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

 
 
 

ESS Rollbar Tactical Sunglass - ESS Eyepro
The new ESS Rollbar Tactical interchangeable-lens sunglass has a broad wrap that...

Top News

Democrats Drop Assault Weapons Ban

March 19, 2013  | 

Photo courtesy of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Photo courtesy of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Senate Democrats have dropped a proposed assault weapons ban in hopes of garnering broader support for banning high-capacity magazines, reports Fox News.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was disappointed, when Harry Reid (D-Nev.) informed her that President Obama's gun-control efforts would focus on magazines with 10 or more rounds. Feinstein has promised to offer the ban as an amendment.

Feinstein has led the gun-control charge since the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. She hoped to pass a new assault weapons ban that would target a broader range of weapons than the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.

The bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last week on a 10-8 party-line vote. Reid had said such a bill would not likely garner 60 Senate votes.

Tags: Assault Weapons Ban, Gun Control Advocacy, U.S. Congress


Comments (40)

Displaying 1 - 40 of 40

E Johnston @ 3/19/2013 4:50 PM

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is not only ugly but dumb as a rock..no assault weapon ban and NO mag capicity..

JMatysik @ 3/19/2013 5:12 PM

I would hope this discussion would have some class and thoughtfulness rather than to simply dismiss another persons views by calling them ugly and dumb.
I guess that people without facts have to resort to insults.

Scotty @ 3/19/2013 5:20 PM

Only a person without any true knowledge of criminal activity would propose more laws for criminals to ignore. The most efficient and wise thing to do would be to strictly enforce the laws already on the books; not to propose such foolish laws as magazine limits and gun bans.

Jmatysik @ 3/19/2013 5:29 PM

At least we have a viewpoint to discuss! I would point out that most of the mass murders were committed by people without criminal records. In other words, they were not criminals until the mass shootings occurred. Also, I happen to have a great deal of knowledge of criminal activity and happen to disagree with you.
I have over 30 years of experience in policing and many, many police officers disagree with you...so your attempt at dismissing other views is not going to work.

Tony @ 3/19/2013 5:39 PM

I too have thirty years of experience and have found that criminals will not abide by the law, hence the term criminals. These laws are nothing but feel good attempts to solve a problem without any basis in fact. Gun contol laws only restrict the law abiding citizen. I do support expanded background checks to include mental health data bases and strick enforcement of existing laws that would include tracing crime guns to determine any illegal sales.

Jmatysik @ 3/19/2013 5:47 PM

Tony, we are not too far apart in our thoughts. I just like people expressing opinions rather than just dismissing those who see things differently.
I support background checks as well; including closing the gun show loophole. I also think that mental health issues need to be addressed.
If we can save one life by closing loopholes, we should try to save our children from these senseless killings.

DPB @ 3/19/2013 5:47 PM

Jmatysik,

The latest research I have found indicates many of the mass shooters were on some type of psychothropic drug. Where is the concern of reducing prescription drug use?

So, what is your point? That it is OK to infring our rights and disarm every law abiding citizen to prevent the rare mass shooter from committing his act? Oh, wait, the grade school, movie theater, college campus, diner, et el. was a gun free zone! And a prohibited crminal act occurred in these places?

As a current police officer/commander of 38 years, I disagree with you! (as do many of my brother/sister officers)

DPB @ 3/19/2013 5:55 PM

Jmatysik,

There you go, again. With the Liberal/Progressive platitudes of, "if it saves one child!!!" The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You just pointed out in your earlier comment that the mass murders did not have criminal histories before committing their crime. In the next sentence you want the "gun show loophole" closed.

If they did not have a criminal history they would still have been able to buy a gun. In several of the cases the murderer stole the gun! Closing a loophole would have done nothing.

Doesn't Matter @ 3/19/2013 6:00 PM

Filtering who is prescribed psych meds will probably eliminate most everyone, look at the amount of pharmacies situated across from each other every block. Why are "assault rifles" such an issue when all active or mass shooter incidents combined have less victims total than that of major cities yearly murder rate, primarily from handguns? Look up the FBI's UCR and you'll see handguns kill far more people yearly than long guns.

Jmatysik @ 3/19/2013 6:00 PM

I don't support disarming anyone. I support background checks for all rather than just for retail shops. Closing the loophole would certainly stop people with known mental health issues.
And...once again...if you can try to label me as a "liberal", you win. Well, sorry to disappoint you. I am just using reasonable consistent standards. With your logic, why do any background checks at all?

DPB @ 3/19/2013 6:05 PM

Jmatysik,

If you are not liberal or progressive I stand corrected and apologize! I still disagree with you. You pointed out the people committing these crimes had no record. I pointed out some of the weapons used were stolen. Again I ask, what good would a background check have done?

Jmatysik @ 3/19/2013 6:11 PM

I have to run, so this is my last post on this topic.
I know in my city. background checks have stopped criminals and those with known mental health issues from buying firearms. I think that is a good thing and saves lives. We can't stop everyone, but we can (and do) stop some...and that is a good thing. Thanks for the discussion.

Random @ 3/19/2013 6:37 PM

So according to "Doesn't Matter", giving Psychiatric patients another reason to not take medication is a good thing. Most prescriptions are voluntary or self administered. I personally would rather schizophrenic volunteer to take meds and not get the idea to cause harm in the first place. I feel that the term “Madman” is what the law meant by “mental defect”; unless you consider Dyslexic and Dysgraphia an exemption from the 2A.

Tschako @ 3/19/2013 6:42 PM

You folks are clearly not Kalifornien. No "gun show loophole" here for many years. Still have daily murders, and insane mass murders. Further, Is there ANY record of a mass murder weapon EVER traced to a gun show sale? Anywhere? I know of none.

Rob @ 3/19/2013 6:47 PM

I would support increased background check requirements if they did not require a registration database in order to make them work. The problem is that there must be registration, and history shows us where that leads. Besides, that wuss in Aurora apparently passed a background check in order to buy the AR and the punk in CT technically stole his. When responsible people have decided we've had enough of this type of behavior and fire politicians and appointed officials who are too soft on the problem children while treating the rest of us like we're not responsible, then we won't have these tragedies - sort of like years ago when no one dreamed of such an atrocity.

Jim A @ 3/19/2013 6:51 PM

I agree. It is a little uncalled for to call Senator Feinstein ugly and stupid. Afterall, she is an old and respected Senator. By someone, at least.

I think it is more accurate to call her views narrow, one-sided, socialistic, uninformed, and totally out of touch with reality. Is she on the side of the criminal in trying to stop people from protecting themselves against them?

And as for her Demo-friend Mayor of NY City trying to limit the size of "sugary drinks"? I have similar comments. What a goof!

"Just the facts, ma'am!"

See, isn't that better?

Bill @ 3/19/2013 7:05 PM

The Democrats cut their own throats with this same bill back in 1994. Even they weren't stupid enough to put their heads on the chopping block twice.

Tom Ret @ 3/19/2013 8:39 PM

All officers take an oath to support and protect the constitution and the 2nd amendment in particular. The ones who want to infringe on the 2nd amendment frequently make the argument that it could save some lives or state that you don't need a 20 shot magazine to hunt with. They seem to ignore history which is replete with governments killing their citizens wholesale whom they have previously disarmed or fail to acknowledge the real reason behind the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is to be protected irrespective of it being easier or harder on the law officer. Politicians like Feinstein don't want the general pubic to have guns yet they will have them for themselves or political friends or have tax payer supplied protection. At the same time they are generally weak on punishment for crimes which encourages criminals to repeat their crimes. I would hope most cops realize that criminals prey on the weak and Feinstein only enables the criminals by her ill conceived actions of trying to disarm the general law abiding public. If you get to the point where you think it is ok to infringe on the 2nd amendment why would you then think that the others won't be modified to suit whomever is in power.

Jim A @ 3/19/2013 9:00 PM

We would all hate to think that the US would go the way of many other world powers or countries that prey on their own weakened citizens - and that guns are the "only equalizer". I am sure the Germans thought that about 1938. (My mother in law was there then to experience that exact thing!)

Feinstein freely uses the First Amendment as a sword, believing it to be still applicable today, but expects others to give up their second amendment rights and states that amendment does not apply today. I think the framers of the Constitution were smart enough to see this coming, so wrote it down for all to see. I see it. I understand it. I believe it.

But it all depends on which side of the fence you are on.

If a Republican does not like guns, he does not buy one.
If a Democrat does not like guns, they want all guns outlawed.
If a Republican does not like a talk show host, he changes channels.
If a Democrat does not like a talk show host, he wants the show shut down.
If a Republican wants insurance, he he shops for it or gets a job that provides it.
If a Democrat wants insurance, he demands that everyone else pay for it.
If a Republican reads this, he will forward it to his friends.
If a Democrat reads this, he will quickly delete it because he is offended.

I will forward it. I am not anti-government and love my country, but I believe that liberalism (on both political sides) and our more recent lean to socialism are literally killing this country.

God Bless you all.

Hoshi @ 3/19/2013 9:45 PM

She's not stupid, she plans to add it as an attachment to a popular bill per Fox News

Doc @ 3/19/2013 11:22 PM

These people with that "if it only save one life" and all the other feel good lines that they use in an attempt to Persecute the decent majority, need to look at the real issues. Those medications have Warning labels about using them with children, and more attention should focus on keeping an eye on children that are taking such meds.
Violent Criminals always get off with little if any punishment, and the usual problem is a lazy or crooked Assistant District Attorney. That is why we continue to arrest the same violent criminals over and over, only to see them get soft deals. The Violent Criminals should be Prosecuted and kept locked up, ands executed when they kill.
I'll keep my guns and extra capacity magazines, but we do need something......... TERM LIMITS for all, including the Senate.
We should register ALL Violent Criminals, just like they register Sex Offienders, because they are both Violent Crimes.
The 2nd Amendment has Nothing to do with Hunting, it's all about protection.

KJ @ 3/20/2013 12:21 AM

I don't have as many years in policing with 9 years experience however I have owned and followed crime my entire life involving the use of guns and weapons of all types. Such as blunt and edged weapons. I don't believe banning semi-auto weapons and/or placing a limit on magazine capacity will decrease the frequency of these sorts of violent crimes. What I do believe will decrease violence with guns and any other type of weapon is simple....the law abiding citizens who desire to collect, carry and/or protect themselves with these weapons should take extra precaution in assuring that the weapons they possess do not get into the hands of the wrong person/s. Maybe....and this is simply a suggestion....the sell of weapons by private parties should be scrutinized more....in Texas for example the sell of guns by private parties does not require that the seller go through an FFL Dealer therefore no background investigation is completed on the buyer. The 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms but as far as I'm concerned owning a firearm is a privilege that should be taken away from those allowing such weapons to fall into the hands of the wrong people. Aside from the mass tragedies in a single episode we also have children killing themselves and/or their siblings and any other bystanders for that matter simply because that law abiding citizen failed to secure their weapons and maintain periodic checks (daily) to insure their weapons are secure. Your weapons are not secure by locking them in a safe if you leave the key to the safe accessible.

Jerome @ 3/20/2013 4:08 AM

Out come the old NRA talking points. Regulating firearms is constitutional and has been upheld by the courts. Otherwise why are automatic weapons illegal? Cop killer bullets can be regulated also...as can .50 calibers that I used in the army. In fact, the second amendment speaks to "well-regulated militia". All amendments have reasonable restrictions, including the first (free speech).

r413 @ 3/20/2013 4:27 AM

I certainly don't agree with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) nor with her views on gun control. Reducing the debate to name calling however deminishes all of us who intelligently comment here, and give those who love to disagree with a LEOs point of view just besause they bevieve we're the enemy, cannon fodder to do that very thing.

njmotorcop @ 3/20/2013 5:24 AM

Unfortunately, the subversive America haters aren't really dropping this assault on basic civil riights, they have just realized that they aren't assured of passage o they will wait for the next disaster and reintroduce it then. Other media outlets have reported the lowlife's intentions to quietly attach this ban as an amendment on some future piece of critical legislation. Our socialist whores are just like all the others, always deceitful, always sneaky, always power grabbing!

HeloCaptain @ 3/20/2013 6:22 AM

KJ,
You state, "The 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms but as far as I'm concerned owning a firearm is a privilege…"

Which is it: a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE?

A privilege can be easily revoked.
A right is a RIGHT.

Those two words are NOT synonyms.

Pat OMalley @ 3/20/2013 7:45 AM

Owning a gun is a right and can not be revoked with out disassembling the constitution, which then opens the door to revoking more of our rights. The intent of the 2nd amendment when it was established was for personal protection and in case our government ever turned on the people.

The MAJORITY (backing the NRA, that is why they are as powerful as they are) of our country does not want gun/magazine bans, but we have a small group of very arrogant people who believe that they know what is best for all of us regardless of what we think.

Bans are cheap and easy to talk about, but they don't address the real problems and only affect those of us that are law abiding in the first place...

James Bullock @ 3/20/2013 8:42 AM

When will the law makers get it through their head that it is not the instrument used in the destruction, it is the person using it.

Stephen RETTIG @ 3/20/2013 8:44 AM

We the People are going to keep our right to bear arms. She needs to spend time getting the budget and spending under control. This other crap is not important. If you do not start doing the job you were elected to do, then its time for you to get out of office. Oh, don't forget that freshman senators have the same rights as you and know as much if not more than you. Time in office means nothing if your not representing the people properly.

Vince @ 3/20/2013 10:07 AM

When will these stupid politicans realize the loss of mental health funding has helped to creat these crazy and young people with the intent to injure all of us. These same politicans cut 12 Billion dollars of money to States and localities to keep mental health projects in US working. These sick people have no one to care for them except their mothers and fathers who cannot handle the problem. These dopes want to show themselves on any microphone to talk about gun control when they should talk about the lack of mental health funding to monitor sick people who are not criminals but kill people to satisfy their mental illness.

Steve Melczer @ 3/20/2013 11:47 AM

Diane Frank-in-stin is way to old and in politics too long to know real American values. The anti-gunner, anti-American value people need to get out of American politics and try to live in the real world. What? Way too much pork barrel money to use up still?
Greedy, useless, muck-a-d-muck elitist jerk-offs.
Take a pay cut and pay freeze knuckle-heads! Then get voted out!

Dan Alloy @ 3/20/2013 12:09 PM

Unfortunately we will be forced to follow some kind of liberal attempt to take away our rights, firearms and related equipment is just at the forefront right now. It appears that the Supreme Court will strike down any new violations of our rights like what happened in Chicago. I have been in Law Enforcement for over 35 years and I take a gun with me everywhere. We are talking about Criminals here. Taking anything away from law abiding citizens will never stop or even slow crime down. Only having a bigger gun and knowing how to use it will do that.
We have many people in government who think they know how to protect us better than we do. I hate to throw this out there but "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" I will protect my family and anyone nearby so if you don't own a gun, move near someone who has one and can use it.

kckiss3101 @ 3/20/2013 2:01 PM

So is it true that Fienstien and her husband have CCW permits?? Kind of hypercritical if true..

KJ @ 3/20/2013 2:25 PM

HelloCapt. That is why I said as far as I'm concerned. A right can be taken away just as fast as a privilege can. So in that aspect they are similar. Either respect the right/privilege or lose it. You have the right to bear arms one day, unlawfully carry the next and you lose that right.

Ima Leprechaun @ 3/20/2013 8:22 PM

Whimps! A least they should place a $5 tax per bullet. Then use the money to educate the public about gun safety. There is no Consitutional mention of bullets. Of course ammo for police and the military should be tax free since those two have the only reason to have bullets but tax everybody else and make it as expensive as possible. The 2nd Amemndment only applies to the National Guard and not to individual gun ownership. I realize that gun nuts have never actually read the constitution but it doesn't say what the NRA says it does.
"Amendment II: 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."

If it meant an idividual right it would have used the word "person" not "people".

Ima Leprechaun @ 3/20/2013 8:26 PM

There is no Consitutional Right to any gun ownership especially if you learn to read. If you swear to protect and defend the US Consitution you first need to take the time to read all of it.

John @ 3/21/2013 10:31 AM

Some of you on here DO need to read the Constitution. The right to bear arms does apply to each individual. Who do you think made up the militias back then? But thats okay, go ahead and give up your rights if you want. If they mean that little to you then you're in the wrong profession and we don't need you!

jon @ 3/21/2013 6:02 PM

Feinstein, Cuomo, Ried, Bloomberg, Biden, and President Barry Davis are all U.N. puppets.

Firecop @ 3/22/2013 5:08 AM

Feinstein seemed peeved when Cruz from Texas asked her questions. She claimed he was arrogant and she implied that he had no right to question her years of experience. The truth is she is so out of touch with reality yet she lives as a legend in her own mind. Time for her to go, like so many others. Stay safe.

Tack5 @ 3/29/2013 7:30 AM

GhtObviously these gun banners plan to keep coming, year after year. They need this in order to be able to continue growing their vision of a nanny state and all the entitlements that entitles. So how do we stop them and roll them back? What is their power base? Urban districts. And we can see signs that this bias for voting for liberal politicians is starting to spread to some suburban areas also. My view is that we as defenders of our rights and liberties have been way to quick to give up on our mislead urban bothers and sisters. We have to go in there and fight like wild cats to change the representation of these people. Remember we got a product that is freedom and the cost is taking responsibility. We cannot any more vie this as a losing battle. We're the ones with REAL COMMON SENSE on our side. We have to shout out to these urban voting population the message of how liberal politicians are offering false and unsustainable prosperity to their subject populations. We must show them how the spread of freedom can bring back private sector jobs and prosperity for all. This will not be easy, but must be done. Get ready to knock on city doors in 2014.

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

Safariland Adds 7TS Holster Fits for Glock and SIG Sauer Firearms
Safariland announced today the expansion of the 7TS Holster Series with new fits for the...
Daily News: Police Need Military-Grade Gear
A New York Daily News article talks about the need for military-grade equipment for local...
Feds Want to Review Military Equipment for Police
Politicians in Washington want a review of the government's military surplus grants for...
Kai USA Limited Edition Products to be Sold Direct-to-Consumer Only
Kai USA Ltd. will soon sell all Limited Edition products for the company's Kershaw and...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine