Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(5,598 posts)
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 08:56 PM Jun 2022

Pelosi says House will consider assault weapons ban legislation

Source: CNN

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said next week she will bring forward legislation to ban military-style assault weapons, as the chamber moves to address gun violence.

She said "we will be having a hearing and marking up the assault weapon ban" as soon as the House addresses several pieces of legislation, including the package the House Judiciary Committee will mark up on Thursday.

Speaking at a rally against gun violence in San Francisco, Pelosi said, "We just are trying to hit it in every possible way," to try and curb mass shootings across the country.

The package being considered by the Judiciary Committee, known as the "Protecting our Kids Act," would likely pass the House but wouldn't overcome a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

The Senate's discussions revolve around less restrictive gun measures than the House Judiciary Committee's bill, including strengthening background checks and incentivizing mental health initiatives.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/pelosi-assault-weapons-ban-legislation/index.html

Let's get ON IT!

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pelosi says House will consider assault weapons ban legislation (Original Post) TeamProg Jun 2022 OP
"...to ban military-style assault weapons..." J_William_Ryan Jun 2022 #1
We had a ban from 1994 - 2004, and it lessened gun violence. TeamProg Jun 2022 #2
I remember that. The main thing was it limited high capacity magazines. captain queeg Jun 2022 #4
It did a helluva lot more than that BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #10
But you could still buy AR-15 style rifles hack89 Jun 2022 #12
Remember that legislation was devised back in 1993 BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #14
Those 4 pages list firearms *exempted* from the ban, not banned firearms. n/t sl8 Jun 2022 #16
ONLY exempted because they had been manufactured on or BEFORE the effective date of the law. BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #20
No, they were exempted going forward. sl8 Jun 2022 #21
This is what I'm looking at BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #23
Right, the ban does not apply to Appendix A firearms. sl8 Jun 2022 #24
Paywall article BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #25
I'm not sure what else to say. sl8 Jun 2022 #26
I have a PDF of the Act BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #27
Link to text: sl8 Jun 2022 #28
Yeah been there but it didn't have the complete contents of Appendix A like the PDF BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #29
No worries. sl8 Jun 2022 #31
"One was a slide action .30-06" BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #32
High capacity magazines made overseas before the ban went into effect were legal to import Kaleva Jun 2022 #18
Had posted the details of that noting the AWB was a Feinstein amendment rolled into the "Crime Bill" BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #9
That large list of firearms is of firearms specifically exempted from the ban. sl8 Jun 2022 #17
"Exempted" because they were manufactured ON (or before) the Oct. 1, 1993 effective date BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #19
Not true. sl8 Jun 2022 #22
Whatever they pass... LiberatedUSA Jun 2022 #3
Dems have to show me, and the public, that they're serious about gun violence. TeamProg Jun 2022 #5
NRA says 'More Guns!' keithbvadu2 Jun 2022 #6
That's it! Brilliant! TeamProg Jun 2022 #7
Laudable, but she knows it's doomed. Senators representing 11% of the country can veto anything. PSPS Jun 2022 #8
I will call my worthless Congressman Roy Rolling Jun 2022 #11
It may seem futile, but CALL THEM Novara Jun 2022 #30
It will only end the sale of new rifles, not ban ownership hack89 Jun 2022 #13
I don't think our current system of government is working. twodogsbarking Jun 2022 #15
How bout we stop considering things BWdem4life Jun 2022 #33


(1,710 posts)
1. "...to ban military-style assault weapons..."
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:08 PM
Jun 2022

Which will never pass in the Senate.

And if signed into law, will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

It’s time to focus on solutions that don’t involve the regulation of firearms, such as UBCs and ‘red flag’ laws.

And holding Republicans’ feet to the fire to expand Medicaid in all 50 states, if conservatives are serious about ensuring citizens have access to affordable mental healthcare.

Calling for a Federal AWB plays only into the hands of Republicans, allowing the right to lie about Democrats being ‘extreme,’ ‘tyrannical,’ and ‘anti-Second Amendment.’


(5,598 posts)
2. We had a ban from 1994 - 2004, and it lessened gun violence.
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:12 PM
Jun 2022

Congress let it expire. What a bloody mistake.

The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.

captain queeg

(10,016 posts)
4. I remember that. The main thing was it limited high capacity magazines.
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:24 PM
Jun 2022

At least that seemed to be the main thing. You could still buy guns that were essentially the same, more of a limit to styles and I think 10 shot magazines were the limit. It did help. Once the gun nuts could buy whatever they wanted there was a huge increase in military style weapons.


(125,545 posts)
10. It did a helluva lot more than that
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 04:04 AM
Jun 2022

See just below what I posted here (which includes the text of AWB portion and almost 4 pages full of actual banned weapons) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2924901


(39,171 posts)
12. But you could still buy AR-15 style rifles
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 06:00 AM
Jun 2022

yes it banned rifles by name - the manufacturers simply removed the banned features and changed the name.

Sale of new AR-15s in the USA was banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004. Colt and others continued to sell legally compliant versions during that period.


The gun Adam Lanza took into Sandy Hook would have been perfectly legal under the federal AWB. It was also legal under CT's more stringent AWB which was based on the federal AWB.


(125,545 posts)
14. Remember that legislation was devised back in 1993
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 06:58 AM
Jun 2022

NOT 2022.

It was the first attempt to get a handle on the problem and get "most" (but obviously not "all" ) out of circulation.

There were no "3-D" printers back then nor some of the current ways to mod the weapons to get around the rules.

Hell, the "ghost gun" thing is primarily a result of "kits" with "parts", where the parts themselves aren't considered "a weapon", but can be assembled (often with the help of a 3-D printer to make any additional ancillary pieces to complete the construction) to become a functioning firearm.


(13,541 posts)
21. No, they were exempted going forward.
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:02 AM
Jun 2022

Existing firearms that would meet the criteria to be banned were grandfathered in, perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

The 650 (?) firearms listed here were exempt, exempt, exempt, regardless of when they were manufactured.


(13,541 posts)
24. Right, the ban does not apply to Appendix A firearms.
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:26 AM
Jun 2022

The Ruger No. 1, a single shot rifle, is listed on the exempt list.

The "as manfactured" part would prevent Ruger from naming a new, semi-auto rifle "No. 1" in order to qualifiy under this section.

Here's an article where Feinstein comments on this, the watered down version of her original bill (note the date as compared to the CR entries)



(125,545 posts)
25. Paywall article
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:44 AM
Jun 2022

but I actually went down the rabbit hole with this, which is how I got the PDF to get the snapshot images of the actual amendment text from the Congressional Record since I couldn't find it anywhere else "published online" (at least in text format including what was at congress.gov as the actual Amendment 1152).

But that section I highlighted had bullet items of (A), (B), (C), etc., and it wasn't all "bolt action" or whatever weapons. They categorize the different types but some were those with a date of manufacture that exempted them.

And yeah I know she complained it was "watered down" AND had to include a sunset provision (which ended up being the only way to even get it enacted somewhere because it was going nowhere as a standalone). When I saw the sunset, I was looking to see if it was something that was associated with passage via reconciliation because those tend to have a 10-year sunset but nope, it was something forced in there. And that got some key GOP votes to allow the amendment to pass.


(13,541 posts)
26. I'm not sure what else to say.
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 10:39 AM
Jun 2022

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't suggesting that all the firearms on the list were bolt actions, but the fact that the list contains bolt actions, single shots, over/under shotguns, etc., would suggest that it's not the list of firearms to be banned. There was a (much shorter) list of firearms to be banned, by name.

Here's an excerpt from the LA times article:


To limit the availability of such weapons, Feinstein sought to forge a compromise between separate proposals offered by retiring Sens. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio).

Feinstein dropped language from the Metzenbaum bill that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms authority to ban future assault weapons. To accommodate hunting and recreation enthusiasts, she exempted a 14-page list of 650 rifles and shotguns. She also inserted a 10-year sunset clause to satisfy critics who say that the bill would have no impact on crime. If a federal study proves the ban on assault rifles ineffective, the legislation would expire after a decade.

The legislation does not address the current possession of an estimated 1 million assault rifles nationwide.

“Essentially what this legislation does is (create) a freeze,” Feinstein said in an interview. “It’s not more, it’s not less. It would say you cannot manufacture these assault weapons, you cannot sell them and you cannot possess them in the future. It does not in itself take any off the streets. I don’t want to kid anybody.”


I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but here's a pdf of the Act:


(125,545 posts)
27. I have a PDF of the Act
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:11 AM
Jun 2022

I had been trying to find the literal "text version" of the Act or better, the text version of the included Amendment (would have made it easier to copy/paste) because congress.gov only referenced the Act "text" as being "available as a PDF" - https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text

There was a fascinating article that I had read that had been written (I think contemporaneous to this happening) that I have been trying to find again and it sortof had some "behind the scenes" narratives about the maneuvering and negotiating to get enough GOP votes. There were 3 things going on in 1993 & 1994 and that LA Times article (based on the date) was about the 1993 standalone Feinstein bill (thing #1) being worked on when the Brady Bill dealing with handguns (thing #2) was eventually passed and signed into law in Nov. 1993. The result of the "watering down" was what ended up as Amendment 1152 that was added to the 1994 "Crime Bill" that finally passed almost a year later (thing #3).

(sorry have been up and down to/from the basement washing clothes )


(125,545 posts)
29. Yeah been there but it didn't have the complete contents of Appendix A like the PDF
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:43 AM
Jun 2022

but did link to one of my fave reference sites -Cornell Law...


Subtitle A--Assault Weapons

Sec. 110101. Short title.

Sec. 110102. Restriction on manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.

Sec. 110103. Ban of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Sec. 110104. Study by Attorney General.

Sec. 110105. Effective date.

Sec. 110106. Appendix A to section 922 of title 18.

(and the "Sec. 110106" in that just has some section titles)

ETA - thank you for trying anyway!


(13,541 posts)
31. No worries.
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 12:10 PM
Jun 2022

I just read through Appendix A - it's basically a list of all available sporting firearms, excluding certain infamous semi-autos. Want a single shot shotgun? It's in Appendix A. Want a lever action .30-30? It's in Appendix A.

I see 2 long arms in Appendix A that I bought in the the late 90s. One was a slide action .30-06, one was a bolt .22 RF.


(125,545 posts)
32. "One was a slide action .30-06"
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 12:24 PM
Jun 2022

My father (WW2 vet) and grandfather (WW1 vet) hunted elk and went fly-fishing (I still have my dad's bamboo pole) in upstate PA. As a kid I remember we had a subscription to "Field and Stream". My dad had a rifle that my mother would describe as a ".30-06" (and would literally pronounce it "thirty ought-six" ) which was in his closet. When he died, she gave it to one of her uncles.

So I do "get" hunting rifles but anything that basically attempts to mimic a "machine gun" (that term in quotes) is a weapon of war.


(36,025 posts)
18. High capacity magazines made overseas before the ban went into effect were legal to import
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:20 AM
Jun 2022

And there were millions of those.


(125,545 posts)
9. Had posted the details of that noting the AWB was a Feinstein amendment rolled into the "Crime Bill"
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 04:00 AM
Jun 2022

Also noted this - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=739097

I had to really dig through the legislation but found her original bill language and also found the transcript of the Congressional record where she had made remarks and then the actual content of her bill was included (under "Feinstein (and others) Amendment No. 1152" ) into that record transcript - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16725309

The qualifying weapons were literally listed!

And consolidating with stuff posted here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16725309

If anyone remembers what it took for James Brady to get something done after he and his party's gawd Raygun, were shot - i.e., from 1981 to 1993 before something was finally passed and signed into law in 1993 (H.R.1025 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), then you can imagine trying to do the same now.

The following year, the controversial "Crime Bill" (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was passed, which included a 10-year assault weapon ban, the text of which (PDF, see pgs. 28317 - 28321) was incorporated into that package (vs being separate legislation), which was to be sunsetted in 2004, and was never renewed after that.

As a note as I was going through the text of the debate transcript for Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban Amendment, I saw where she had an exchange with gun-humper and "footsie-in-the-bathroom" Larry Craig (and I think I remember this exchange being referenced quite a bit) -

Mr. CRAIG. All right.
For a few moments this evening let
us do some reality checking. The Sen-
ator from California, in her arguments
tonight I must say, was somewhat typi-
cal of those who study the issue for the
first time and then, in a very sincere
and honest way-and I do not question
that in any sense of the word-begin to
make statements that I think are im-
portant for the record, that we estab-
lish the true context.

(snip lots of bullshit gun-humper stuff)

So the Senator from California needs
to become a little more familiar with
firearms and their deadly characteris-
tics. I say that--
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator
yield for a point of personal privilege
for a moment, please?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, certainly.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am quite familiar
with firearms. I became mayor as a
product of assassination.
Mr. CRAIG. I am aware of that.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. They found my as-
sassinated colleague and you could put
a finger through the bullet hole. I pro-
posed gun control legislation in San
Francisco. I went through a recall on
the basis of it. I was trained in the
shooting of a firearm when I had ter-
rorist attacks with a bomb at my
house when my husband was dying,
when I had windows shot out. Senator,
I know something about what firearms
can do.


pg 28293 of this (PDF)

Back in March, Feinstein made remarks at a hearing regarding the need for renewing her AWB -

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Military-style assault weapons have led to the deaths of far too many Americans. Las Vegas. Dayton. Orlando. San Bernardino. Parkland. Sandy Hook. And now, Boulder. It’s time to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban and get these weapons of war out of our communities.
12:01 PM · Mar 23, 2021

And as a note, Democrats lost control of the House at the conclusion of the 1994 election after 40 years of controlling that chamber, and finally regained it 12 years later in 2006. Then we lost it again in 2010 and again got it back in 2018.

(sorry to dump all this in a reply to you but I bookmark these threads as it's easier to get to the references )


(13,541 posts)
17. That large list of firearms is of firearms specifically exempted from the ban.
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:02 AM
Jun 2022

There is a small list of firearms that are banned by name, which was fairly useless.

The large list, Appendix A, is a list of (650?) firearms specifically exempted from the ban.


(125,545 posts)
19. "Exempted" because they were manufactured ON (or before) the Oct. 1, 1993 effective date
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:36 AM
Jun 2022

but could no longer be manufactured AFTER that date. One of the purposes was to cease the manufacture of these.

I.e., they weren't going to do a "Canada-style" retroactive taking guns away thing.


(13,541 posts)
22. Not true.
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:06 AM
Jun 2022

The exemption applies going forward.

Look at the list - do you think they were trying to ban the bolt action rifles listed?



(1,666 posts)
3. Whatever they pass...
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:21 PM
Jun 2022

…while it will fail in the Senate, will let everyone know what the plan is, should Democratic legislators win in November and who is against it.


(5,598 posts)
5. Dems have to show me, and the public, that they're serious about gun violence.
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:31 PM
Jun 2022



(5,598 posts)
7. That's it! Brilliant!
Wed Jun 1, 2022, 10:34 PM
Jun 2022

And when they all go to prison for assault, they can turn schools into prisons.

GOP wins again! Yay!

(edit to add, can’t be too careful. )

Roy Rolling

(6,778 posts)
11. I will call my worthless Congressman
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 05:38 AM
Jun 2022

In fact, I’ll call him every fucking day with a different support story and statistic. Get ready, DUers, flood the Congress with old-fashioned phone calls.

Unlike emails, they MUST deal with EVERY caller.

Morons, Republicans never saw this coming. They want a 1950s America? Reach out and touch them with a personal phone call. That’s who WE are—personal and genuine.


(5,605 posts)
30. It may seem futile, but CALL THEM
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:59 AM
Jun 2022

Remind them that they work for us. They do have to log every single phone call.

If nothing else, at least you can say you tried.


(39,171 posts)
13. It will only end the sale of new rifles, not ban ownership
Thu Jun 2, 2022, 06:03 AM
Jun 2022

that power is left to the states. So it will not actually take guns off the street.

All federal gun control is based on the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pelosi says House will co...