Feinstein Says Bills to Ban Assault Weapons Will Be a Priority

The California senator tells “Meet the Press” that bills will be introduced on the first day Congress returns.

Bills to return a ban on assault weapons in the United States will be introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives on the first day they are in session next month, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein vowed on national television Sunday.

“We’ve tried to take my bill from ’94 to 2004 and perfect it,” the California Democrat said on the NBC “Meet The Press” program.

Feinstein authored a federal ban on assault weapons in 1994, a ban that was allowed to expire by Congress during the George W. Bush administration. On NBC today, Feinstein agreed with gun control proponent Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor, who said he wants “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

On the NBC program, California’s senior senator said her lawyers have carefully crafted a constitutional bill that will “exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not ... fall under the bill.”

She said the 1994 assault rifle bill that she wrote was never challenged in court by the National Rifle Association.

“Back in ’93, when I told Joe Biden who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I was going to move this as an amendment on the Crime Bill, he laughed at me,” Feinstein said.

“He said, ‘you’re new here. Wait till you learn,’” Feinstein related.

“And we got it through the Senate, we got it through the House, the White

House came alive and ... the bill was passed.”

The NRA has declined to comment on gun issues since Friday’s slaying of 20 grade school children and seven adults in Connecticut.

Police have said the children were shot multiple times in rapid succession, but have not said if the murder weapons had been in automatic mode—illegal under current laws—or semi-automatic mode—possibly illegal under the 1994 law.

Feinstein, who just won her fourth Senate election, was propelled to the forefront of California politics when she suddenly became mayor of San Francisco when two politicians were murdered there in 1978. She has been a leading voice for gun control since then.

Feinstein’s quotes were transcribed by NBC News.

-City News Service

met00 December 20, 2012 at 09:30 PM
1) you posted the same thing twice 2) you should try to reply in the thread for consistency of the debate. Circles? I have actually been rather consistent in my statements here that I believe that the Second Amendment is being misinterpreted by the gun lobby based on the historical record. I have supplied more than enough documentation to support what I believe. If the facts I have posed "bedazzle" you, then may I suggest a good class at one of the local colleges on US History covering the period of 1770-1790. As for your UN rant, that's really a bad case of projection. I have no idea what gun laws the UN is trying to push, nor do I care. This recent tragedy in CT is just the latest in an ongoing series of tragedies in which mass murder was either attempted or done by someone having in their possession a weapon of mass destruction. The defenders of owning these weapons always claim the Second Amendment as their protection, or worse, their right to have and even use these weapons. Since I clearly believe that those claims are false, and have presented factual documentation to support my case, I believe that the other side should want to clear up any misinterpretations they believe I may have and present theirs. Instead I get wild conspiracy theories about the UN. While George and I may not agree, and may never change either's mind, you can look at our thread as one where ideas are being discussed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Stephen Longo December 20, 2012 at 09:56 PM
But who needs a gun when you have body guards
Stephen Longo December 20, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Again, remember that when you and your phone (calling 911) are the only thing between the bad guy and your family, the police are 5 minutes away at best.
Panglonymous December 20, 2012 at 11:16 PM
If the Federal government has not clarified an ambiguous amendment definitively, is it possible that its ambiguity better serves it? If the Federal government has allowed a popular interpretation to develop and persist "in error" for many generations, does that popular interpretation not eventually become the law (similar to the way a word's popular usage may come to dominate/supplant its earlier/original senses?)
barium March 15, 2013 at 01:00 AM
Isn't it predictable but funny how lefties like Feinstein resort to bullying attacks and non-response to logic & reason when they can't engage in debate and discussion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCehCjuB7AM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »