how the courts and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives choose to interpret any part, etc. that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-auto rifle.

I foresee that items like the Franklin Armory binary trigger systems would be banned under this bill even though not explicitly named. Where I think it will get dicey is with springs and drop-in triggers. Will a stronger trigger return spring or a lighter hammer spring be considered items that function to accelerate the rate of fire? Would anything that makes for a smoother and/or lighter trigger pull fall under the rubric of this bill?

Indeed, would using a rubber band from an office supply store (or that your mail is banded with by the USPS) be prohibited by this bill? SayUncle has a number of examples of bump firing without using any of the explicitly banned items.

I attended the local gun show yesterday. In my 3 hours there, I saw only one person with a Slide-Fire stock. I don’t know if he had just bought it or had it with him to sell.

Bump fire stocks are novelty items in my opinion. I don’t have a need for one nor do I intend to buy one. That said, I think this bill needs to be killed. No bill introduced within days of a serious tragedy is meant to address the problems behind the tragedy. They are strictly to make political hay. This bill in particular is meant to stick it to the gun culture. The all encompassing weasel words after trigger crank and bump-fire device are so open for interpretation that you won’t know what is legal and what is not. That is just not good legislation.

H/T Tiffany Johnson for the link to the bill’s text.

Judge Gorsuch On Heller

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ardent gun prohibitionist, got her chance to question Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Heller decision. She tried to corner him on it. She lost.

As Judge Gorsuch says in his testimony below, Heller is the law of the land.

I do have to disagree with Judge Gorsuch on one thing. I don’t think Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is a very fine judge nor do I think Judge Wilkinson respects the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller decision. Wilkinson is a member of the Virginia gentry, who I suspect, thinks that the problem with the Second Amendment is that it allows the riff-raff to own guns. That riff-raff is you and me, the non-prep school, non-Yalie, non-son of a banker sorts who actually have the temerity to believe that the Second Amendment means what it says.

Sneak Attack By Dems Fails

If it hadn’t been for an alert from the National Shooting Sports Foundation this afternoon, I would not have known that the Democrats were planning to bring up gun control amendments to H.R.3762 – Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. That bill would repeal parts of ObamaCare so it was near and dear to the Republicans’ heart.

The two major anti-gun amendments were brought up by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Feinstein’s amendment would have made anyone listed on the FBI’s secret Terrorist Screening Database a prohibited person for NICS checks. The Manchin amendment was a repeat of 2013’s Manchin-Toomey universal background check bill.

Both amendments needed 60 votes to pass. Fortunately, neither even got a majority.

Feinstein’s amendment failed 45 Aye to 54 Nay. Meanwhile, Manchin-Toomey failed by a vote of 47 Aye to 50 Nay as reported live on the Senate’s livestream. It seems that an additional vote was added to the Aye column in the final reprot.

As NSSF General Counsel Larry Keane pointed out on Twitter, Manchin-Toomey got 7 fewer votes in 2015 than in 2013. (Actually, 6 but still…)

Both of these votes were cynical efforts on the part of Democrats to play off on yesterday’s terrorist attack in San Bernadino, California. I think we can come to expect to see this come up with every major vote or after any mass shooting that doesn’t involve JJ, Pookie, Ice Dog, or Ray-Ray.

The roll call vote on Feinstein’s amendment breaks down like this:

YEAs —45
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —54
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)


Not Voting – 1
Warner (D-VA)

And the roll call vote on this year’s Manchin-Toomey universal background check amendment is as follows:

YEAs —48
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —50
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)


Not Voting – 2
Johnson (R-WI) Warner (D-VA)

Just like in 2013 the only Republicans voted for Manchin-Toomey were Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and, of course, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA). (Corrected to add Collins who I missed when I first scanned the list)