S.150 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 as reported to senate.
  • Official: A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

todd_barton 08/17/2013 4:58am

I find it very interesting that Harry Reid gets money from groups opposing and supporting this bill. I have seen it before on other bills.

xcrissxcrossx 05/26/2013 11:44pm

Assault weapons are not a problem in the U.S. The congressmen who back this bill are just trying to please their constituents who are hyped up by the sensationalist media. It won’t solve any problems.

daughter1 05/19/2013 9:56pm
in reply to jh604 Apr 19, 2013 2:03pm

jh604 When you disarm a nation the only people to have guns will be the thugs and the tyrants who took the guns away. I have a Constitutional right to have protection if I so choose. My rights cannot be infringed. I will not vote for anyone voting yes to this or any other law that is against the Constitutional Rights we all enjoy.

jh604 04/19/2013 2:03pm
in reply to ryanesexton Jan 25, 2013 10:36pm

I’m sorry Mr. Sexton, perhaps you do not understand the definition of the word “conspire”.

There is no conspiracy in voting and/or approving a bill that attempts to make the United States of America a more secure place for all.

Those who oppose obviously have not been affected nor touched by the death of a loved-on from criminal use of a gun.

sethradio 04/10/2013 4:29pm

The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have an army of citizens, now how can we have such an army without appropriate weapons?

brutus_was_right 03/19/2013 9:52am

It looks as though the Assault Weapons Ban has lost all traction. Harry Reid failed to endorse it and it won’t be pursued any further in the Senate’s gun control efforts. The only route Feinstein can take now is trying to attach this as an amendment, but there just doesn’t seem to be enough support. For those who are infatuated with the idea of willingly placing their head under the boot of a dictatorial behemoth, Europe is only a short flight away.

myke1124 03/16/2013 11:20pm

Why is a Ruger 10/22 in the exempt list and an AR-15 chambered in 22LR not? The Ruger is labeled as more accurate, can hold the same amount of ammo, the rate of fire is the same, and the Ruger is less likely to jam.
If the goal of this bill was truly for public safety, then why is a more effective “Killing Machine” exempted?

todd_barton 03/12/2013 2:57pm

Looking at the money trail I find it interesting that Harry Reid has money coming in from groups on both sides of this bill.

SMLArmory 02/27/2013 6:18am

Never, ever would I comply with ANY gun registration scheme. Registration leads to confiscation. Feinstein, nor any elected official has the authority to infringe on my GOD GIVEN right. This is a scheme to disarm America. The 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the average Joe from a tyrannical government. I encourage all to join OathKeepers. We are your last line of defense. Vote out any politician who even hints at supporting this bill. Your children’s freedom is at risk.
MOLON LABE

wsaldrich 02/17/2013 12:15pm
in reply to k0n2ad Jan 28, 2013 10:49am

When the partial text premise is to dissolve our liberty and security, the writing is on the wall, and the bill must be stopped. That’s the bottom line.

nightfire6669 02/15/2013 11:18pm
in reply to ryanesexton Jan 25, 2013 10:36pm

Wonderful words but sadly when you make the laws you are above them in this country.

bradrob 02/13/2013 12:46am
in reply to k0n2ad Jan 28, 2013 10:49am

Text of S.150 as Introduced in Senate: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 – U.S. Congress – OpenCongress

You just have to wait a few days… it’s there now.

Per OpenCongress Resources – OpenCongress – They get their data from:
-
OpenCongress Data Partners
GovTrack

Official bill information on OpenCongress is provided by GovTrack, an independent, non-partisan, non-commercial website founded in September 2004. GovTrack brings together information on the status of federal legislation, voting records, and other congressional data from official sources.
-

Probably takes time to get it because even after it’s introduced, it still isn’t available on the official U.S. GPO website for a while.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (S. 150) – GovTrack.us

[S. 150 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

whatliesbeyond4u 02/12/2013 9:57am

Every region in the U.S. that has the strictest gun laws is KNOWN for their HIGH LEVELS of gun violence. Chicago & NYW are the MURDER CAPITALS OF THE WORLD yet has some of the strictest laws. The logic of taking our guns away is madness. It puts people at the risk of the criminals who DO HAVE GUNS AND WILL NOT GIVE THEM UP. The fact that CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE about the laws is the reason for this. LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS are not the problem here. CRIMINALS ARE and they won’t obey the laws anyway. That is beside the fact that taking away our guns is AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT and is a form of TYRANNY. You have no right to do that according to our Constitution. If you do that, then you are asking for MILLIONS of people to do this. I assure you they will not. It is a stupid and rediculous, not to mention ANTI-AMERICAN bill that needs to be squashed. By doing this, you are treating NORMAL CITIZENS LIKE CRIMINALS. We are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. WE ARE YOUR BOSSES.

Bobby_Lamb 02/03/2013 8:26am

We absolutely must find a way to prohibit Congress from passing laws that they themselves are unwilling to follow. I don’t know if we can do it by an amendment, because neither house would introduce a bill that is going to take away their special rights. But what they are doing goes against every intent of our Founding Fathers. It was never meant for us to have a ruling class with a different set of rules than the common man.

blastedberry 01/29/2013 3:48pm

,owning weapons is our constitutional right !

Pragmatist 01/28/2013 5:01pm
in reply to k0n2ad Jan 28, 2013 10:49am

Full text is available. Just not on this site.

k0n2ad 01/28/2013 10:49am

It’s disheartening to see so many people vote on a bill whose full text isn’t even available yet.

Patriot16 01/26/2013 7:54pm
Link Reply
+ 11

I think that it is disgusting that these politicians exploit tragedies to advance their unconstitutional anti-2nd Amendment agenda. They will try to convince us that we should sacrifice safety for liberty. If we fall for their propaganda we will have neither safety nor liberty. The 2nd Amendment provides a check and balance to the Government protecting free citizens from potential tyranny. This right is not to be confused with hunting and sport. These politicians have an invested interest in disarming the public. Remember that when they say “you don’t need that to hunt.” They are not to tell us what we need or don’t need.They are to serve their country, constituents, and follow the Constitution of the United States!

indgosky 01/26/2013 3:20pm

Read the 2011 FBI data for yourself

  • KNIVES are used as murder weapons over FIVE times more often than rifles.
  • FISTS are used over TWICE as often as rifles!

Feinstein is disingenuously claiming value in banning one of the LEAST USED murder weapons in existence, and absolutely the least used type of firearm.

The entire bill is a farce. If passed, the only thing it is likely to do is embolden criminals by dealing them the upper hand against disarmed victims. Of all the knee-jerky “DO SOMETHING” legislation that could have been proposed, hers is one of the least useful ones I can imagine.

brutus_was_right 01/26/2013 10:54am

5. Citizens of the UK could own “assault rifles” prior to the Firearms Amendment Act of 1988. After banning these weapons, firearms homicide declined slightly, but had risen to previous levels by 1993. Citizens of the UK could own handguns of any caliber prior to the Firearms Amendment Act of 1997. After banning these weapons, firearms homicides declined slightly, but had reached a record high in 2006, when nearly 100 people were murdered with a firearm. The current number is reported between 39 and 48, but the fact that firearms homicides increased in the years following each ban doesn’t provide a strong correlation between gun control and decreased firearms homicides.

6. Firearms related crimes in the UK had increased from 5,209 in 1999 to 9,865 in 2009.

7. From 1995-2007 overall violent crime (assault, sexual assault, rape) in Australia increased 42%. During that same period, violent crime decreased 32% in the US.

Keep cheerleading for mediocrity, fascists.

brutus_was_right 01/26/2013 10:47am
Link Reply
+ 10

1. A semi-automatic sporting rifle is not an “assault weapon.” An assault rifle, the proper term, is by definition a selective fire rifle. This means that it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire, which civilian variants are not. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 already regulate the sale and transfer of these weapons.

2. According to the DoJ, “assault weapons” account for 2% of firearms homicides every year, or fewer than 200 homicides involving these weapons.

3. A DoJ analysis of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban concluded that, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun-murder incident or
multiple-gunshot-wound victims.” I guess Mrs. Feinstein ignored that proclamation during her “extensive research” on the topic.

4. Stop equating this ban to those implemented in the UK and Australia. Both of these countries not only banned, but confiscated semi-automatic rifles and most handguns.

opensex 01/26/2013 10:15am
Link Reply
+ 13

We […] are literally heartbroken for the loved ones […]

With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. […] criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. […] lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.

[…] As you deliberate, please remember […] the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, […] protect[s] citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

[…] No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights […] has given them.

[We will] defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

ryanesexton 01/25/2013 10:36pm
Link Reply
+ 18

I oppose any bill that tries to limit my Rights. Support of any Bill that infringes on my constitutionally protected rights is punishable under

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241
Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … may be sentenced to death.

Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means.

Sincerely,
SSG Ryan Sexton
United States Army


Vote on This Bill

15% Users Support Bill

87 in favor / 484 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments