courtesy epicsports.comI’ve been holding my nose and reading through SB 150, Dianne Feinstein’s unconstitutional sludge of gun bans and slippery definitions. None of us should be surprised that there’s plenty of dark smelly stuff buried in there, because that’s what you’re going to find when you snoop around under the occupied outhouse that is the Congressional gun-control caucus. If you want the scatological details and can stand the aroma, hold your own nose and make the jump . . .

Definitional Doo-Doo

The explicit bans on ARs and AKs are bad enough, but SB 150 conceals even more of its malice in the “Related Definitions” section. Pistol grips, folding stocks and barrel shrouds are given legal definitions which stretch and distort their ordinary English meanings beyond any recognition. She doesn’t just want your ARs: she wants everything. She’s just taking your ARs first.

Folding Stocks

DiFi harbors an extreme and pathological hatred for those shoulder things that go up. Or go in. Or go out, or over, or around…or anything. In fact, the distinguished Senator’s foldingstockophobia is so virulent that I’m starting to think her mother was run over by a delivery truck full of folding rifle stocks.

Any semi-auto (and perhaps any firearm period) is banned if it’s equipped with a “telescoping, folding or detachable stock.” It gets worse from here, because as Inigo Montoya noted, I do not think that means what you think it means. DiFi’s definition includes any

“stock that folds, telescopes, detaches or otherwise operates to reduce the size, length or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.”

This obviously includes adjustable and removable cheek rests, adjustable-length target stocks, and possibly even removable recoil pads. It also includes any stock that moves in any way whatsoever, or which can be removed. Since any stock can be removed, this could be expansively read to ban just about anything you can put your shoulder against. As stupid as that sounds, it’s also consistent with DiFi’s unbelievably broad definition of ‘pistol grip’, below.

The Shroud Hoax

Every long gun needs to give you somewhere to put your support hand. When I see the front end of an AK or AR, I see a ‘fore-end.’ And when I read ‘barrel shroud’ I think of the perforated steel shroud of an MG34 or M1919 light machinegun, or maybe a phony suppressor on a semi-auto MAC-10 clone.

Boy was I wrong, at least according to this bill. DiFi defines a ‘barrel shroud’ as

“…a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel; and…does not include (i) a slide that partially or completely encloses the barrel; or an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.”

This definition would actually ban the M1 Garand and Mini-14, but those popular rifles are strangely exempted. I characterize this ‘definition’ as another part of the anti-gunners’ attempt to roll back civilian arms to the dawn of the 20th century: anything that looks too modern is evil.

And maybe they’re right. After all, people don’t kill people: barrel shrouds kill people.

Pistol Grip Paranoia

If you thought the definition of ‘barrel shroud’ was a bit, well, inclusive, take a gander at this:

“The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”

“Any other characteristic?” Really? If guns were shaped like bowling balls, DiFi would save the children by banning finger holes.

This inartful (or brilliantly deceptive) wording seems to open the door to banning ALL semi-auto rifles, instead of merely the 200 or so that DiFi bothers to list by name. If you can grip it, it must have some characteristic that functions as a grip, right? That means it’s a ‘pistol grip’ in DiFi-land, and that means it’s an ‘assault weapon.’

This bit of definitional sophistry reminds me of Robert Preston’s song “Ya Got Trouble (Right Here In River City) ” in 1962’s The Music Man, but I digress and there’s plenty more to discuss.

Ban The Belt And Spare The Child!

DiFi takes special care to ban belt-fed semiautomatic rifles, because we all know they’re responsible for giving repulsive demagogues panic attacks thousands of deaths each year. I’m not aware of a single violent crime in the last fifty years which involved a belt-fed semiautomatic rifle, but DiFi urges us to think of the children and ban them just in case.

Expressio Unius, Exclusio Alterius

It is a rule of statutory interpretation that when a law lists certain items, it implicitly excludes all others. SB 150 benevolently lists a paltry handful of semi-autos which we subjects will be permitted to retain. Every other semi-auto, by implication, is forbidden.

What’s allowed is listed on a very short list, and it includes only the following: Garands, Mini-14s and M1 carbines (but remember, no shoulder thingies that go up), Remington 740s, Marlin Camp Carbines, Browning BARs (the hunting kind) and SKS’s with original 10-round magazines. She also seems to have a warm spot for discontinued and supremely expensive H&K hunting semi-automatic rifles, but so do I. It’s very convenient for DiFi that most of these exempt patterns (H&Ks, Marlins, Garands and M1 Carbines) aren’t in production any more, and BAR hunting rifles are very uncommon and very expensive.

SKSs and Mini-14s are okay. (For now, with small magazines and wooden stocks and no barrel shrouds and no flash hiders and no bayonet lugs and no threaded barrels and no grenade launcher sights.) But if ‘safety’ is the goal I really don’t understand why these two designs should get a pass.

After all, they’re common enough that they’ve actually been used (albeit very rarely) in at least a few crimes and gang shootings, while FALs and Calicos and H&Ks and Benelli M4s (and on and on and on) have had basically zero use in connection with any violent crimes ever.

I guess we’re supposed to ignore this illogic (and the greater illogic of the whole bill) and be grateful that our rulers would let us keep any semi-automatic rifles at all.

Where Are The Exempt Handguns?

There aren’t any, but there are a lot of forbidden ones. Any handgun (Tec-9) which doesn’t hold its magazine in the pistol grip is banned, as well as any handgun (Walther SP22) with a barrel shroud that’s not the slide, as well as any handgun (SIGs) with a threaded barrel, or any with a second pistol grip (which are already AOW’s under the NFA rules) or any (Grendel) with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds, or any pistol (Glock) which is a semi-auto version of a fully automatic pistol.

There is no list of exempt handguns, and this lack of any ‘safe harbor’ provisions leaves the door open for more expansive administrative definitions and rulemaking in the future.

DiFi’s Book Of Lists

None of the definitions of ‘assault weapon’ include any manually-operated firearms at all. So why the hell does DiFi devote 95 of the bill’s 122 pages to listing all of the pumps, single-shots, bolts, levers and doubles that aren’t banned?

It’s simple: it’s a sympathy play for the fence-sitters and a talking point for the antis. She’s trying to show how ‘reasonable’ this bill is by showing all of the firearm patterns that it’s not banning right now. She’s trying to show how generous and reasonable she is, and how obstructionist and unreasonable the rest of us are by comparison. Few fence-sitters will recognize that nearly every ‘exempt’ gun on the list traces its design back to the 19th century.

This truly awful bill isn’t meant to save a single life or prevent a single tragedy. It’s meant to be the camel’s nose under the wall of the tent, DiFi’s first strike against the most scary-looking of firearms. But its language is so slippery and inclusive that all semi-autos will have their head on the chopping block if it passes.

And any new firearms designs, even some hypothetical pump-action 5.56 with proprietary 10-round detachable magazines or a hypothetical electrically-cycled repeating shotgun, will start out its life as a ‘non-exempt’ firearm and have to run the gauntlet of ‘prohibited’ design features.

I’ve given you an idea of how bad this would be if it ever became law, but let’s never find out. Time to call your Senators. Again.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

100 COMMENTS

        • You’re right. I’ll spend this weekend writing a new epic: Robert Farago and the Feinstein. It’ll be a story of a young boy’s broken heart, his struggle to find purpose in life, only to have that purpose snatched from his grasp by the grubby claws of the terrible Feinstein. I predict he vanquishes his foe via acute lead poisoning…

    • I don’t see why the government doesn’t let us keep all our weapons at the local armory or at a locker at the gun range? We should be able to keep one gun at home for protection. And I would definitely ban of all hand guns within in the city limits, and make it an automatic 5 years in jail if caught with one. This way there is no ban on guns, and the children and mentally ill don’t have access to a large cache of weapons.

      • “I would definitely ban of all hand guns within in the city limits”
        “This way there is no ban on guns”

        So how’s that public education working for you?

  2. god, i am so sick of California politicians attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country.

    • Imposing one’s will on others by force is the entire premise of government. How else do you suppose politicians would act?

      • Imposing one’s will on others by force is the entire premise of government.

        Henry, this is one area where you and I see eye-to-eye. Government — every damn one — exists due to the application of lethal force, and only through the continued application of force can government assure itself that its edicts will be followed completely and faithfully. Which is why governments — every damn one — are in such a franzy to disarm any free(ish) citizens that it can.

    • I apologize for the perma-stoned, wacked-out, hippie rejects in this state who consistently send the DiFis and Boxers and Pelosis back to DC every election…

      Just know that some of us on the left coast still have half a brain and vote AGAINST these idiots every time…

  3. I’d thought the Glock would be safe because the 18 is a full-auto version of the semi-auto 17 and the rest of the Glock line are just variants on the 17.

    • Agreed – the semi-auto 17 came first. The auto 18 was derrived from the 17. Sure it’s a fine point, but that’s the law for you. Good thing it wasn’t the other way around.

    • That’s why definitions are so critical, and why the definitions provided are so vague – it could be interpreted whatever way you like. Whatever’s more politically convenient after the bill gets signed into law, that’s what they’re gonna do. Loose definitions are the attempt of the tyrant to gain legal permission to do whatever he – or she – wants.

  5. i thought the Glock 18 was an automatic version of a semi-auto gun(Glock17)? i.e. semi-auto was deisgned and built first, then later they were factory modified with a selector switch to make the 18? which would mean glocks are ok?

    • Based upon previous allegations by gun-control advocates that pistol grips, barrel shrouds et al make “hip firing” easier, when “hip firing” has never been an effective method of firing any weapon except in bad ’80’s action movies, I would wager that these same advocates believe the Die Hard movies, and thus Glocks need to be banned because they can pass undetected through a metal detector. *rolls eyes* Emotional ignorance is a tough thing to fight.

      The real point, as stated above; the eventual goal is the banning of all firearms.

      • Legislating based on action movies is a thing. Seriously. If you look at CA weapons law it’s clear that we’ve been doing it for decades.

        We outlawed 50BMG rifles despite the fact that no such rifle had ever been used in the commission of a crime, yet it’s perfectly legal to own the exact same rifle chambered for .416 Barrett, 99% ballistic equivalent to 50BMG.

        Don’t even get me started on the non-firearms laws. Being a legit martial arts practitioner in CA can be, shall we say, a bit complicated when it comes to transporting training gear.

        • Yet, it is clear that ‘gun owners’ are out of touch with reality.

          Maybe the goal isn’t to ban/legislate/confiscate firearms…maybe it’s to induce massive brain aneurysms, simultaneously, in all ‘gun owners’, everywhere.

          You know, AG, there’s a problem when remaining law-abiding is a struggle. I fully understand how “may you live in interesting times” is a curse…

        • From the opening paragraph: ” Given the plethora of criminal laws and regulations in today’s society, this due process gap allows prosecutors to charge almost anyone they take a deep interest in.”

          Promises to be an interesting read. Thank you for the link.

    • Glock nomenclature (17, 19 etc.) relates to the order in which their patents were granted. So the G17 was patented before the G18, and it was also commercialized first. But that’s not going to save Glocks — all of them — from being banned. Only we can do that.

  6. It doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of passing. I’m not suggesting we rest on our laurels or drop our guard. We need to remain active and vigilant. And, we also need to EXERCISE our rights… ALL of them. But, I remain confident that this bill won’t even get out of the gate. The fact that it’s so “comprehensive” and ambitious is its own downfall.

      • The Glock thing is bullshyt and I really wish people would stop repeating it. (Ahem, Chris Dumm.) The Glock 17 pre-dates all other Glock models, and therefore it is not a “semi-auto variant of a full-auto firearm”.

        This is clearly and unambiguously aimed at the MAC-10 type firearms. It has nothing to do with Glocks, 1911s, or other conventional pistols.

        • Yes, the MAC-10/UZI certainly stands out. As does any AK pistol, AR pistol, or really any full-size rifle that is manufactured sans stock and with a shorter barrel. I was being facetious with the belt-fed 1911, but I bet you knew that.

          However, I understand both the leap in logic, and the concern that this fallacious idea may be perpetuated by lawmakers who are either woefully ignorant or suspiciously misleading on a myriad of topics.

        • @AlphaGeek: Although you are factually correct that the Glock 17 pre-dates the Glock 18, that fact is not necessarily a legally relevant consideration when interpreting the phrase “semi-auto variant of a full-auto firearm.” There is nothing inherent in the term “variant” that necessarily requires that the norm or standard be the first in time. If the judge that rules on the case is a gun-grabber, the term varient will not necessarily save the Glock 17.

        • Joe, I get what you’re saying, and I agree that (as always) if you venue-shop you can always find a judge who will torture the words until the stretch to fit the definition desired. (Three words regarding my experience with this: patent law litigation. Ugh.)

          However, the Glock family of pistols fails several different tests one might put forward:

          * 17 predates 18
          * It is well documented that the 18 was developed using the 17 as the base design, not the other way around
          * The 17 has been manufactured and sold in massively larger quantities than the 18, making it the predominant variant in existence

          I think the last one is particularly relevant here, and damning to both AR and Uzi/MAC type “pistols” under the proposed law. Both the AR and Uzi/MAC families and firearms started out as select-fire weapons, and that’s how they were predominantly manufactured and sold before being modified to semi-auto-only for the civilian market. It would be difficult to make that argument against the Glock family of handguns.

        • @Joe Grine:

          So, I had to clarify my understood definition of the word “variant”. From a quick Google search:

          var·i·ant (vâr – nt, v r -). adj.
          1. Having or exhibiting variation; differing.
          2. Tending or liable to vary; variable.
          3. Deviating from a standard, usually by only a slight difference.

          Definition number 3 being the most applicable in this situation, wouldn’t the “standard” be the fully automatic version of the firearm? Therefore, if the “standard” is the semi automatic model, wouldn’t a fully automatic model produced after the original be the variant? Just intellectually stimulated, not trying to imply that you are incorrect.

          Edit: AG beat me to it.

        • Do you think they care which one came first? As far as they are concerned it is a semi version of a full auto firearm. I’m sure they are also under the belief that any schmuck has the know how to convert any firearm to full auto (which as far as I’m aware isn’t even possible in most scenarios).

  8. She has Liberal (Crypto-Commie) friends in DC that want to disarm the populace as well. She is not stupid, she may be evil, she may be suffering a mental disorder, but she is not stupid, God Bless Her Soul.
    There is a better than average chance that this may pass into law.

      • racer, I think you’re being overconfident. POTUS is pulling out all the stops on this. The last time he went all-in, congress passed Obamacare. It cost the Dems eight Senate seats and control of the House, but POTUS got it done despite the cost. He can get this done, too.

        The key in the Senate is Reid.

        • I’m really hoping that not only does it fail, but also that they lose the senate. Then maybe we can get back to where we were a few months ago talking about national reciprocity and other measures tipping the balance in our favor.

  9. American Dad last night, Stan massacred Feinstein with a robot suit. Iv never laughed so hard in my life. She’s a traitor and deserves it.

  10. We need to be sure to place a focus in our efforts and letters on the issue of magazine capacity. I am inclined to agree with the sentiments that this AWB doesn’t have much chance of passing, but there is going to be a lot of traction on mag capacity. We need to put the pressure on and ensure that no one that is against an AWB is willing to cave on mag capacity.

    • I agree that our focus should be “magazine-clips.” (being facetious in my terminology)

      We should not “compromise” one bit… not on magazines… not on anything. Our rights must not be eroded, even a little.

      • “I will not compromise, it’s true
        I will not compromise with you.
        You cannot have my magazines,
        You cannot ban my shoulder things.

        For if I want to shoot a goat
        Or carry it beneath my coat
        Or carry fifty dozen rounds
        Or muffle all my bullets’ sounds
        Or carry guns both day and night
        I’ll have my way, it is my right!

        The Constitution says I’m free,
        So take your bans and leave me be!”
        -Dr. Seuss’s response to proto-tyrants

  11. Also note the Hi-point carbine is banned but it only comes with 9 round magazines :They want it all: some now , the rest comes later !!!!!! Wake up Amerika!

  13. We can all laugh at this piece of the legislation. I havent read the whole bill. Will any of it target criminals and mentally ill? BEcause that part MIGHT pass. According to recent polling trends.

  14. I guess a camo pattern would “enhance the concealability” of a firearm. Or grey on an overcast day, or wood in a paneled room.
    Camel’s nose under the tent? I couldn’t think of a more fitting analogy.

  15. What is this? The link leads nowhere. Am I missing something or is this another bill seperate from the AWB? I was under the impression that that was unable to get standing in legislation.

        • 21 years of free room and board, entertainment, climate control, a larger apartment than I pay for, free gym membership, and virtually nothing resembling actual punishment for being a sick twisted murderer. Because the objects MADE him do it you guys.

    • Don’t forget the A-Team!

      Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune!

      Yikes!

  17. My mother was run over by a folding stock truck and I’ll thank you to show a little sensitivity.

    • You have my sympathies. I’m glad it didn’t leave you traumatized for life, like Feinstein is.

  18. You need to get that annexation to Mexico completed…take one for the team and take her with you.

  19. What’s next ? count on an Assault KNIFE ban too… I kid you not : the bowie knife is already banned in some area’s… THEY WANT IT ALL……………..

    • My only objection to term limits is the fact that, much like a lame-duck President, when the end of a Senator or Congressman’s term is approaching, they can attempt to push through as much damaging legislation as possible, because they politically never have to deal with the fallout. However, all that being said, I would much rather deal with that, than deal with individuals who have turned politics into a career or a family business.

  23. It doesn’t look like the AWB is going to get any traction. But it does look like the gun control people are trying very hard to set up universal background checks, and possibly mag restrictions, and the “safe and easy to vote for” compromise. Those should be fought just as hard as the AWB and be sure to mention them in any communication with your local political critter.

    tim

  24. This is an important post. When it comes to dealing with the devil err DiFi, the greatest danger is probably in the details. The gun grabbers have spent years planning this campaign. The wording is not an accidental oversight. IMO, it seems that even a regular straight stock can be rationalized to be defined as having an illegal pistol grip under DiFi’s bill. Next step: redefine the civilian meaning for semi-automatic.

  26. She also bans handguns with two pistol grips. The last time I checked these were already banned and controlled by the NFA. I believe this is another example of gun grabbers being in a rush to get something on the floor for a vote without knowing what the Hell they’re talking about.

    The bill would also ban the transfer of magazines over 10 rounds. You can still transfer grandfathered firearms, but their grandfathered magazines aren’t transferable.

  28. It’s also worth noting that any handgun that has a threaded barrel and detachable magazine would be considered an assault weapon. That means no more threaded barrels for suppressors on all semi-automatic pistols. If you put a threaded barrel on your Glock to mount a suppressor, you just manufactured an illegal assault weapon. This will effectively kill the handgun suppressor business.

    The bill also classifies any semi-automatic magazine fed firearm that is a semi-automatic version of a machine pistol as an assault weapon. Ever heard of a Glock 18 or a Beretta 93R? Yup, they’re machine pistols and thus Glocks and Beretta 92’s could be classified as assault weapons under the law given the current wording.

    • t’s also worth noting that any handgun that has a threaded barrel and detachable magazine would be considered an assault weapon.

      Welcome to California gun laws. And the reason I couldn’t buy a USP Tactical when they came out, and still can’t. {sob}

  30. The whole barrel shroud thing opens the door to banning the BAR. The stock and forend are not one piece. By the way I love my BAR it is an awesome rifle. NY banned about half of them because of the BOSS recoil reducer.

    • Remington 740s also have separate fore-end wood. They’re only exempt because they’re old and harmless-looking, but the even older and more historical Remington Model 8 is banned because it has a ‘barrel shroud.’

      Remember, if it’s not on the ‘exempt’ list and it has any ‘military characteristic’ it’s banned.

  31. The magazine has to go in the grip of the pistol? Crap, I guess I can’t go on the killing spree with my Broomhandle Mauser.

  32. To me, the psychopathology is clear: Ms. Inside Trader Billionaire is in mortal fear of American citizens being on any SEMBLANCE of an equal footing with invading troops. FROM ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING OURS.

    This is what she’s about, and it’s the ONLY thing she’s about, besides illegally enriching her fat, wrinkly arse.

  33. Probably shouldn’t say this now that my face is on the net but whatever, I wish she would meet the type of stuid that gives me job security.

  34. When will they vote on this? When will we know we are safe from this bill? I know we will never be safe but I would at least like to relax a little if this bill is struck down.

  35. Can’t remember, per this bill are grenade launchers and rocket launchers only illegal if mounted under a shotgun or modern sporting rifle? I don’t remember any language saying stand alones are bad. Just considering my options

  36. I will jump on with her bill if they attach an amendment that every liberal for gun control must drink the blended contents of every abortion carried out with tax payer money each fiscal year – and the drinking must be done in public, you know, for the children. I’m pretty sure that would squash it all.

  38. Greenville, SC (Associated Press) – “Authorities say the shooting of a 3-year-old boy at a Greenville apartment was accidental . . . deputy coroner Jeff Fowler wouldn’t talk about whether the boy pulled the trigger or the shot to the head was fired by someone else.”

  39. Sadly for every one instance in which someone actually defends their home, there are 43 instances of that home owner or someone in that home being injured as a result of having a firearm in your house. Those odds suck. Get over your false bravado and realize the harm you are inflicting. Not the harm of some theoretical other person.

    • The figure you just quoted was made up by Arthur Kellermann, in a study performed with cherry-picked data to try and “prove” that gun ownership is irresponsible. It has been disproven by actual law enforcement stats repeatedly. Problematically, Kellermann only counted dead bodies – the defensive use of a gun only results in the death of the attacker 0.1% of the time (established by numerous sources, notably FSU criminologist Gary Kleck) therefore, any figure that takes only gun related deaths into account will be ludicrously biased since it literally ignores 999 out of every thousand incidents.

      The odds are astronomically better than you suppose, because you have been lied to and bought it, hook, line and sinker. Please stop feeding others the same bs you’ve swallowed, and do a bit of research before trying to convince others of your opinions.

Comments are closed.