Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Bill Aims At Handguns

Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban” actually aims to do more than just ban automatic “assault” rifles. The California Senator summarizes her 2013 bill here on her website:

“[The bill] bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms; certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.”

 Writing for Breitbart, Awr Hawkins points out that her bill will ban many popular handguns:

“That’s right, after all the criticism of the AR-15 and the holier-than-thou speeches about how no one needs a military-style rifle with a 30-round magazine the details of the ban betray a gun grab that includes semi-automatic pistols that use “a detachable magazine” and have “one military characteristic.” This can only mean that the most popular handguns in the world for both civilian and military use are being targeted. These would include Glocks, Sig Sauers, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, H&K, and Colt, yet would by no means be limited to these handguns alone.”

 Feinstein’s 2013 bill is in direct opposition to opinion polls that media and government officials claim to represent to justify more laws. Gallup just did a poll about a week after the Sandy Hook murder, and people’s opposition to a handgun ban is at an all time high. 74% of those who were questioned stated that they did not think there should be any ban on handguns. Conversely, those in favor of such a ban were at an all-time low of 24%, the lowest it had ever been since Gallup first asked the question back in 1959.

If Gallup’s poll is truly representative of Americans’ opinions, I don’t think Feinstein’s bill stands much of a chance as it’s written now. It’s too drastic. I imagine a ban on so-called assault rifles would unfortunately succeed, but not a ban on handguns. Not yet. They’ll need a few more media-sensationalized massacres committed with handguns before they’ll try to ban them. Of course, it’s not like they’ve never shoved through “emergency” legislation before in spite of public opposition. I just think in this case, there’s too much at stake politically for the Democrats to actually enact a handgun ban. Hopefully, it will fail, but it will for sure be resurrected at the next opportune time.

[js-disqus]