Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms

Midnight Raver

Active Member
Got this from Comcast news: ... n.Control/

WASHINGTON ? Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.

One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.

"What a joke," said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.

Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.

Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. "I can't imagine what the difference is," Hanlon said.

President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.

A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein's proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.

Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to "make crystal clear" that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.

The December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 students and educators dead forced Washington to focus on curbing gun violence, a risky political move not tried in decades.

The gun industry, which is fighting any sort of ban, says gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest it's ever been, with more than 100 million firearms owners.

Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have traveled around the country in an effort to gain support for new laws. Feinstein's proposal is the only sweeping piece of legislation designed to ban assault weapons currently being considered.

But some gun experts say the lists of banned and exempted firearms show a lack of understanding and expertise of guns.

"There's no logic to it," said Greg Danas, president of a Massachusetts-based expert witness business and firearms ballistic laboratory. "What kind of effect is it going to have?"

Feinstein's bill defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that has one of several military characteristics that are specified in her legislation. Examples of those characteristics include a pistol grip, which makes a firearm easier to hold, and a forward grip, which makes the firearm easier to stabilize to improve accuracy. The definition is similar to the one in Congress' original ban on assault weapons, which went into effect in 1994 and was widely criticized for outlawing firearms based on cosmetic features.

Feinstein was behind the 1994 law which, at the time, protected more than 600 firearms. The current bill would exempt by name and model more than 2,200 firearms by name and model. Feinstein said her staff had worked for more than a year to draft updates for the ban that expired in 2004, and it was apparent in the wake of recent mass shootings that now was the time to introduce a new bill. She said her staff consulted with law enforcement agencies and policy experts for months to create the expanded list.

Naming firearms that would remain legal under an assault weapons ban is a politically motivated gesture that was used to help pass the original ban in the early 1990s, people familiar with the process said.

Any firearm that does not fall within the law's definition of an assault weapon would not be banned. As a result, the list gives vulnerable politicians cover from constituents who do not want to give up their firearms.

For example, a politician can look at the list and assure a constituent that the government would not ban the firearm he or she loves to use for deer hunting. Under both the 1994 law and the currently proposed one, the government would not have the authority to take away guns people already legally own. The ban would only apply to specific firearms manufactured and sold after the law is enacted.

A list of exempted firearms was not part of Feinstein's original assault weapons ban two decades ago, said Michael Lenett, one of the lead congressional staffers on gun control issues in 1994. A separate bill in circulation exempted far fewer hunting and sporting firearms, Lenett said.

The purpose of creating such a list was to assure people that the government was not going after any legitimate hunting or sporting weapons. "The other purpose of the list was to have a high profile way of assuring certain folks ? including legislators ? that we would not be going after their weapons that they use for those legitimate purposes," Lenett said.

"It was a win-win situation," Lenett recalled, because, he said, if the list could help pick up votes needed to pass the bill and temper some of the opposition, it could assuage some opponents of the ban without making the law less effective.

But gun experts say the lists in 1994 and the expanded lists of today don't make much sense.

"The bill demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the product they are purporting to regulate," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association based in Newtown, Conn., that represents gun manufacturers. "I have no idea how they arrived at this list. It would seem to be random, bordering on throwing darts at a dart board."

For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP.

Feinstein said there was disagreement among firearms experts, law enforcement and gun safety organizations about whether to include the M-1 Carbine on the list of banned weapons.

"It has been used in multiple police shootings, and was originally used by U.S. soldiers on the battlefield," Feinstein said. "On the other hand, it comes in models that would not meet the military characteristics test." She said she decided to limit banned weapons to those that met the definition outlined in the bill.

At a Jan. 30 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said Feinstein's bill is "based on falsehoods to people that do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance characteristics of guns that they are trying to ban through that bill are different than the performance characteristics that they're not trying to ban."

The Ruger Mini-14 is a perfect example.

The model that has a fixed stock would be exempted by Feinstein's ban; the gun was protected in the 1994 law as well. A Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible and folding stock would be illegal.

The guns fire the same caliber bullet and can take detachable magazines that could hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. The folding stock only reduces the gun's length by 2.75 inches, according to the manufacturer's website.

"It's irrelevant," Edmund Mireles, an FBI agent who survived the Miami shootout, said of the differences in features. "They're equally dangerous."

Mark D. Jones, a senior law enforcement adviser for the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said the folding stock does not affect the firearm's lethal potential.

"Given that both firearms will accept a 30 round or larger magazine, it renders the differences between them entirely cosmetic," Jones said.

Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, said the Ruger Mini-14 model that would be banned under Feinstein's legislation is easier to hold while firing because it has a pistol grip, and it's easier to hide because it has a collapsible stock. That's what makes it more dangerous that the Ruger Mini-14 with the fixed stock which would be exempted under the Feinstein bill, she said.

"And that's supposed to save somebody's life?" asked Hanlon, the FBI agent shot alongside Mireles.

Hanlon considered the differences between the two models and whether the events of April 11, 1986, would have been different if the shooter used a Ruger Mini-14 with a fixed stock. "I don't think it would have changed a damn thing," he said. "I don't see what makes that gun less dangerous."


It's the absurdity of how they are choosing what to ban that gets me. It reminds me of when they thought that the Ruger 10/22 was just like an "assault rifle" up here after minor cosmetic changes and a larger magazine thrown in.

Pathetic. :roll:
Those FBI agents sure are stupid.

That being said, everyone that was into guns during the previous ban already independantly reached this conclusion. Guns were banned 100% based upon how they looked. At least with the 1934 National Firearms Act guns were banned based on how they functioned. Both sets of laws are flagrant violations of Liberty but at least one group of people took the time to logically think about their legislation instead of just "do something."


New Member
Anthing seem a bit fishy here? "For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP."

She was drafting this legislation in NOVEMBER and Early DECEMBER? WHY? What would make her think this was going to be a new issue for America?

Something really stinks.
craigp said:
Anthing seem a bit fishy here? "For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP."

She was drafting this legislation in NOVEMBER and Early DECEMBER? WHY? What would make her think this was going to be a new issue for America?

Something really stinks.
She wrote the original and has been trying to reintroduce it into Congress almost every single year since it expired in 2004. She is dedicated to destroying Civil Rights.


New Member
The article is complete Orwellian New Speak. "Freedom is slavery; bans are protection."

First off, most of the 2200 firearms on the "not banned" list wouldn't be targeted anyways. There are many obscure curios and relics, bolt actions, etc.

Second off, the law is a BAN. It isn't protecting anything. It is like saying, "Hey, I broke into your house, raped your wife, and took the silver -- but I protected your dog." "Protecting" the right to own 2200 firearms would mean a provision like, "Oh, and you get a refundable tax credit for buying any weapon on this list!" or "state/local gun control laws do not apply to any of the 2200 firearms on this list so any citizen can possess them, even in New York City."

Finally, "legitimate hunting or sporting weapons" as the 2A was envisioned include shooting agents of tyranny in the face as efficiently as possible. Hunting redcoated soldiers was the original "legitimate hunting" purpose, and seeing who could bag the most British or Hessian officers as rapidly as possible was the original "legitimate sport."

The article is complete and utter mainstream media bullshit propaganda, intended to convince Fudds that their fudd gun is safe... For now, until it is declared a sniper rifle (scoped bolt action hunting rifle), cop-killer penetrating police body armor (30-30 lever rifle), or street sweeping baby killing destructive device (shotgun).

John Canuck

New Member
Yes on all counts. The anti's learned the last time that they could cleave the gun owners into two camps. On one side were lots and lots of Fudd's that weren't paying attention and could be hoodwinked. On the other side were unorganized "sporting rifle" types that the Fudd's didn't care about and were a minority of NRA members so they were the fringe element. They could easily be shafted in the dim light of the pre-internet political scene. All that was needed was some assault-weapon branding, and an assurance that hunting was safe.

Fast forward to today. The Fudd's are the minority (at least I think) and the users of modern sporting rifles can more easily watch the shenanigans of the legislators through the magic of the internet. Now, Feinstein and her ilk have spent the last decade waiting for an opportunity. They've been telling each other in their little bubble that when the time is right, they can re-produce the last ban, only bigger and badder. The use of an already operating presidential campaign vehicle turned astro-turfed propaganda distribution network and a compliant lame-stream media that will parrot whatever they are told by the anointed one makes their job a little easier.

However, in that time, it appears that the majority of gun owners have also changed a bit. I admit to being shocked at the response to this latest attack. I've heard from several public NRA types that the second amendment is not about hunting (hurray!). I've also heard that there will be no compromise and the latest word is stand and fight. Good. I certainly hope guns owners in states that have congress critters that will vote for a ban are making calls and sending e-mails. The people in DC need to know that there will be repercussions to a yes vote.

As a side note, I've noticed that the mantra from the anti's is changing a little. They used to be all about having a conversation about gun control. "Let's have a serious conversation" they would say. I'm hearing now that we don't need a conversation (because they take too long) and that we need to act now. "Demand a plan", "They deserve a vote", derp derp. They need legislators to vote yes, before they realize they might lose their job.


New Member
Tigerstripe said:
in case someone doesnt know, look up "demand a plan" on u tube.
That's Mayors Against Illegal Gun's BS... Mayors of Columbia, Charleston and Sumter are members, by the way.

I usually leave negative reviews in the comments (which tend to be disabled, "the new civil discourse" means one-way demands from them), give a thumbs down, and report the video to YouTube for Hate Speech. :D


From what I've said before, the "List" is meaningless.

Feinsteins proposal also bans ?any semiautomatic firearm which uses a magazine ? handgun, rifle or shotgun ? equipped with a ?pistol grip'". Reading further, Pistol grip is defined as ?a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.?? I have never seen a gun with something you can grip.

This means the above gun list means nothing as ANY semi auto firearm,pistol, rifle, or shotgun, with a "grip" and a magazine, will be BANNED.