January 24th, 2013
11:15 AM ET

Watch live: Feinstein proposes banning 100+ firearms

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is offering details on her proposal to federally ban some assault weapons, as well as ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

You can watch the announcement in Washington live on CNN.com.

Her measure is designed “to help end the mass shootings that have devastated families” and communities, she said. The proposal comes about a month after a shooting that killed 20 children and six women at a Connecticut elementary school.

Feinstein, while making the announcement, also is displaying examples of weapons that would be banned. Her measure would stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specialty firearms and certain semi-automatic rifles, as well as limiting magazines to 10 rounds or less. Not all of the weapons in the bill meet the technical definition of assault weapons.

The measure would not cover weapons already owned before it passed, as well as other hunting, sporting, antique, manually operated and disabled weapons.

soundoff (19 Responses)
  1. The_Truth

    We need to ban politicians who try to use federal law to limit gun ownership.

    January 24, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
  2. the prophet

    I said this before people need to grow some balls and start a revolution, eliminate all 5 brenches reform with an administration not a Government

    January 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Quark Hadron

    As long as the 'semi-automatic' part doesn't go too far, it has a chance of passing. But if it is overzealous, it will never make it. I'm a lazy person. I own a rifle for hunting and it is a 'semi-automatic.' That is, it reloads itself after a round is fired. I'm not going to settle for a bolt action – just because of the inconvenience. And there are a lot of hunters who will similarly oppose anything that goes too far.

    January 24, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • The_Truth

      Bolt action is military too.. WWII and sniper rifles too.

      January 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  4. saywhat

    Banning all military style weapons and magazines is the right & rational way to go.
    So what are you proposing@the prophet that armed militias take over? A civil war & then anarchy ?

    January 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      Justify "rational" for us, please. Since the CDC has already researched and said the first ban did nothing. And then define "military style." Does that just mean that it LOOKS like a military weapon? The military uses bolt-action rifles too. So, are bolt-action hunting rifles "military style?" The level of ignorance and fear presented by the statist gun-grabbers is incredible.

      January 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      YES!

      January 24, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Kevin

    "Dont worry! We're only banning 'assault weapons'!"

    *Changes definition of assault weapon*

    What will they change the definition to next time when this does nothing to curb violence?

    January 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
  6. saywhat

    Question is why are military style weapons & magazines needed by civilians?

    January 24, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      So you believe that just the government should own them, huh? No offense, but do some research on the history of civilization(s). Disarming the people is a tactic that has been used for years to allow governments to introduce tyranny. They first remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves. Sound outrageous? Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 preventing 13 million Jews from defending themselves during so called "round ups." The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. By 1987 over 61 million dissidents were exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists. I want the right to defend myself against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's all.

      January 24, 2013 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
  7. saywhat

    @ Jeff
    What is so difficult to understand?
    Its commonsense.
    When I say military style it clearly denotes weapons which are used by military in combat for causing multiple fatalities in shortest possible time. Why would a civilian going out hunting a buck or ducks need that?
    A true sportsman knows what is needed.

    January 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      Most military weapons are fully automatic, which is pretty much already impossible to legally get.

      January 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • J Knollwood

      The military uses pistols and shotguns, would you like to ban those as well?

      January 24, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ancient Texan

      Where can you buy a rifle that will fire more than one round per one trigger pull? Semi-automatic is not a military assault rifle.

      January 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Me

    Research on the history of civilization(s) shows alarming results. Disarming the people is a tactic that has been used for years to allow governments to introduce tyranny. They first remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves. Sound outrageous? Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 preventing 13 million Jews from defending themselves during so called "round ups." The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. By 1987 over 61 million dissidents were exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists. I want the right to defend myself against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's all.

    January 24, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Sam

    Question is why are vehicles that go over 70mph needed? Question is why are alcoholic beverages with an alocoholic content over 5% needed? Why are houses in excess of 1200sq feet needed for the average family? It is easy to understand why someone with little to no interest in shooting sports would see a need for these weapons, but that doesn't mean we should pass this "feel good" legislation which will have no effect on the rate of violent crime.

    January 24, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
  10. WillB

    Why is it such a big secret. We all know she had trouble getting anyone to support her bill, so where are the specifics? Maybe just keeping it secret, it causing the problems. Or maybe it's, those few who've seen the details and won't support it?

    January 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
  11. petemg

    Does that mean finger pointing and paper guns that adults use and kids get accused of unlawfully using. When and where is the line going to be drawn as Obama robs us without a gun.

    January 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
  12. banasy©

    "The measure would not cover weapons already owned before it passed, as well as other hunting, sporting, antique, manually operated and disabled weapons."
    This is resonable.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Report abuse |