Feinstein proposes new ban on some assault weapons
January 24th, 2013
12:15 PM ET
1 year ago

Feinstein proposes new ban on some assault weapons

Washington (CNN) – Almost six weeks after the Connecticut shooting rampage that killed 20 first-graders, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday proposed a new federal ban on some assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, as well as ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

With assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles displayed on one side and police officers who support her proposal behind her, Feinstein said the goal is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time."

FULL STORY

Filed under: Dianne Feinstein • Gun rights • Senate
soundoff (133 Responses)
  1. Paul

    It's her mission in life...she just can't let it go. Like Emmanuel and Obama, Feinstein certainly doesn't let a crisis go to waste.

    January 24, 2013 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  2. Bob in CA

    Sure, let her bring them. Have her hold the weapon properly and instruct us on the weapon and why it should be banned. Have her explain the parts of the gun that make it bad. CNN can't even get it right as it refers to gun magazines as clips as stated in the last part of the article. Go figure.

    January 24, 2013 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  3. chris

    I like how hundreds of thousands of so called "assault rifles" have been purchased in the last month.
    LOL every store is out of them.

    January 24, 2013 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  4. Bill Rodgers

    jpmichigan – Every type of gun currently available has been used in wars, somewhere in the world. There are still people in the Middle East using old Mausers that date back to the late 19th century.

    Until a viable non lethal weapon is developed to take the place of current guns, and can be used to effectively defend oneself from the thugs who prey upon the citizenry of this country, you will never get rid of them. If the manufactures would incorporate biometric gun locks into the weapons, then you could reduce the risk f guns that are stolen being used to commit crimes. Mandate that prior to supporting a ban against all guns.

    January 24, 2013 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  5. Al

    More useless laws from our useless politicians. What's new...

    January 24, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  6. William

    Lets be very clear. No Assult Rifle was fired in Newtown. Only Handguns were used.

    January 24, 2013 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
  7. Pam from Iowa

    Please don't ban assault weapons!
    How will members of the NRA be able to hit that squirrel when they are out hunting??
    Oh wait...thats right....they don't hunt...they go to game preserves where the animals are tied to a tree and call it 'hunting'!!

    January 24, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm |
  8. Donna

    > Feinstein said the goal is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time."

    This is essentially the Democrats plan. They won't ban all guns but they will pass some many laws as to make it impossible to buy one. The Second Amendment will suffer death by a thousand cuts (laws). Wake up America.

    January 24, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm |
  9. Brian B.

    How is the Sandy Hook tragedy related to "assault weapons"???

    They're not.

    NBC just reported yesterday that only handguns were used to kill those kids and teachers...

    Why don't they question the pharmaceutical companies for turning our society into zombies???

    Oh, that's right, the drug companies have Obama and co. in their back pocket...

    January 24, 2013 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm |
  10. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    Feinstein proposes new ban on some assault weapons

    Dianne Feinstein with tears...
    days after Sandy Hook could not contain herself..
    "I" have been working on this (gun regulation) for over a year!!!

    During the election cycle.... DEAD SILENCE.

    "some assault weapons" ???

    Exactly what "assault weapons" are NOT included ???

    January 24, 2013 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  11. Just Kyle

    Why is it that every time someone starts an assault weapon debate, the first thing that those who support banning so called assault weapons say is "no body needs an assault rifle" or "no body needs a high capacity magazine". Don't these people realize that this is America? Since when do people base their purchase decisions on "need"? Does anyone "need" a sports car? Does anyone "need" a 3000 sq ft. home? Does anyone "need" an ipad? If everyone in this country only bought things that they needed, our economic system would collapse within a month. Capitalism is all about buying things that you "want", not what you "need".

    If you think that people shouldn't have assault rifles, then that's fine. After all, no one is trying to restrict your first amendment rights, or make you pay a tax on speaking your mind, or limit what you are allowed to say and what you're not allowed to say. But don't make the stupid argument that people shouldn't have assault rifles because they don't need them. "Need" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    January 24, 2013 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  12. jj

    Its really funny that Diane Feinstein is all for this considering her husband is an arms dealer. Thats how she made all her money. She should step down as senator or forefit all the cash she has earned by selling weapons.

    January 24, 2013 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  13. concerned

    The so called grandfather clause of her bill includes registering "assault rifles" through the NFA (national firearms act) where machine guns are registered. This registration is a lengthy procedure and includes a $200 tax per firearm. Think the BATF has the man power and buget to register millions of these things? Just another scheme by the DEMS to take our guns and impose more taxes.

    January 24, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  14. James

    FREEDOM not fear. Not freedom from fear, no law will give you that.

    January 24, 2013 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  15. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    Let's face it, there are more registered anti-gun advocates in America than there are pro-gun advocates. Let's see how the NRA led GOP fare in the next election.

    January 24, 2013 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  16. sonny chapman

    As a hunter, I can say these WEAPONS have ZERO use in the woods. It is unethical to hunt with these WEAPONS. They lack the fire power to ethically kill a deer. These WEAPONS do do an excellent job on humans by those who want to do Mass Murder. These WEAPONS also do an excellent job on targets by those who NEED to have them because it is their RIGHT under the Second Amendment. What about MY RIGHTS to not have to bear witness to this carnage every few months ?

    January 24, 2013 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  17. Trevor in Nebraska

    I would love to see a "clip" that holds more than 8 rounds, and that does not belong to an M1 grand. These ppl are banning things that they don't have any clue as to what they are. This woman is a mockery of the US political system, I say lets ban politicians, they are a blight on this once great country. The US should be run according to what the ppl want, not personal agendas of politicaly corrupt politicians, and money greased presidents

    January 24, 2013 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  18. Just Kyle

    @ Pam
    Why is it that everyone in favor of an assault weapons ban thinks that everyone opposed is A) a conservative, B) a republican, C) a hunter, and D) a member of the NRA?

    I don't hunt. I'm mostly liberal. I'm not a republican. And I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I wish to join. What I am is a logical thinking person who sees that these so called "assault weapons" are responsible for less than 1% of all murders in this country that that banning them is a political move that is not in the interest of public safety, but only in the interest of certain politicians' political agendas.

    January 24, 2013 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  19. Rahm

    Our extremely strict gun laws are working well in Chicago. Last weekend we only had 16 murders. If you want safety like this, then adopt our strict laws. If law abiding people had weapons as well, then there would be more violence and some criminals would end up dead. I know if given enough time that all of the criminals will see the err of their ways and stop killing people.

    January 24, 2013 01:08 pm at 1:08 pm |
  20. Michael in FL

    If ANY firearm (gun) killed a single person then spoons made me fat! Over 25,000 people die every year so, we should ban gravity as well!

    January 24, 2013 01:09 pm at 1:09 pm |
  21. Ancient Texan

    Her bill won't get through the House. If by hook or crook, some bill that lhat leads to confication should pass, it'll get really ugly and bloody.

    January 24, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  22. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    @Just Kyle

    Banning assault weapons is just a political move??? Really? Do you have the courage and the guts to tell that to the face of the families of the Newton, Auroro, Colombine, Tucson victims and to the families of victims of other mass shootings in America??? I didn't think so.

    January 24, 2013 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  23. Joe

    An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.
    These are already banned.... Duh

    January 24, 2013 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  24. Philia

    This Press Conference was perfect! Police Chiefs, Mayors, and Victims making the case for sane Gun Control. The momentum is building, there's more of us than there is of them, it's finally going to happen, thank God!

    January 24, 2013 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  25. Rudy NYC

    Just Kyle wrote:

    I don't hunt. I'm mostly liberal. I'm not a republican. And I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I wish to join. What I am is a logical thinking person who sees that these so called "assault weapons" are responsible for less than 1% of all murders in this country that that banning them is a political move that is not in the interest of public safety, but only in the interest of certain politicians' political agendas.
    ----------------------
    So, you're okay with that 1% you cite being murdered every year. It's okay with you that criminals and terrorists are can acquire the weapons just as easily as you can. It is not an assault on your gun rights. This question of the constitutionality of restricting various types of weapons, including assault rifles, is already settled law in the US Supreme Court. One of the conservative justices wrote the opinion attesting to that fact. Assault weapons bans are constitutional.

    Name one reason why you need an assault rifle. It is not a sportsmen weapon used for hunting. No one can provide a valid reason for owning an assault rifle that does not involve using the rifle to kill human beings. The best anyone can come up with is there are used in shooting competitions and the larger clips and magazines make it easier to shoot large numbers of rounds. Well, I think the skill it takes to reload should be part of the competition, too. Folks always claim that it takes no time to reload.

    January 24, 2013 01:22 pm at 1:22 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6