Breakthrough Web Design - 641-201-1459 - Build Your Online Presence
News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the North Iowa Region
• Founded 2010

Feinstein girds for gun control battle


This news story was published on January 28, 2013.
Advertise on NIT Subscribe to NIT

feinstein

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (UPI) — Political support exists to pass legislation cracking down on assault weapons in the United States, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Feinstein said restricting access to such high-powered firearms was becoming increasingly important and was gaining support from law enforcement and municipal leaders.

“Do military style assault weapons belong on the streets of our cities? And the answer, according to the United States Conference of Mayors, according to major chiefs of police, according to the largest police organization in the world, is absolutely no,” Feinstein said. “So we do have support, don’t mistake it.”

Feinstein — who introduced a bill Thursday to ban more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features — said Sunday the most recent mass shooting in the United States were carried out by “younger and younger people” armed with such weaponry.

Feinstein, a top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN if restrictions on assault weapons were taken out of legislation on ammunition or high-capacity magazines, she would be willing to re-introduce it as an amendment on the Senate floor.

“I have been assured by the majority leader that I will be able to do it as an amendment on the floor,” Feinstein said. “So that doesn’t particularly bother me.”

In addition to banning the manufacture, sale, transfer or importation of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept detachable magazines and have at least one military feature, the legislation — titled “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013” — would ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and place new security requirements on people who already own such weapons. It would also apply to semi-automatic rifles and handguns with fixed magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds, and all semi-automatic shotguns with folding or detachable stocks, pistol grips, forward grips or fixed magazines with room for more than five rounds.

It exempts assault weapons that are “lawfully possessed” as of the date the bill is enacted, but sales of exempted weapons would be subject to background checks.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available

17 Responses to Feinstein girds for gun control battle

  1. Avatar

    Katie Reply Report comment

    January 28, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    The Burlington, VT, city council has banned its own police department from training on gun ranges because of assault weapons. Now how stupid is that?

    • Avatar

      LVS Reply Report comment

      January 28, 2013 at 3:35 pm

      @Katie-that is a pretty stupid thing to do. To deny training to the people that are supposed to protect you makes no sense at all.

    • Avatar

      Anonymous Reply Report comment

      January 28, 2013 at 4:13 pm

      That would be incredible, if it were true, But it’s not. Typical republican getting the story wrong.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        That story was on the news this morning. The city is trying to pass it’s own gun control banning weapons. The shooting range didn’t want the police to harass the people that shoot there so they told the police that they were not welcome. To those of you that say it is not true or that republicans always get it wrong, this story was on your own MSNBC.

      • Avatar

        LVS Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 5:18 pm

        @Anonymous-so, are you going to retract your comment now. After you hip shot something and accused her of getting it wrong when you were the one who had it wrong.

      • Avatar

        Katie Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm

        You’re right. I got the story wrong. I watched the story twice and still got it wrong. I am out-of-town and saw it on a local channel. I’m not sure where I got confused, but my husband got it right. It was the shooting range that was upset with the city council for trying to ban guns so they banned the PD. I apologize for getting it wrong and taking so long to get it corrected, but I was busy having a LIFE.

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 7:57 pm

        maybe here is what you got wrong. Your quote was “The shooting range didn’t want the police to harass the people that shoot there so they told the police that they were not welcome.” The reason they didn’t want the police to use the range was because of the action of the city council. Not because of police harassment. There is a big difference there.

        bodacious…katie admitted getting it wrong after I pointed it out to her. I give her credit for that. LVS and maybe would never do that.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 9:00 pm

        According to the story I saw the gun range asked the police to not use their range. The reporter also said that one of the reasons was they were afraid the police would “harass their customers”. Those were the exact words the reporter used.

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      January 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm

      katie you got the story wrong. He is the true story: “The battle over the right to bear arms is flaring in Vermont, where a local gun range has moved to prohibit the Burlington Police Department from training at its facilities after the City Council voted to advance a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines.”

      The city council didn’t ban them. The gun range did. Big difference. Looks like you got it wrong again.

      Anonymous you have nothing to admit to except that you were right.

      It amazes me how katie, maybe, and LVS don’t check out the facts before they post. Maybe I got this story off your own Faux News.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/28/cops-barred-from-gun-range-over-semi-automatic-rifle-ban/

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 6:05 pm

        @happyguy, did you acually read that article you posted? I just read it and thats exactally what I said in my post. I saw it on MSNBC but it was almost word for word in this article. You feel good about pointing out that I was wrong, only thing is I was using his article so I wasn’t wrong.

      • Avatar

        bodacious Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 7:14 pm

        Katie admitted she got it wrong. Anonymous should only have to retract his statement about republicans getting it wrong. I am not a republican and when I first read it, I thought it was the way Katie first reported it. Then, on a closer second reading, I was able to decipher it. As for maybe and happy guy, I am not sure what you guys are talking about.

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        January 28, 2013 at 8:01 pm

        My post on January 28, 2013 at 7:57 pm should be in reply to maybe and not katie. maybe here is what you got wrong. Your quote was “The shooting range didn’t want the police to harass the people that shoot there so they told the police that they were not welcome.” The reason they didn’t want the police to use the range was because of the action of the city council. Not because of police harassment. There is a big difference there.

        bodacious…katie admitted getting it wrong after I pointed it out to her. I give her credit for that. LVS and maybe would never do that.

  2. Avatar

    maybe Reply Report comment

    January 28, 2013 at 10:54 am

    What I don’t understand is that with the unemployment as it is, they are trying to run the gun industry out of business. Telling banks to not do business with anybody that has anything to do with gun violence. To me that says they don’t care about the people, just how they as a political party, how they look morally to us. They are our protectors. They bully us then say we will protect us. How are they going to protect us from them?

  3. Avatar

    Bobby G Reply Report comment

    January 28, 2013 at 8:38 am

    This old hack should of retired a long time ago. I’m sick of paying for her and Bidens Depends. Oh we can’t forget Nancy Pelosi she needs one over her head.

  4. Avatar

    JB Johnson Reply Report comment

    January 28, 2013 at 8:28 am

    get on the bus out of town with Harkin

  5. Avatar

    LVS Reply Report comment

    January 28, 2013 at 8:04 am

    Never let a CRISIS go to waste. That is their policy.

  6. Avatar

    Anonymous Reply Report comment

    January 28, 2013 at 8:01 am

    Quit the DIVERSION and get our ecinomy back on track – NO FIX TO THAT so lets pizz off the us citizens and divert them – all BS.