A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.

“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote commenter George Thompson.

Political correctness gone mad. Let the witch hunt begin. See the map here.



  1. US says:

    Why are people complaining? It was already public data anyway, just like who owns a house.

    • dusanmal says:

      Yes, one of crucial modern privacy issues: now that technology can collect, compile and present information without much effort, have expectation of privacy limits shifted. Quite same as Google photographing your house from the street and making that available with no feedback from you possible (except in Germany and such,…). If no effort is required on the “spying” side, should privacy laws/expectations be shifted vs. old times (when you needed to go to my house or hire someone to go there to take the image or draw it or,…). I say yes. You want to know gun permit owners data – YOU need to go to the proper offices and shift through the paperwork (not computerized data)… and you can’t copy and distribute it. You can find for your own knowledge and that’s it. Re-publish it and go to jail for violating human rights.

      • stormtrooper 651 says:

        We should force these people to carry ID in the form of a visible black armband.
        And so we can protect their equality and positive discrim (or whatever) rights, the gays must wear pink armbands, the jews must wear yellow ones, and using the “one drop rule” the blacks can have blue cos you can’t always tell by looking.

      • US says:

        Why should anyone that owns a gun be worried about others knowing they own that gun? Seems to me, they should be proud to get the recognition.

        Are gun owners afraid? Seems if you have a gun you shouldn’t be scared.

        • Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

          Exactly!

          In fact, I WANT people to know that I pack heat because it may work to my advantage!!! That way the next time some teenage punk decides to break into my home or even try to wrestle my wallet away, absolutely NO ONE can claim ignorance when I shoot the little fucker dead. It’s no different than tap dancing in a land mine when you think about. (Unfortunately, not too many people seem to be thinking these days. So I apologize if you’re one of them.)

          The message here seems clear: “Keep your fucking distance or die!” So thank you New York numbskull newspapers. Thanks a lot.

          …And it’s not like people can’t purchase weapons somewhere else or even get them on the black market. Nor is it likely that many more people will be “registering” anything either. It’s a move that’s only going to get more people shot to death. But then I never really expected any journalist to consider the mightier word since it’s all really just a war of propaganda for 99.9-percent of them.

  2. robublind says:

    Well at least the criminals know which houses not to break into in the middle of the night….It’s a public service.

    • Johnathan says:

      Or which houses to break into and steal the guns…goes both ways.

      • Cap'nKangaroo says:

        Ah, but it has been gospel from the NRA and the rabid gun owners (albeit a minority of all gun owners) that knowledge of a house or individual with a gun deters lawbreaking. Even as recent as the Newtown massacre has any number of them (including politicians) claiming that it would not have happened or the body count much less if only the principal or teachers been armed.

        Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert said on Fox News Sunday.

        “I wish to God (the principal) had had an M4 in her office, locked up, so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out … and takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,”

        for reference, here is link to an M4: http://colt.com/ColtMilitary/Products/ColtM4Carbine.aspx

        So the newspaper publishing all the names and addresses is just a means to reduce crime.

    • dadeo says:

      Well at least the criminals know which houses not to break into in the middle of the night….It’s a public service.

      No exactly – now the burglars know where the popular loot is located.

      The Most Commonly Stolen Items in a Burglary

      While there is obviously some variety in the items being targeted during burglaries depending on a variety of factors, there are some items that are almost always targeted. Commonly cash, electronic equipment, gold, silver, jewelry and guns are stolen. Most of these items are easy to sell through pawn shops once they have been stolen or they are easy to pass on through a black market type of trade for use in the perpetration of other crimes. Burglars target items that are not only easy to resell or move on, but they must also steal items that are easily carried from the home being burgled and items that are going to fetch the highest price for their size.

      source: http://asecurelife.com/burglary-statistics

  3. deegee says:

    Actually, now the criminals know which houses to hit when the home owner is away so that they can try to steal their firearms for sale on the black market. Giving honest people’s firearms to the criminals.

    This is exactly what happened in Canada when the long-gun registry got hacked. Homeowners became targets.

    The newspaper should be sued and shut down.

    • noname says:

      It’s not accidental the Right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd Amendment and the freedom of speech, press is the 1st Amendment!

      You seem to be consciously selective, as most conservatives are about what’s relevant and important in the constitution and what’s not!

      • Admfubar says:

        guns dont kill people, bullets kill people! ban bullets! :P

        • noname says:

          Or, at least high capacity clips!

        • Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

          You stupid fuckhead!

          PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!

          And they usually use a TOOL like a gun (with bullets), a sharp cutting instrument or even a blunt object like a HAMMER to do it.

          So never mind the deranged PERSON or anything. With your logic we should just make sure the rest of the public can’t have HAMMERS or can’t have them without registering. That way some other dumb ass can’t get his hands on it.

          What an asinine thing to say.

          • noname says:

            High capacity clips is what’s asinine!

            Your cult logic aside, the only thing PROVEN, over and over, these high capacity clips are only good for, is MURDER, MURDER, and MURDER.

            The facts don’t support NRA’s CEO Wayne LaPierre. Having Armed Guard in Columbine High School Massacre in 1999 did little to nothing to blunt the carnage!

            Your obvious irrational anger proves you know I am right, otherwise; you would engage in a rational logical argument!

        • deegee says:

          @Admfubar

          “guns dont kill people, bullets kill people! ban bullets!”

          Yes, because the criminals will obey that and turn in their illegal bullets.
          Just like the ban on murder works, and the ban on crime works, and the ban on drugs works, and the ban on …

          Until solutions are provided and not moronic rhetoric like your post, nothing will ever get better.

      • deegee says:

        @noname

        “You seem to be consciously selective, as most conservatives are about what’s relevant and important in the constitution and what’s not!”

        Bullcrap.
        The newspaper actively and maliciously targeted a group of people, this is not freedom of speech.
        Why are they not also posting maps that show where the gays are, the pedophiles are, the jews are, etc.
        You just don’t get it.

        • noname says:

          I do get America’s First Amendment, do you?

          I also understand America’s 2nd Amendment!

          I also understand to sustain and expand America freedoms, the need to encourage robust and voluntary public civil engagement to set laws and policies.

          What I don’t understand or appreciate are cultist followers of High Priest Wayne LaPierre and his alarmist who are blind to real world facts and realities.

          Unlike you, parents have too frequent and abundant evidence for a rational fear for allowing the public legal access to high capacity clips!

          • deegee says:

            Freedom of Speech was to prevent governments from suppressing or controlling the news media, and pushing propaganda and politic agendas.

            Publishing personal information about citizens is just hack journalism on the edge of careless and immoral.

            Your rant about the 2nd is pointless.
            I couldn’t care less if the gun laws were changed to 5 round mags.
            You are completely deceived and unrealistic to think that a person couldn’t do just as much damage with six 5 round mags as they could with one 30 round mag — so it takes another 1/2 second between every 5 shots to swap mags, big deal.
            Any legislation against 30 round magazines is no different than NY making large soft drinks illegal — totally moronic and does nothing to address the root issue.
            You probably also think that a Bushmaster AR15 is a “high powered military assault rifle” (hint, it is neither high-powered, military, or assault).

          • noname says:

            I am not sure who should be more afraid of the “Bushmaster AR15″ people or deer!

            The Bushmaster AR15 seems to be the weapon of choice for Mass Murderers and not game hunting these days. I wonder why?

            In many states it’s illegal to use .223 on big game. Many places .243 is still the smallest legal caliber to use via rifle.

            Using the 450 bushmaster for game hunting is limited to close range, not more than 150-200 yards.

            @deegee you are both irrational and likely very incompetent!

  4. bobbo, one lib-tard spanking right wing retards for years says:

    Four permits in the entire Midtown Manhattan and zero in Lower?

    something tells me the number of permits doesn’t tell the whole story.

    • Johnathan says:

      You can bet your ass the private security for the elites won’t have their names and addresses published.

    • Anonymous Coward says:

      Generally, the more deeply “Liberal/Leftist” an area is, the harder it is to get a gun permit of any type under any circumstances unless you’re government. Being a personal buddy of the person who issues said permit helps a lot, but they’re the only ones who can get them easily.

      Most Liberal’s don’t like the idea of people having guns, and lots of government law enforcement types deeply believe that only government law enforcement types should be allowed to carry/own/use guns.

      • bobbo, one lib-tard spanking right wing retards for years says:

        “government law enforcement types” = conservatives?

        So–both liberal and conservatives don’t like people having guns in a country of 320 Million and 300 Million guns.

        Your logic is blinding. any facts? you know: like numbers/percentages and stuff?

  5. Animal Mother says:

    Now all the criminals in the area know which houses to avoid.

    I love my Bushmaster .223 a whole lot.

    • Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

      I love my Winchester 30-06 too. In fact, it’ll do a hundred times more damage than your .223 and it’s not even on anyone’s hit list for banning either. Nor is my 9mm or .44 revolver.

      All people are trying to do with assault weapons banning is to try and legislate THINKING! Cause the difference in weapons is all about STYLE! It’s like saying that anyone who buys camouflage cargo pants is an enemy soldier whereas anyone who buys a hundred boxes of dynamite is a hunter. It’s total crap stereotyping gone absolutely insane.

  6. BubbaMustafa says:

    Are all the judges, congressmen, etc. PUBLIC? Somehow I doubt it. Most of them CC.

  7. JS says:

    If I were a criminal, I’d target those houses during working hours. Grab a few of the guns just for fun.

    I don’t know what that newspaper was trying to prove, but it missed the mark.

  8. Squirrel! says:

    This only shows who has a Handgun Permit. Which is public record. It doesn’t show “Long” arms like rifles and cannons?, or the illegally possessed weapons. The illegally possessed weapons being the real problem here?

    These Journalists hit their targets like a Cheney.

    Hand-wringing ensues.

    E.
    Westchester Co. NY

    • dusanmal says:

      In NY state (hence in NY City too) possession of “long guns” does not require any permit. Just purchase from the properly authorized dealer and background check at the time of purchase.
      Yes, criminals will always be able to arm themselves – they do not obey the law.

    • Gildersleeve says:

      Heh – what if you could map those illegal owners locations? Would the rest of the map turn blue? Red versus blue states indeed.

      • pedro says:

        thdey should do the same with the namees of those that have gotten into gay marriage. That’s also public info, isn’t it?

  9. MartinJJ says:

    “To create the map, The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record.”

    The information is already available to everyone. Modern technology is just helping a bit. It would be naive to think this is the first map. Most likely only the first one published on line. And it works great to stirr up the controversy about gun control. Especially with the recent school shooting.

    No doubt soon there will be a map of the whole country. In the end, does it make any difference? Not really. Those who want to find this information already can. And most killed by guns are probably from the unregistered (or stolen) ones. And that amount may well be much higher then the registered ones.

    Banning guns will prevent massacres? Don’t get your hopes up. They also happen in countries were guns are banned already. Like Norway, The Netherlands, France recently and probably elsewhere I forgot about already. The black market in any kind of weapon you like is thriving there.

    • bobbo, one lib-tard spanking right wing retards for years says:

      What are you Martin…. retarded?

      Death by guns in those Socialist Playgrounds is FRACTIONS of what it is in the USA. Imagine how it would fall even further if the USA wasn’t pumping guns out into the world community.

      Imagine…. if you can.

      • MartinJJ says:

        First, calling names has nothing to do with discussion. It’s rather childish. I refuse to join you in that.

        Second, there is nothing wrong with my imagination. You keep on dreaming and maybe one day you will wake up into a perfect world. It’s another totally useless remark.

        Third. Guns are not only made in the USA. The world is a little bigger then that. So your comment makes no sense in that respect either.

  10. Gildersleeve says:

    There does indeed seem to be something unfair in publishing information like this under this veil of anonymity. Want to publish the maps with names? Fine- include a by line with each pop-up and balloon, which should include the editor-in-chief and the primary owner of the publishing firm.

    • Cap'nKangaroo says:

      How is this published “under this veil of anonymity”?

      Just look at the masthead of the newspaper for the newspaper’s owner, publisher, departments, etc. It appears in every newspaper everyday.

  11. deowll says:

    The elite have a long track record of saying one thing and doing the other. I’d bet anything that huge numbers of elites that “don’t own guns” do own guns.

    Besides if all they got was the handgun permits they most likely missed most of the guns.

    The other issue is do you really want to be on a this person doesn’t own a gun list? This is asking to be hit while you are home. There is absolutely no doubt that burglars, as a group, do not wish to deal with armed residents and don’t make any bones about it.

  12. nikesucksdogdik says:

    I was thinking exactly the same thing!

  13. jd says:

    sounds good to me, it lets the criminals separate the houses with armed resistance from the houses with guaranteed unarmed victims. Its the classic predator prey dynamic.

  14. The0ne says:

    Pretty ironic that gun owners are shtting in their pants on this hahaha. Be proud of the humongous gun you have! Women dig it. And women with big guns make sure to lube it once in a while after use.

  15. chelle says:

    “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?”

  16. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    I detect malice, a desire to harm gun owners. If the premise legal gun ownership = death to citizens, then the Newspaper has just provided us with a real time experiment that will prove, or disprove the premise.

    If they are slaughtered by legal gun owners on their publicized list, they are right.

    If gun owners take legal but non lethal means to retaliate, like cancel subscriptions or publish the addresses of those helpless editors on the NET etc…then their premise was disproved.

  17. Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

    NO ONE HERE GETS IT! NO ONE!!!

    MARK MY WORDS! PUBLISHING A LIST LIKE THAT IS ONLY GOING TO RESULT IN SOMEONE GETTING INJURED OR DEAD!

    I can spend a thousand words explaining it but it really all comes down to whether you believe people should be held responsible or not. It’s just that simple.

    And it makes sense that the “nanny state” proponents such as liberals (who think they know better) want to burn the Constitution or rewrite it. Because things like the second and fourth amendments really just get in their way of total control. But look a little closer and you can see what a bunch of mind washed COMMUNISTS these assholes really are! Hard work and self sacrifice mean NOTHING to these freaks unless it’s all for THEM and their goals of ‘greater glory’. They want your guns, your money, and even your LIVES and will use absolutely INSANE logic to get it.

    So when it comes to guns (since that’s the topic here): they say they want to ban all assault weapons in order to prevent more tragedy’s like Sandy Hook. But here’s where they show their insanity. They say NOTHING about the CRAZY PEOPLE who do these things – ONLY THE LAW ABIDING PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE SAME/SIMILAR TOOLS! They also fail to realize or even acknowledge that the more traditional hunting style weapons are ten times more deadly – and more accurate! They won’t even look at the fact that their entire argument is over STYLE! Can I say that again? They want to legislate (control) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!

    Quite frankly, it’s really about PRICE! But these communists and brain-dead lib-tards will use common stereotypes as FACT saying crap like Rambo-like weapons are somehow bad because crazy people like Rambo use them. This is no different than saying something as ugly as all black people are thieves – IT’S TOTAL BULLSHIT!

    The simple fact where any object such as a gun or even a color television set is concerned is that if anyone can make it cheap enough and plentiful enough that more people will buy it – including more crazy people. It’s simple ECONOMICS! But then that’s another sore subject since many of these lib-tards can’t even add numbers unless they do the counting where it’s “one for you and ten for me” or something.

  18. msbpodcast says:

    Its finally come down to whether you believe in freedom of information or not.

    Personally, I do, (ignorance is what really kills you, fast or slow,) but then you’ve got to level the playing field.

    Everybody should be armed and trained in the use of fire arms.

    If you’re Swiss, I know you’ve got guns in the house, because you at the very least have the rifle you got out of your military training with, and I know you’ve got the training to use them.

    They have a very low crime and a lower murder rate in Swizerland.

    What are they doing right?

    • immovableobject says:

      Swiss socialism is more likely the dominant factor in its relatively lower crime rate.

    • Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

      I agree! Freedom of information should be allowed. But WHAT information are you proposing we keep free and open?!

      Should we expose and make all of the FBI files available to anyone who want’s to look? How about the CIA or anything the Department of Homeland Security can access? Everything those agencies/departments have is in essence “public information” when you get right down to it. So if I’m to accept your position then we should be able publish all of that info too – possibly resulting in the murder of many of our U.S. allies (& spies).

      So I have to say no! And at the very LEAST I don’t think this was very responsible to take sensitive info and put it in a newspaper. The registered gun owners were only trying to follow the local LAW! They didn’t commit a crime like some sex offender. These law abiding citizens were COMPELLED to follow a registration law for LAW ENFORCEMENT and did so with the assumption of privacy to the general public. It’s no different than for someone who may have bought a gas guzzling Hummer! Info some crazy group of idiots like the ELO can access!!!

      So if we are to accept your “freedom of info” policies then every citizen who has a Social Security card should also be available for publication along with each person’s name and addresses. Because IT’S EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

      Think before you speak.

  19. Mike from Illinois says:

    Publishing that list should improve public safety. If I lived in those areas I would be checking to see if anyone who I know to be mentally ill or have a drug addiction or their immediate family members had a permit. I know a number of people who have a child or grandchild in those categories and I would have no qualms about asking to see if my friend had those weapons properly secured.

    If I had young kids I would ask their friend’s parents who have a permit how they secure their guns, so I would know if it was safe to let my kids visit them. Kids playing with “unloaded” guns die each year.

    There are responsibilities that go with rights. I rarely hear the NRA talking about that.

    • The0ne says:

      You’re talking to a bunch of idiots that don’t have this concern or appreciation for the information. I don’t see this any different than criminals, perverts, pedos, etc living in the neighborhood.

      If I see neighbors constantly partying, getting drunk and causing problems around I will definitely check to see if they are gun carriers or not. If so I’m either going to be prepared myself, inform the much hated police department, or get the fck out when and if I can.

      The point is knowing; and also that you can’t stop morons. It’s like driving, you’re not the problem it’s the other stupid drivers you have to be careful about. Thus you avoid them.

      Why should this be any different than a pedo or criminal on probation? Tell that to the little kid that got raped and killed while jogging from a pedo that was released on probation and without anyone in the neighborhood knowing. Good luck with that train of thought people :) I see someone coming for you kids hehehe

  20. birddog says:

    So here is the address and phone of NY Journal “calumnist” Dwight R. Worley who published all of the HOME ADDRESSES of Law Abiding Conceal Carry Gun Owners of the entire state of NY:

    Dwight R Worley
    23006 139 Ave
    Springfield Gardens, NY 11413

    But you might want to call him first to let him know you’ll be dropping in: (718) 527-0832

  21. bracketcreep says:

    The justification is public safety and this stuff is pubic record, and people have a right to know. Ok, then why don’t we gets lists of:

    * Known pedophiles?
    * People on the pubic dole?
    * Current of former office holders, their conviction records, and real estate holdings?

    Put these in a map format with names and addresses the same Gannet people who published the gun list would screech about privacy.

    I’m now 100% convinced that this gun debate has nothing to do with public safety or protecting children. It’s about CONTROL of the left’s political enemies.

    Same thing with the gay marriage debate, which is a manufactured wedge issue which impacts less than 1% of the population. The way the left screeches, and the press spills ink, about it, you’d think it was a HUGE public issue. It’s not. It’s just a way to claim new moral high ground, allowing them to point and sputter.

    BTW, more people have died of AIDS directly attributed to homosexual “lifestyle choices” than guns in the US each year. Given their notoriety as disease vectors, wouldn’t it be in the interest of “public safety” to list the names and addresses of homosexual HIV carriers? NOOOO CAN’T DO THAT!!! THAT”S PRIVATE!!!!

    • Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

      I like most of what you said. But…

      I don’t think your statements on homosexual lifestyles are really all that sane. Saying that AIDS is caused by a homosexual choice or something is completely ridiculous and an insane THEORY that still seems to be promoted by right-wing NUTS (a.k.a. “churches”)!

      BTW, I’m not a liberal dumb-”ass” either. I’m actually a heterosexual Republican and devout atheist. (Yes, I know that’s a oxymoron.)

      It may have BEEN true in the past that AIDS within the gay community was significantly higher than for any other group of people, but it was PROVEN in many CDC (and other) studies that AIDS was NEVER a direct or even an indirect result of that lifestyle. Rather, the gay community was simply the first group of people AFFECTED because of their higher rates of body fluid exchanges. So to say that gays somehow caused AIDS is a STEREOTYPE which is no different than saying only crazy people use assault weapons. It’s total bullshit!

      But when it comes to HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) or even crazy Bob down the street, it should be pubic knowledge to all those it/he might AFFECT! And that’s the key – potential danger!

      Owning a gun affects (endangers) NO ONE until some idiot gets a hold of one and fires it at another human being or even as a blood sport on another animal. Protection from dangerous animals, pest eradication or even animal harvesting (hunting) are NOT exactly blood sports either. I’m sure someone may want to argue just what a blood sport is but then it would be a trivial divergence from what’s being said here.

      Broken human beings (crazy people) with a potential for violence who have given up their rights by managing to get convicted in a court of LAW need to be public knowledge just like sex offenders or even paroled prisoners. NOT INNOCENT REGISTERED GUN OWNERS!!! There needs to be a list of irresponsible (crazy) people with a way to get off the list in the event of being cured/corrected. And that list would make it illegal for anyone on it to even ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm or actually obtain one. The reason is simple: THEY (not it) MIGHT AFFECT US!

      No matter how you look at it, guns and ammo can not affect anyone until SOMEONE USES IT, or tries to. But then that’s really all a matter of RESPONSIBILITY – something the leftie-loosie-liberals haven’t got a clue about.

  22. Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    If someone on the list is forced to actually use their legal gun to defend themselves, it will most likely be because of the publication of the list, therefore I hope the publishers of the Journal News are brought up on charges. If Anonymous were truly worth a shit, they would harass the publishers for being self-righteous assholes.

    News organizations are supposed to be unbiased. You want to find the root cause of a lot of what’s wrong with America? Look no further than collections of ass-hats like the Journal News.

    • ± says:

      quote from the link at the bottom:

      “Well, I just thought they were being hypocrites,” said Christopher Fountain on CNN’s “Early Start.” “In the aftermath of Newtown, it was obviously one tragedy, but somehow they were conflating legal gun owners with some crazed tormented devil up in Newtown and putting the two together. And I was offended by that and I wondered how they would like it if their addresses were published.”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/blog-turns-tables-on-gun-map-paper-85520.html?ml=la

  23. MikeN says:

    If I didn’t own a gun, I’d want to be on that list, which is now going to be checked by every robber first.

    Do we have speech permits as well?

  24. another case where the folks who like to wave the constitution in the air want to have the 2nd amendment trump the 1st amendment. this is freely available information and the press has the right to report it. if you don’t like freedom of the press, you could move to saudi arabia i suppose.

    • orchidcup says:

      There is also a perceived right to privacy embodied in the same Constitution.

      Should a newspaper be allowed to publish my name and address for any reason it deems appropriate?

      The gun owners should sue the newspaper for a finding of law on this subject.

  25. sargasso_c says:

    A turning point in public thinking. Let’s hope it starts a movement.

  26. Rick says:

    Why should any of them be worried, they own guns.

  27. MikeN says:

    What will you do after they take away your neighbors’ guns?

  28. jim g says:

    Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)-author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004-has announced that on the first day of the new Congress-January 3rd- she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
    According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:
    · Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
    · Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
    · Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
    · Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:
    · Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
    · Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
    · Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
    · Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
    · Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
    · Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
    · Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
    · Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

    The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “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. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”
    “Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s-all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”-rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

    Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.
    Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.
    Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must here from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get- involved-locally/grassroots/ write-your-reps.aspx
    Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about the history of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit http://www.GunBanFacts.com.