Feinstein Introduces New Assault Weapons Ban
Diane Feinstein is at it again. While last month, she admitted that no law would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting, she has once again introduced her standard Assault Weapons Ban. Inspired by the church shooting in Texas last weekend, wherein a would-be prohibited person managed to acquire several firearms after the Air Force failed to disclose his history of mental illness, threats, and domestic violence to the FBI (as required by existing law), Feinstein is once again beating the anti-gun drum. And at least for the moment, she’s joined by 22 of her closest, anti-gun friends.
The summary of the bill reads as follows:
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.
The bill is more or less the same that we’ve seen from Feinstein in the past and is extremely similar to the old Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban. It focuses heavily on aesthetic features of firearms, rather than any sort of functional distinctions. As such, while a standard Ruger Mini 14 would be a-ok by Feinstein’s rules, the AR-15, which is functionally similar, would be a no-no. It’s this sort of inanity that drives gun owners crazy, and anyone else with any sort of topical knowledge.
Not only does the bill resemble the ineffective 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, but it also draws much of its inspiration from California’s existing ban. Gun owners in California have long hinted that non-compliance runs rampant throughout the state, but concrete evidence is naturally difficult to uncover. What is clear is that the terrorists who carried out the San Bernardino attack back in 2015 certainly weren’t deterred by California’s law. In that case, they took compliant rifles and (as criminals are known to do) modified them to a non-compliant state. This law in no way prevents that sort of thing from happening in the future.
That said, there are some serious technical issues with this most recent proposal that would make it far more troublesome for gun owners than past efforts. They may also undermine the constitutionality of the bill. Notably, Feinstein defines “barrel shrouds” to be anything that encircles the barrel and protects users’ hands from heat generated by each round – excluding extensions of the stock itself. Any firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine and sporting such a “shroud” (see handguard) would automatically be considered an “assault weapon.” That’s an incredibly broad description that could be used to ban almost anything. Second, the bill bans all new magazines capable of holding ten or more rounds while also prohibiting the future transfer of existing magazines. Without compensation of some sort, it’s difficult to see how this passes muster.
I’ve long held that what is mostly needed are improvements and better enforcement of current law. There are ways to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them that don’t involve bans, and even avoid so-called universal background checks. If Democrats were truly serious about fighting “gun violence,” they’d push to improve reporting to the NICS system, which is, by any measure, a mess.
The good news, for the moment, is that Republicans on Capitol Hill appear to be firmly against this and similar proposals. While some Senators, including John Cornyn (R-TX), have indicated that they may be willing to bring gun control proposals to vote in committee, most of these relate to things like bump stocks and NICS background check improvements. That said, it is important that gun owners contact their legislators to remind them that adoption of Feinstein’s bill would be disastrous for the Second Amendment.
An information security professional by day and gun blogger by night, Nathan started his firearms journey at 16 years old as a collector of C&R rifles. These days, you’re likely to find him shooting something a bit more modern – and usually equipped with a suppressor – but his passion for firearms with military heritage has never waned. Over the last five years, Nathan has written about a variety of firearms topics, including Second Amendment politics and gun and gear reviews. When he isn’t shooting or writing, Nathan nerds out over computers, 3D printing, and Star Wars.