Feinstein adds AWB as amendment to Manchin/Toomey bill

[Vertnut]

If it's this tough to get votes in the senate, it's DOA in the house.

[Forever_frost]

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) told host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that supporters of new gun control legislation do not yet have the votes to pass it, despite defeating a Republican-led filibuster attempt last week.
Durbin is the Senate Majority Whip, responsible for counting his party's votes on key legislative proposals.
The specific bill facing the Senate is the Manchin-Toomey compromise on background checks, which would expand such requirements to gun shows, among other provisions. Currently, private sales between individuals at gun shows do not require background checks--just as private sales anywhere do not require them.
The following is a rough transcript of Sen. Durbin's remarks in a joint appearance with Minority Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):
Wallace: Senator Durbin, you and Senator Cornyn, as the Whips in the Senate, are the vote counters, the guys who know whether or not there are enough votes. Are there enough votes when this comes up this week for you to pass the Manchin-Toomey compromise on expanded background checks?
Durbin: I think John will concede Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is one of the mot conservative members of the Republican caucus and Joe Manchin, the most conservative of the Democratic caucus. The two have a proposal supported by 90% of the people in America, supported by 75% of the members of the National Rifle Asociation. I hope the 16 Senators [Republicans who broke the filibuster attempt] and even more will step up and join this approach to make sure that the background checks extend beyond where they are today to reach the 40% of firearms sold--
Wallace: Do you have the votes?
Durbin: We haven't whipped it. When it gets down to it we have to ask, should we try to keep guns out of the hands of felons and people so mentally unstable, they shouldn't own a firearm.
Wallace: Senator Cornyn, do you have the votes to block it?
Cornyn: I'm interested in the debate and discussion but I would make the point if Manchin-Toomey were the law of the land today, none of the four of the most recent tragedies would have been prevented.
Though several Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the filibuster, it was not clear that they would support the final Manchin-Toomey bill, nor was it clear that conservative Democrats would do so. Many "red-state Democrats" face re-election in 2014 and could see their chances hurt by support for the bill.
The Manchin-Toomey measure is considered the last attempt at saving a compromise on gun control after earlier, more ambitious efforts failed. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) led an effort to revive and expand the assault weapons ban (AWB), but it lacked support and Majority Leader Harry Reid declined to bring it to the floor.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/14/Durbin-We-Don-t-Yet-Have-the-Votes-for-Gun-Control

[dee]

If they were purchased in Texas they were not registered. FYI there is a big difference between an actual registration and a background check.

X2 and all they require to know If it Is a long gun or handgun no specifics.

[DON SVO]

If they were purchased in Texas they were not registered. FYI there is a big difference between an actual registration and a background check.

I've used an FFL for all purchases, they have my name in their logbooks attached to the serial #. The BATFE is known for "acquiring" serial numbers from FFLs already (illegally). If the gov wants to initiate this mass-registration bullshit, one of the first things they will do is tap each and every licensed dealer and FFL. So, in short, be rest assured FFLs will probably have to surrender their logbooks or/they are going to get confiscated.

[LANTIRN]

What gets me is that they want registration of ALL firearms... great. Sure.

People who wish to purchase firearms legally get background checked. Every weapon I've ever bought has been registered in my name. The background check stuff wouldn't affect me, I've been doing my purchases through a FFL since day one. Big Brother already knows I have a few.

All the while, the stolen firearms or the ones sold illegally (because the seller and buyer both know they're up to no good) are still off the radar. Most of the recent mass shootings were done by people who had no reason to possess the weapons legally. Little nutjob from Newtown? Mom bought him and gave him the weapons. Holmes from Colorado? History of mental illness and a school shrink who had tried alerting authorities prior to the shooting and was ignored. In short... the new background check stops nothing.

If they were purchased in Texas they were not registered. FYI there is a big difference between an actual registration and a background check.

[DON SVO]

What gets me is that they want registration of ALL firearms... great. Sure.

People who wish to purchase firearms legally get background checked. Every weapon I've ever bought has been registered in my name. The background check stuff wouldn't affect me, I've been doing my purchases through a FFL since day one. Big Brother already knows I have a few.

All the while, the stolen firearms or the ones sold illegally (because the seller and buyer both know they're up to no good) are still off the radar. Most of the recent mass shootings were done by people who had no reason to possess the weapons legally. Little nutjob from Newtown? Mom bought him and gave him the weapons. Holmes from Colorado? History of mental illness and a school shrink who had tried alerting authorities prior to the shooting and was ignored. In short... the new background check stops nothing.

[Vertnut]

She is considered to be a "moderate Northeastern Republican", at best. In other words, a RINO, like most yankee republicans.

[JC316]

So much for representing the people that voted for you.

It's not about representing the people that voted for you, its about pushing your own agendas and kissing the correct ass. Didn't you get the memo?

[GhostTX]

[...]
Collins, who is seeking re-election next year, told NBC that her endorsement was “not a popular thing in my state.”
[...]

So much for representing the people that voted for you.

[Forever_frost]

They have their first Republican who has said she'll back it.

Sen. Susan Collins said on Saturday that she would support the bipartisan compromise reached on expanded background checks — the first Republican senator to say so publicly.

“I do intend to support it,” the three-term Maine senator told NBC News.

Collins said she reviewed the bipartisan compromise, announced on Wednesday by GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and called it a “reasonable” approach.

Under the deal, background checks would be expanded to gun shows and online sales.

Further, Collins described the compromise as “a responsible breakthrough from two people who have far better NRA rankings than I have.”

Both senators hold “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association.

Collins, who is seeking re-election next year, told NBC that her endorsement was “not a popular thing in my state.”

In addition, GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois worked privately with Toomey and Manchin on the legislation and is expected to support it, NBC reports.

Collins told NBC that she would have backed a plan that required universal background checks, including individual sales. She cited the instance of a father giving his daughter a gun for protection when she “moves to the big city.”

Maine, Collins said, has one of the highest gun-ownership rates in the nation — more than 40 percent — while also ranking as the safest state regarding violent crime.

She added that she was “being hit hard” and “being besieged by all sides” in the gun debate, referring to ads targeting her by the conservative National Association of Gun Rights and President Barack Obama’s nonprofit group, Organizing for America.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sen...#ixzz2QOwd4BHi
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

[GhostTX]

I am a little on edge right now, but I don't see where it says you have to surrender your shit (or rather your heirs do) when you die. I read her original bill, and assuming the text of her amendment is the same then transferring pre-ban guns will be legal.

IANAL, but I believe when you pass, that would be deemed a transfer.

[Moose242]

I am a little on edge right now, but I don't see where it says you have to surrender your shit (or rather your heirs do) when you die. I read her original bill, and assuming the text of her amendment is the same then transferring pre-ban guns will be legal.

[GhostTX]

That was removed.

Oh really?

SEC. 403. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 123(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

``(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
[...]
(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise

[Page: S2600] GPO's PDF

prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon--

``(i) sold or transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

``(ii) that the individual purchased, or otherwise obtained, for official use before such retirement;

``(D) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General; or

``(E) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a firearm specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearm was manufactured on the date of introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

``(5) For purposes of paragraph (4)(A), the term `campus law enforcement officer' means an individual who is--

``(A) employed by a private institution of higher education that is eligible for funding under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.);

``(B) responsible for the prevention or investigation of crime involving injury to persons or property, including apprehension or detention of persons for such crimes;

``(C) authorized by Federal, State, or local law to carry a firearm, execute search warrants, and make arrests; and

``(D) recognized, commissioned, or certified by a government entity as a law enforcement officer.

``(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and, if available, date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit a copy of the record established under this paragraph to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r113:1:./temp/~r113Y6ghpq:e0:

Secure Storage or Safety Device Requirement for Grandfathered Semiautomatic Assault Weapons.--It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to store or keep under the dominion or control of that person any grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, will be accessible to an individual prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under subsection (g), (n), or (x), or any provision of State law, unless the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is--

``(1) carried on the person, or within such close proximity that the person can readily retrieve and use the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon as if the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon were carried on the person; or

``(2) locked by a secure gun storage or safety device that the prohibited individual has no ability to access.''.
[...]
) Seizure and Forfeiture of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.--Section 924(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by inserting ``or large capacity ammunition feeding device'' after ``firearm or ammunition'' each time it appears;

(B) by inserting ``or large capacity ammunition feeding device'' after ``firearms or ammunition'' each time it appears; and

(C) by striking ``or (k)'' and inserting ``(k), (r), (v), or (w)'';

(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``or large capacity ammunition feeding devices'' after ``firearms or quantities of ammunition''; and

(3) in paragraph (3)(E), by inserting ``922(r), 922(v), 922(w),'' after ``922(n),''.

(e) Appendix A.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r113:1:./temp/~r113Y6ghpq:e17481:

[Moose242]

No, she just has the part where you have to give up any firearm on her AWB when you die.

That was removed.

[GhostTX]

Yes. There can't and won't be confiscation.

That is nowhere in Feinstein's amendment. She knows what would happen.

No, she just has the part where you have to give up any firearm on her AWB when you die.