Jump to content

Assault Weapon Ban of 2019

Recommended Posts

Not that I think this will go anywhere, but this is their wet dream.




            Washington—Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) today led a group of senators in introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, an updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

            In addition to Feinstein, Murphy and Blumenthal, cosponsors of the bill include Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

            “Last year we saw tens of thousands of students nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”

            “Military-style assault rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. There’s just no reason why these guns, which were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, are sold to the public,” said Senator Chris Murphy. “This past year, we’ve seen Americans rise up and demand Congress change our gun laws. Banning assault weapons would save lives, and I’m proud to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this bill.”

            “Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets. They have no purpose for self-defense or hunting, and no business being in our schools, churches and malls,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “By passing this legislation, Congress can honor the memory of the beautiful lives cut short by military-style assault weapons in Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, San Bernardino and far too many other American cities. This is the year for my colleagues to turn our rhetoric into reality and finally end America’s gun violence epidemic.”

Key provisions:

  • Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to bill:

  • The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.
  • The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Other provisions:

  • Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.
  • Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.
  • Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  • Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

Updates to Assault Weapons Ban of 2017:

  • Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”
  • Bans assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.
  • Bans assault pistol stabilizing braces that transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.
  • Bans Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons.

Mass shootings that took place last year using military-style assault rifles:

  • Las Vegas, Nev. (October 2018): In the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, a gunman opened fire on concertgoers in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring 422 others. The gunman used multiple AR-15 style assault rifles fitted with bump-fire stocks.
  • Sutherland Springs, Texas (October 2018): A gunman entered a church killing 26 parishioners and injuring 20 others. His weapon was an AR-15 style assault rifle.
  • Parkland, Fla. (February 2018): A student at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School opened fire on his classmates and teachers, killing 17 and injuring 17 more.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Malsua said:

Not that I think this will go anywhere, but this is their wet dream.

This is what I said the Dems will do. They will throw crappy Bill after Bill out there, this one could pass in the House. They will just bury Trump and the Senate, in piles of B.S. legislation, investigations and false claims, hoping something will stick.

There will be NO helpful legislation coming out of Congress the next two years.


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Blatantly Unconstitutional post-Heller for many reasons. 

You realize that that doesn't matter, correct?  They will pass it (if they can) and let the courts sort it out if the courts become so inclined.  

Whether or not the law is lawful is not their concern.  Their concern is re-election.  Nothing more.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sniper said:

this one could pass in the House. 

There will be NO helpful legislation coming out of Congress the next two years.


It COULD pass in the house, but not a definite. 

Agreed on the second sentence. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tremble, tyrants and you traitors The shame of all parties, Tremble! Your parricidal schemes Will finally receive their prize! 

Everyone is a soldier to combat you, If they fall, our young heroes, Will be produced anew from the ground, Ready to fight against you! To arms, citizens ...


Aux armes, citoyens, Formez vos bataillons, Marchons, marchons! Qu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons!

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the Republicans are in charge, Mitch McConnell will ensure that this never makes the Senate floor.  But when the Democrats re-take control, make no mistake that this will become law.  Fortunately, there's a good chance that by then, we will have a solidly conservative SCOTUS to overturn it.  

BTW, the Las Vegas shooting was in October, 2017, not 2018 as it says in the bill.  They couldn't even take the time to get that right.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Screwball said:

Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

Well, wouldn’t that set you up to ban lightened triggers... and then ban semi-autos, as you can shoot them at full-auto rates?

That guy Jerry  Miculek can shoot a revolver at automatic speeds. 8 shots in something like 1.2 seconds, or similar. 

He did 6 shots and a reload then another 6 in under 3 seconds.

They gonna ban fingers? Ban practicing good technique? 

I know, he's special, but it still makes the point I think. The gun-ban-nuts will never get wise to the fact that guns CAN be a good thing.

Instead of wasting allll that money fighting against guns, it would be far more effective using it for hardening the "soft targets" with training and equipment and planning that would "SAVE THE CHILDREN" .

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bt Doctur said:

When the dust settles the "Liberator"  or the "GB-22" will again rise from the ashes to defend America


Is that the single shot .45 dropped over Europe? The question is, where will they come from?

Edit: that was the FP-45 apparently. Found the .22 version...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

In case anyone has any doubt as to the intent of these bills, see this article in The Federalist:


They can ban anything they want - they have to enforce it - that's when there will be enough blood in the streets - let's see what will happen - maybe that Tree of Liberty will finally be watered.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dianne is at it again... her dementia must be getting worse, or she just doesn't know how to use Google...

....." A proposal with even more public support is universal background checks. Ninety-seven percent of Americans support background checks – including a majority of gun owners. But right now, anyone can go to a gun show or online and buy a gun with no background check at all.

Finally, we should follow the lead of countries like Australia and New Zealand and reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that’s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible."


You would think she would ask one of the officers that guard her "what's a semi auto"?

You would also think she could ask the FBI for data, to see how many people are killed by "Assault Weapons"...


She'd save more people if she banned hands and fists...

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do grow a bit tired of the comparisons the left makes with Australia (and New Zealand).  It is deceptive in that for starters they have a higher "mass shooting" definition than the States, not to mention how some shootings, like the recent one, were ignored by the US media.  Also, if they want to be balanced (which they dont) they can add 300 million people to their percentages (which would give them almost the same population as us) and then see how the numbers of Australia really match up.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 67 How important is it for you to have your next pistol be "Optics Ready?"

    1. 1. How important is it for you to have your next pistol be "Optics Ready?"

      • Very, (Do not want to pay for slide cutting, Looks cool, etc.)
      • Neutral (don't have a preference either way)
      • Not at all (not a feature I am looking for).
    2. 2. How much are you willing to pay for "Optics ready"? (i.e. gun is cut for an optic)

      • Up to $50
      • $50 to $100
      • $100 to $200
      • $250 or more
      • None. If it is not standard part of the gun, not willing to pay more for a model with it.
    3. 3. Why are you looking for Optics Ready?

      • Planning on adding optic.
      • Want to have the option just in case
      • n/a
    4. 4. Why do you want to add an optic?

      • Looks cool/tactical or someone told me I should
      • Need it for deteriorating eyesight.
      • To compete in certain gun games (USPSA Carry Optics)
      • Other Reasons


  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • What a country, huh?  Where else can you take something good, declare it as bad, redesign it to be better and not bad and then invent something to reverse the good turning the bad back into something good that was bad and profit off of it?  God bless America.  
    • @Sniper You know that your comparison of me to Gregory "Joey" Johnson is totally bogus and just your inflammatory way to personally attack me without really considering the point(s) I make and respond with an intelligent and articulate comment.  From my previous posts here, anyone can tell that I respect our flag and what it stands for.  I totally disagree with the association of our flag to other issues that Johnson made in his quote that you posted. In a similar fashion, it would be if I compared you to and cited one of the many hateful proclamations made by Richard B. Spencer, the wife-abuser, American neo-Nazi and white supremacist and president of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think tank.  That would be an extreme over reaction and not fair to you, even if you may agree with some of his stated positions.  I really do think we all need to throttle back down the hateful comments.  Yes, I have been guilty of writing some incendiary posts and will try not to make them personal towards other posters and focus on the point I am trying to make.  It is hard not to take criticism personally, but I think that I and all of us should at least try to rise above making negative comments towards each other, ranging from snarky barbs, to petty insults to slanderous and hateful accusations, since they clearly are not productive and just makes things worse on both sides. Also, we are all human with imperfections and histories of decisions and actions performed in the past that we now may regret or would have done differently.  So there really never will be any candidate devoid of flaws or previous bad choices.  Therefore, we all have to make do with whom we feel, moving forward, will have learned from their past successes and failures, and act and perform their duties in the best interest of our country.  We all are free to make that challenging choice and decision ourselves, which of course includes taking a chance and/or leap of faith. That is one of the reasons I am currently leaning towards supporting Joe Biden's candidacy.  Yes, he has had some creepy moments with people and I do wish he could just come out and sincerely apologize for how he treated Anita Hill at the Clarence Thomas hearings in the Senate.  Yet, from the current ridiculously large crop of Democrat candidates who have migrated to the far-left, (way too far in my opinion), I think that Biden is the most moderate and acceptable of the bunch. So is it really too much to ask for you and others to accept that there are many folks who really do not like Donald Trump and never have and are seeking a viable alternative candidate to vote for?  You may not agree with us, but that is the beauty of our Constitutional system, 1st Amendment rights, that allows us all to express our different opinions.  But ideally, to do so respectfully.  AVB-AMG
    • do u have pics of the pin job on the brake?  
    • a the shop they come in at night. at home, she stays out 24/7, as the light from my garage lights her from one side, and i bought a solar flood light which lights her from the street side.    
    • 12 ga also no.   
  • Create New...

Important Information