FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Tactical Pants - Galls
A popular choice for public safety professionals, the Galls Tactical Pants are...

Top News

Video: Democrats Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

January 24, 2013  | 

VIDEO: Feinstein Proposes Assault Weapons Ban

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which seeks to ban 157 specific semi-automatic firearms and magazines accepting more than 10 rounds.

During a vivid press conference Thursday, Sen. Feinstein announced a more stringent ban than the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which expired a decade after she lobbied it into law.

This time around, Sen. Feinstein promised a bill that would be permanent and wouldn't be "so easy to work around" for firearms manufacturers. If passed, the bill would likely dry up the supply of AR-type rifles for law enforcement officers, Don Alwes told POLICE Magazine.

"If Feinstein gets her way, it could cause problems for officers," said Alwes, a SWAT trainer and representative of DoubleStar Corp. "Back during the previous ban it was still possible for an officer to get a banned weapon. If the new ban passes, ARs would be harder to obtain. You'll have to go through your department."

DoubleStar is among the companies called out in the bill, which also would also ban firearms produced by Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington, Bushmaster, SIG Sauer, Beretta, Rock River Arms, Heckler & Koch, FNH USA, Armalite, and Springfield Armory. Click here for a full list.

Also notable is the bill's lack of an exemption for law enforcement for semi-auto pistol magazines with capacity for more than seven rounds. More than 900 models of guns would be exempt for hunting and sporting.

With the bill, Feinstein has "focused on curtailing the Constitution instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing our broken mental health system," a spokesman for the National Rifle Association told the New York Times.

Feinstein herself acknowledged her bill faces "an uphill road." Leaders in her own party, including Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have questioned her approach. Sixteen Senate colleagues have signed on as co-sponsors, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-New York) will introduce a similar version in the House.

Alwes said the bill would likely reduce the number of patrol rifles in law enforcement, because most departments don't issue rifles but rather allow officers to use their own rifles on duty.

"We're not addressing the real issues," Alwes said about the bill. "We're dealing with feel good legislation that won't accomplish anything."

The bill would also ban certain characteristics of guns such as semi-auto pistols with "at least one military feature" defined as a threaded barrel, second pistol grip, barrel shroud, capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip, or a semi-auto version of an automatic firearm.

Semi-auto rifles would be banned with "one military feature" such as a pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

The bill would also ban semi-auto shotguns with a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than five rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Feinstein displayed several of the guns she proposes to ban on boards at the press conference, a move that required special coordination with the Metro (D.C.) Police Department and U.S. Capitol Police, reports the Washington Times.

Editor's Note: The Washington Post compares the new ban with the 1994 law here.

By Paul Clinton

Comments (38)

Displaying 1 - 38 of 38

Bill @ 1/24/2013 5:49 PM

Nonsense... Thankfully it will never pass.

Hiram Smith @ 1/24/2013 6:00 PM

Feinstein is noted for her hypocrisy. When she was mayor of San Francisco she (illegally) ordered the Police Chief not to issue carry permits except to politically-connected people or high-level bureaucrats, or FOF's ("friends of Feinstein"). At the same time, she ordered the Chief to issue a CCW to Feinstein herself. Even though she had taxpayer-provided home security and security at all times.

William322 @ 1/24/2013 6:04 PM

Such rampant hysteria. No doubt Fred the Criminal is worried about his Second Amendment Rights. I agree that the proposed bill is all but dead in the water.

Keith @ 1/24/2013 6:04 PM

Common sense and reason does not always prevail. I wish I had your confidence, Bill

Tom Ret @ 1/24/2013 6:14 PM

It is time for the American people to give these liberal gun grabbers the collective finger. I hope a majority of the street officers out there, unlike some chiefs who are nothing more than political hacks, support the constitution and will not enforce unconstitutional laws as proposed by
hypocrites like Feinstein who admittedly was packing a handgun for her
own protection. If these laws are enacted and enforced I see a great divide developing between the police and the general public.

Leonard Mather @ 1/24/2013 6:19 PM

Feinstein is to be evaluated in terms of her career and purpose. She is now employed in her job; she wants to do her job and collect her retirement pay. Therefore she must play the hand she was dealt by her party line. In order to get votes, as per her party line, she is doing what is called "Go along to get along." View it as a game of Chess. Her pawns have been presented. The game is on. She probably believes, sincerely, that a sign stating "Gun Free Zone" will work, and her Wussie friends and Liberal followers will be happy, Eventually, when a Perp comes in with a gun and blasts away, freely unimpeded, the Wussies will exclaim, "This is terrible! Somebody should do something." Of course having a Good Guy with a gun would take care of the Perp with a gun, but that is not part of her game plan.

Joe Cristarella @ 1/24/2013 6:53 PM

Feinstein is a joke and always has been, the problem is really that she chose to live in Kalifornia, in particular San Francisco. They keep voting her back in, but then this is the groups of voters who voted for Proposition 36, Proposition 215 among the stupidest laws in the land! Time for Feinstein, Boxer and Moonbeam Brown to go back to the commune where they live in Utopia blazing their days away!

john @ IA retired @ 1/24/2013 7:09 PM

How politicians must think - Lets see, it takes a lot of effort to prosecute criminals, we have to pay to defend all of the rights that they have, and they will not abide by current or future laws anyway. We also need to protect the rights of those individuals with a mental illness, which might cause them to go on a shooting spree. Patient confidentiality you know. What’s left? I know, let’s enact more feel good laws against law abiding Americans. It’s much easier to control them, and if we impose severe criminal penalties against them, we can sleep better at night knowing that what we did was politically correct. Oh, and to my body guards, don’t forget to pick up those new AK’s with the high capacity magazines so you can better protect me and my family.

Everyone, contact your Senator or Congressman and tell them to enforce current laws against criminals. Don’t persecute law abiding Americans.

Mike @ 1/24/2013 8:17 PM

Gentleman and Lady's,
Please be vocal with your politicians over this and other senseless gun control legislation! We cannot afford to allow the erosion of the constitutional rights that we swore to defend. Please don't think that it wont pass or that someone else will stop this. We as law enforcement officers need to make our opinions known!

Sheriff @ 1/24/2013 9:09 PM

I am absolutely astounded by this ridiculously written bill and the outright disregard for the United States Constitution. I will never support or allow my deputies to enforce a law that violates any of the Bill of Rights, specifically for this article, the 2nd Amendment. God Help Us!

Capt. Crunch @ 1/24/2013 9:59 PM

I think Sen. Dianne Feinstein, needs to live in a high crime area of San francisco for at least one week and then rethink about her assault weapons ban. I think if she did that she would have a different out look.

Ima Leprechaun @ 1/24/2013 10:24 PM

I read the entire New York State gun law and it should be adapted nationally by the Fed and every other state in the nation. It does not infringe on any 2nd Amendment rights. It does add sections on mentally ill people that were ajudicated mentally ill by the court and/or people that use any mental infirmity defense in court must also surrender every gun, knife, sword, gas or pepper spray or Kung Fu weapons they possess for the rest of their life. It is an excellent Law but New York has always banned concealed carry for Law Enforcement officers from other states unless they are in New York for Official Police business. Outside Police are forbidden from bringing banned weapons into New York for recreational purposes and must meet all the same laws a NY citizen must meet in New York. There is not allowable concealed carry in New York for police officers from outside of NY state either on or off duty except for official business reasons. The particular law concerning outside police concealed carry has been on the NY books since 1980 oe longer before. Their law heavily regulates rgw Aammunition too which I completely agree with.

BadKarma525 @ 1/24/2013 10:25 PM

This is Treason. Betraying innocent American citizens by attacking our Constitutional and God given rights.

Ima Leprechaun @ 1/24/2013 10:34 PM

I was trying to correct the last line and it went to the blog. I meant to say their new law heavily regulates the sale of ammunition and requires a background check to purchase ammo too. The law is a long read but they included the correct weapons in their weapons ban and they banned magazines with the capacity to carry more than ten rounds for pistols and 5 rounds for shot guns and ten rounds for semi-automatic riifles an 5 rounds for semi-automatic shotguns. All fully automatic weapons are banned as well as some semi-automatic assault weapons.
This law went into effect last fall and appears to be working well for now.

Ima Leprechaun @ 1/24/2013 10:41 PM

God did not write the U.S. Constitution nor is he listed as a reference anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. You still have the same rights as before these laws just limit access to certain weapons like any adult should do if they own any inherently dangerous firearms. People don't need rocket launchers to hunt quail but many do in Arizona and Texas these people are nuts and a law is needed to reel them back into reality.

Proud American @ 1/24/2013 11:54 PM

Ima Leprechaum writes, "Many do in Arizona and Texas these people are nuts." Well I find it ironic that an individual who refers to him or herself as a Leprechaun calling other people nuts.

Nevertheless, individuals such as Feinstein and others are misleading the citizens of the United States in regards to the gun issue.
The following link is a "MUST WATCH" for every citizen. Please take six minutes to watch it.

Morning Eagle @ 1/25/2013 12:07 AM

This most recent Constitution and Bill of Rights violating proposal and NYC's laws only affect law-abiding people, not the criminals and that includes New York criminals by the way. The phrase ".... shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to anyone who can think. obama, feinstein, et al, are trying to use so-called gun control as a pathway to controlling people and as long as we are armed they are afraid to try to go too far. With their royal selves surrounded by elaborate armed security 24/7 every day of the year it is the height of disgusting hypocrisy on their part to try to deny others the right to protect and defend themselves or those around them from violent attack, or an over-reaching government. And THAT is what this is about, not hunting quail with rocket lauchers in Arizona or Texas or anywhere else.

Morning Eagle @ 1/25/2013 12:12 AM

I meant rocket lauNchers ....

Jesus @ 1/25/2013 1:11 AM

Really?? A rocket launcher to hunt quail? Laws to reel them in?

Did you know that in order to posses a rocket launcher you must fill out an ATF Form 4, submit payment of $200 for a transfer stamp, complete a background check to include fingerprints, and a wait of several months while a national agency check is conducted and the application is processed. And on top of all of this, you have to be in a state that allows the individual to possess a destructive device like a rocket launcher.

Then there is the $200 tax stamp for each and every individual rocket you own, more fingerprints, more background checks, more waiting. This may be why you don’t see neighbors blowing each other up with rocket launchers, let alone hunting quail with them. The ATF does a great job of regulating the transfer of these devices. The reality is that they are far from easy to purchase, and you certainly can’t order one over the phone or buy one off of the internet.

And besides, it's already against existing Fish and Game laws to hunt quail with a rocket launcher.

Lakotah @ 1/25/2013 1:14 AM

Just curius how Chicago has a ban on about every weapon imaginable and you cannot carry concealed anywhere in the state but Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the Country.
Just wondering how its working out for them. Too bad no politician will comment on that

JC @ 1/25/2013 1:54 AM

@Ima Leprechaun, you stated that in New York, that out-of-state officers and off-duty (retired) officers are not allowed concealed carry unless on official business. This is no longer true and hasn't been for about a decade. About a decade ago, Congress passed and Pres. Bush signed a federal law that allows most peace officers, including peace officers that are retired and allowed to carry concealed weapons in their state, to carry a concealed firearm in ANY state in the U.S., which would include N.Y. Any peace officer or retired officer from any state in the U.S. can go to N.Y. and any other state and carry a concealed firearm if they are allowed to carry one in their state of residence. Federal law supersedes any state law, so any state that has a law forbidding this is in violation of the federal statute and the federal law would govern their carry in that state, not state law.

CJ @ 1/25/2013 2:44 AM

This is typical Feinstein!!!! This hypocrite wants to ban guns from citizens and those who bought these firearms legally. Yet, she has a concealed weapons permit and Air Marshal status to carry her gun on an airline. How do you think she got that? They want to criminalize the gun owner and let the criminals run rampant. I bought my own AR-15 when I was on the job and I now can't enjoy it in retirement because other hypocrites like Leland Yee, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris want to have us basically turn in our AR-15s that we purchased with our own money and accessorized and maintained at our own expense so we would have an option when dealing with active shooter situations. Now they say we really aren't entitled to our AR-15 rifles because we are no longer active peace officers despite the fact that there was no provision in the law that required us to turn them in. They attempted to hang their hat on the law that applies to civilians who could not buy the law enforcement version in the first place. Now it's in a state of limbo. Although I am a member of the NRA, they and CalGuns failed to support us and actively opposed legislation letting us keep our AR-15s. Now we have Feinstein who is on a quest to get her personal ideals passed as law. I want to take my California pension, my guns, sell my house and move to a place like Texas where gun ownership is not a crime. Feinstein's bill is the first step toward gun confiscation. Our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is clear and was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court that it applies to individual gun ownership. Yet, Feinstein and her followers still can't understand that it is our right to purchase any legal firearm to include what she deems as "assault weapons." I fear that the American gun owner to include law enforcement officers, active and retired are in for a long fight to keep what is rightfully ours.

fedcoptrainer @ 1/25/2013 3:29 AM

Nicely written CJ, but just one of the many issues present here. We all need to contact our representatives and let them know that law enforcement is opposed to this stupidity, at least the men and women working on the street every day. Our representatives, and the public in general, need to understand that this bill and bills like it will have no impact on crime. In fact, the only thing this will do in a lot of places is ensure that the shooter who goes into our children's school will not have to face one of us armed with anything more than our handgun. Shocking that Americans refuse see how this impacts them, but instead believe people like Feinstein over their own common sense. Think for yourselves America. We all know the criminals don't care about any of these laws. The only people writing anything in response to any of these ridiculous bills are the law abiding Americans who will be hurt by this, not the criminals who don't care if the firearm they are using is illegal when they go to rob or murder one of the hard working people who won't be able to defend themselves.

All my brothers and sisters, take care

BigGuns45ACP @ 1/25/2013 4:34 AM

While it is true that this bill "As Written" will never pass. We have to hope and pray our representatives heed the opinions of the greater majority of their constituants and do not approve a compromise bill. She knows it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing, but it opens the door for discussion for a chipping away of our rights. We must write, email and call our reps and any rep in your area who may be showing support and tell them you will make every effort to vote them out of office if they support this or ANY bill to limit the rights of LAW ABIDING citzens the ability to protect their families and others against those who do not follow the law and have no respect for the law or for human life! Okay, Dan's rant is over.......for now!

Dan @ 1/25/2013 4:36 AM

By the way, good words there from Don Alwes. Hope to see you at TREXPO this year in DC bro!

Rob @ 1/25/2013 5:15 AM

I didn't realize Feinstein had a permit to carry on a commercial flight. That is scary. That ought to get challenged. What training has she had in proper employment of a firearm anywhere, or deadly force issues? Can she qualify on any fed LE pistol course?

Anyway, reading that bill, it sounds like the G could ban the Glock 17 and Beretta 92 cause they resemble full auto pistols. It also runs the risk of putting a bunch of artisans out of work when gun companies are shut down. And the facts of alleged reduced violence during the last ban should be cross-examined because I recall too many consumers hoarded hi-cap mags during that time.

I saw a clip of VP Biden yesterday saying that everyone knows its easier to use a shotgun than an "assault" rifle for defense. He further said that it was easier to shoot a shotgun than a rifle. The trend in law enforcement over the past 20 years contradicts that statement. This is the same garbage from 1994 repackaged.

vincenzino @ 1/25/2013 5:48 AM

Sen. Feinstein must be standing on her head because she's obviously
talking out of her butt.

David @ 1/25/2013 5:58 AM

This bill is ridiculously insane. How can the law enforcement officers stand behind Sen. Feinstein and support this bill.

Cary Henken @ 1/25/2013 7:26 AM

This is a misguided law that will do nothing to prevent crime, only create more hassles for law abiding citizens. Let's look to the real problem, criminals with guns and start more aggressive prosecution of them and get them off the street.

Martin @ 1/25/2013 7:38 AM

JC, thanks for educating all those at the end of the rainbow about HR218. I am curious how he had time to read the entire NY bill and claim to understand it while being unaware of HR218---which President Obama actually expanded the bill in 2010---or if he was aware of it, not knowing what "not withstanding" means in legal terminology.
It is odd how uninformed people formulate gun related opinions based on their fears, myth perpetrated by entertainment media, and lack of knowledge about the intricacies of the topic involved yet would never tell a mechanic how to change their oil.
The 2nd does not hinge on hunting but I and many others do hunt with the AR type guns and contending we do not is just more ignorance on display. Mentioning the "sporting litmus test" is the first vocalization of someone who wants to infringe your rights. It is the Bill or Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

REH-Jr @ 1/25/2013 7:53 AM

Every current and former police officer needs to let their elected representatives and senators know that the law enforcement community does not support legislation like this.

phillip George @ 1/25/2013 8:11 AM

As a retired police officer, I am against any infregment on my rights. This is the Dems chasing their tail and no interests in protecting the people.

Brian (retired) from CA @ 1/25/2013 12:38 PM

Where do they find these drones in police uniforms who pose behind liberal, anti-Second Ammendment politicians? I would guess that they were ordered by their management to be there.

m41 @ 1/25/2013 1:06 PM

I find it kind of ironic that the very same people that support this gun ban BS are the ones that support the killing of 55,000,000 babies in this country. These liberal idiots are not worth the air they breath and are destroying this country at an astonishing rate. These very people are the one's the our nations founders had in mind when they drafted the constitution.

DriverX @ 1/25/2013 4:26 PM

Just wait... "they will have their way". Common Law Enforcement means nothing to these elitists, soon we will be turning in out auto-pistols and AR's to be reissued the good old .38 revolver, 5 shot pump action shotgun, and a handful of bolt action rifles. All Patrol vehicle shall be EPA friendly and use Green Energy. I heard the Military is switching back to 1903 Springfield rifles and 1917 revolvers too.

Tim Martin @ 1/25/2013 9:41 PM

DriverX - You are already partly true. For the past few years our Police Interceptor CV's have been "Flex Fuel" vehicles and we are supposed to put E85 fuel in them. The gas mileage on E85 is atrocious.

mikey v @ 1/25/2013 9:44 PM

She is a nut case !

Ret deputy @ 1/31/2013 5:36 PM

Law enforcement need ar style weapons and high cap mags to defend themselves against well armed criminals. Remember not all agencies can afford swat teams . Most small departments can't afford the weapons or training needed and many still have revolvers. When your on patrol sometimes backup is miles away and a pistol with 10 rds might not be enough.These elitists need a close look at mental health issues and provide schools the funds they need for resource officers. I beleive taking weapons from law biding citizens will only create more problems.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent News

Kahr Arms Launches Fallen Officer Program
Through the Fallen Officer Program, Kahr Arms will donate a Thin Blue Line model PM9...
Norwegian Police Adopt SIG Sauer P320 X-Series as Standard Service Pistol
SIG Sauer Inc. announced that the Norwegian Police have selected the SIG Sauer P320...
Washington State Passes Ballot Measure to Further Regulate Guns
A state gun-regulations ballot measure seeking to make Washington's firearms laws among...

Police Magazine