Here is a link to a PDF file of Feinstein's bill.
www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cf...fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
Just open the downloaded file in Adobe Acrobat Reader or any other PDF reader. Might be easier to read. To my knowledge, no bill has made it to the floor or out of committee, but I really don't know. If a bill has come out of committee, please let me know by telling me I am big fat idiot. It happens from time to time (more than I care to admit, sadly). When you click on these links to the PDF files on Feinstein's senate site, you will get a file that may not have a .pdf extension on it. Just open the file in your favorite PDF viewer, all will be fine. Her site is just fugly.
But I agree that this bill has no chance of passage, and I have been thinking of several reasons that may or may not hold water. Here are three points, beginning with the least persuasive and ending with the most persuasive (an ordering of arguments that you should never use in real life). These are all my own personal arguments and opinions, buy into them at your own risk
The bill's definition bans any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip (among other things)...but does this include thumbhole stocks? If the courts were to decide it does include them, then the ban is not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the government interest bc it bans weapons that are not used in gun violence (tho, this is the least persuasive point). If it does not include these, then the bill is somewhat "arbitrary" bc a thumbhole stock has a similar, nearly identical, practical functional effect as that of the pistol grip (maybe I wrong on this?). Second, the magazine ban bans all mags irrespective of the weapon for which they are designed. So, what happens to pistol owners whose pistols do not have magazines that are even manufactured to hold 10 rounds or fewer. This is an unreasonable restraint on the alienation (meaning restraint on transfer, i.e., the alienation of the product from its owner) of pistols that arent even touched by the ban--bc the mag ban prevents even the transfer of grandfathered magazines. Again, the mag ban seems to not be sufficiently "narrowly tailored" to withstand strict scrutiny. Lastly, while it is true that the number of previously-banned weapons seized by law enforcement (that were banned under the 1994 ban) has increased significantly, there is no indication that expiration of the 1994 ban has increased gun violence…it has merely changed the tool used by violent criminals. If reducing violence is the interest, the 2013 ban would not be “narrowly tailored”. If changing the type of weapon used in gun violence is the purported government interest, then the interest is not a “compelling” government interest sufficient to withstand strict scrutiny.
Now, having said that, according to Feinstein’s bill summary, a report commissioned and published by the federal DOJ—published in March 1997—states that the 1994 ban was responsible for a 6.7% drop in “total gun murders” whatever that is. See
www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cf...-weapons-ban-summary
. However, that report actually states, in its executive summary: “
At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. . . . We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests.” See page 2 of
www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cf...53-a4ae-0778889d49bd
this is the DOJ's actual report, also a PDF file.
This is classic lawyer tactics used when the lawyer knows he has a loser argument. It is, basically, a big white flag. Any court, particularly any appellate law clerk working for an appellate judge, will jump all over that bull****. Pardon my foul language, but I use that term bc "BS" is the correct technical term for this type of argument. It is called "mischaracterizing the record facts." By putting this in her bill summary, Feinstein has essentially conceded defeat. The 1997 report never indicates that the 1994 ban is or was effective, in any way. In fact, the report precisely says the exact opposite..it says the bill was ineffective. Hence the technical term: BS. I cannot find anything that tends to indicate the 1994 ban was effective, and Feinstein does not present anything that shows such. The bill is dead upon arrival. End of the analysis.
PS. On a side note, ironically, last week I listened to a gentleman speak who just happened to argue 5 separate case before SCOTUS. It was a crazy set of circumstances that led to that number of cases, but one thing he mention was the extent to which SCOTUS does its own factual research. Factual. Yea really...factual. That is unheard of in any appellate court other than SCOTUS. The particular case he spoke about involved huge "policy" questions without much prior caselaw and litigation addressing it. Therefore, SCOTUS had to do its own factual...research. Not just fact findings, but independent fact research...mean the Court investigated, on its own, to determine what was true and what was not true...concerning the policy implications of the statute at issue in that case. I mention this only to say that this weapons ban will involve a lot of fact questions about the efficacy of the policy. To my knowledge, these fact questions, when analyzed objectively, do not weigh in favor of a policy banning semiautomatic weapons. I could be wrong on this point, but the point is: I think this is another reason the bill is DOA.