Assault Weapons Ban: Radical Legislation Is Shaped by Dianne Feinstein's Past

Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, the media has been abuzz with the topic of gun control. Emotions are high on both sides of the debate, with star gun control advocate Piers Morgan gaining newfound fame on the one hand and a petition to deport him on the other.

In the midst of this furor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will introduce an “assault weapons” ban that, if signed into law with the restrictions outlined on her website, could set a new precedent for disregarding the Constitution, our inalienable rights, and a slippery slope that could be impossible to recover from.

Here are 5 major reasons why her proposed gun ban is so radical:

1) Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation would violate the Second Amendment.


Although she argues it does not, that the Second Amendment does not apply to military style weapons, she must be reading only the last part of that amendment. Here is the full amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment was written to ensure the freedom of the states from an overreaching Federal government. People cannot ensure the freedom of their state without having adequate weaponry with which to do so. In 1791, it was muskets and cannon. Today, it is rifles and other high-powered “assault” weapons. To make those illegal would be a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

2) This ban would penalize current gun owners.


Although current owners of banned weapons would have their guns grandfathered in, Sen. Feinstein’s ban would require that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA). According to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, this would impose a “$200 tax per firearm.” In essence, this proposed ban would punish gun owners for firearms they already own and that were not illegal at the time of purchase. This is the very definition of an “ex post facto” law, prohibited by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

3) Those who are lobbying against the requirement to license a weapon have recently had their concerns justified, and this ban could make the consequences even worse.


On December 22, 2012, the Journal News published the names and addresses of thousands of gun owners in the New York area. Publishing this information, according to the Poynter Institute, “makes [gun owners] targets for theft or public ridicule.” Sen. Feinstein’s proposed ban would not only make this information available, but would also require a photograph and fingerprints from those who are grandfathering their previously-legal weapons. As if the names and addresses weren’t enough, next time a paper publishes all the legally available information on local gun owners, criminals could even find out what they looked like.

4) This legislation wouldn’t only ban “assault rifles.”


Sen. Feinstein’s rhetoric in media outlets across the nation has no bearing on the language in the bill. Although she claims she wants to get “weapons of war off the streets of our cities,” these weapons of war are not what you might think. These are not just “scary-looking” weapons like AR-15’s, AK-47’s and .50 caliber machine guns. According to her own website, these “weapons of war” include:

“Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic.”

This legislation, according to the description given on Sen. Feinstein’s website, could be read to include Glocks, Sig sauers and shotguns, not just AR-15’s and other rifles. Not just the “assault rifles” restricted under the previous assault weapons ban, but the weapons the Sen. Feinstein pretends she will let you keep.

5) This ban is driven by Sen. Feinstein’s religious fervor to get rid of private gun ownership.


One of “the hardest moments if not the hardest moment” of Sen. Feinstein’s life was caused by a handgun, not an “assault rifle.” Former San Francisco City Manager Dan White used a revolver in the fatal shootings of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. Then Board Supervisor Dianne Feinstein watched the murders and had to report on them. Ever since then, she has unfortunately gone after guns with a radical passion. This proposed ban would be step one of her ultimate goal … banning all weapons. Although she has responded to claims that she wants to ban concealed carry weapons with “I just think, candidly, that dog doesn’t hunt,” we must remember that a crucial event in her life and career was caused not by a man with an “assault rifle,” but by a man with a revolver and the intent to kill. She may claim “that dog doesn’t hunt” but I think, candidly, that dog does hunt ... for a disarmed citizenry.

Regardless of Piers Morgan’s fate, and whether or not the media covers Sen. Feinstein’s gun control bill as a partial solution to the current gun violence, a few things are clear. This proposed ban, if signed into law as currently described on Sen. Feinstein’s website, will violate multiple Constitutional rights, restrict weapons other than “assault rifles,” and usher in a radical precedent that could eventually lead to banning the sale of all firearms in the U.S.

One small step for gun control, one giant leap toward a full ban on private ownership. That’s what makes Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill so radical.