Dems propose full capacity magazine ban amendment [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Dems propose full capacity magazine ban amendment


Blunt object
07-27-2012, 00:10
Usual suspects Shumer, Lautenburg, Boxer, Feinstein, and Gillibrand have a proposed an amendment to the Cyber Security bill.
Unlike the old "assault weapons" law this one bans "possession".

http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

The amendment would make it illegal to transfer or possess "large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition".

I'd like to think this is just grandstanding and will not get any traction in an election year, but it is "sensible" and all.

We need to get the word to our Congress critters: don't even f#$@in' THINK about this.

WayaX
07-27-2012, 01:02
Actually, if you read it, currently possessed magazines can still be possessed, but not transferred (not that this makes the law any better). It is pretty much DOA since it is an election year, but nonetheless, letters should be sent to congressmen and congresswomen letting them know what you think of this back-handed way of trying to pass their agenda that no one wants.

Foxtrotx1
07-27-2012, 01:08
Will never pass. The last AWB burned a scar into the minds of so many Dems.

NEOH212
07-27-2012, 03:14
Will never pass. The last AWB burned a scar into the minds of so many Dems.

I agree but don't think for a minute that they won't try it again. Liberals are stupid like that. They never learn for their mistakes. They just blame someone else for it. Like Bush. :whistling:

W.E.G.
07-27-2012, 05:11
Magazine Ban Amendment Offered to Senate Cybersecurity Bill

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-07-25/pdf/CREC-2012-07-25-pt1-PgS5401-3.pdf#page=3

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself,
Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ,
Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER,
and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the
security and resiliency of the cyber and
communications infrastructure of the
United States; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following
SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION
OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting
after paragraph (29) the following:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition
feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed
strip, or similar device that has a capacity
of, or that can be readily restored or converted
to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular
device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
(b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title
is amended by inserting after subsection (u)
the following:
‘‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause
(ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to
transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition
feeding device.
‘‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession
of a large capacity ammunition feeding
device otherwise lawfully possessed within
the United States on or before the date of
the enactment of this subsection.
‘‘(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to
import or bring into the United States a
large capacity ammunition feeding device.
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
‘‘(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession
by the United States or a department
or agency of the United States or a State or
a department, agency, or political subdivision
of a State, or a transfer to or possession
by a law enforcement officer employed by
such an entity for purposes of law enforcement
(whether on or off duty);
‘‘(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes
of establishing and maintaining an on-site
physical protection system and security organization
required by Federal law, or possession
by an employee or contractor of such
a licensee on-site for such purposes or offsite
for purposes of licensee-authorized
training or transportation of nuclear materials;
‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is
retired from service with a law enforcement
agency and is not otherwise prohibited from
receiving ammunition, of a large capacity
ammunition feeding device transferred to
the individual by the agency upon that retirement;
or
‘‘(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession
of a large capacity ammunition feeding device
by a licensed manufacturer or licensed
importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation
authorized by the Attorney
General.’’.
(c) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section
922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.’’.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS.—Section
923(i) of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following: ‘‘A large capacity ammunition
feeding device manufactured after
the date of the enactment of this sentence
shall be identified by a serial number that
clearly shows that the device was manufactured
after such date of enactment, and such
other identification as the Attorney General
may by regulation prescribe.’’.

theHIGHLANDER
07-28-2012, 07:04
So many miss 1 simple idea. In a word, "enthusiast". Want another? "Hobby". How about "skill"?

Why is someone who simply likes a specific item considered a whack job? Are car collectors insane? Stamp collectors? I'm really scared of that person that has 500 Beanie Babys. 'But why does someone need 6000 rnds of ammo?' clearly comes from some chicken scratch individual who never sent 100rnds down the range. How fast can you use 100 in practice? Faster than you wanted! Forget Aurora, Columbine, Virginia. It has NOTHING to do with the US citizen, our history, our 2A. How many legit gun owners simply killed sombody this week? How many defended home and hearth? It never fails to amaze how quickly our society throws the baby out with the bath water every time 1 out 350,000,000 people goes out of tune. Now we're all "out there"? Only if we remain silent.

Jerry
07-28-2012, 13:00
A nut-job can do more damage with two five gallon cans of gasoline and a match than the nut-job did with all his guns ammo and body-armor. And it would be cheaper and more easily obtained. But the MORONS are too emotional about guns to even realize that. Limiting magazine capacity will save lives. :rofl: Anyone want to buy a bridge. :upeyes:

Brucev
07-28-2012, 19:52
Re: OP. If for no other reason, this is all the reason I need to never vote for a demokrat regardless of who they might be, regardless of how conservative they might act, etc.

CanMan
07-29-2012, 08:27
Yes Sir, the socktuckers "et. al." are at it again. Darn, I really don't want to become a single issue voter... could happen though!

stopatrain
07-29-2012, 08:33
It will not happen now, but will drive up prices.

Jerry
07-29-2012, 11:44
Yes Sir, the socktuckers "et. al." are at it again. Darn, I really don't want to become a single issue voter... could happen though!

I don't trust anyone that wants to "regulate" my "right". That is the SINGLE most IMPORTANT THING to conciser when considering someone for political office.

countrygun
07-29-2012, 14:07
A nut-job can do more damage with two five gallon cans of gasoline and a match than the nut-job did with all his guns ammo and body-armor. And it would be cheaper and more easily obtained. But the MORONS are too emotional about guns to even realize that. Limiting magazine capacity will save lives. :rofl: Anyone want to buy a bridge. :upeyes:


Ask the libtards how many people Timothy McVeigh shot:whistling:

bdcremer
07-29-2012, 18:07
I sent an email to my Senators and Rep. If we flood our politicians with emails about our 2nd amendment rights they might listen.

Doog
07-29-2012, 20:33
I also emailed my Senators, and everyone else should as well!

WayaX
08-02-2012, 17:58
The vote was today. It did not pass (for many reasons).