Dems hide Magazine ban in Cyber Security Bill

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by MrM4, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. MrM4

    MrM4 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2
  2. time2shoot

    time2shoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,001
    Location:
    Brandon SD
    I hope it dosent pass.
  3. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    And the page opens with smirky faced Chuck Schumer trying to convince us all that he's a reasonable man who respects the second amendment. Then we have the usual suspects who have demonstrated once again that they just don't get it.

    "The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 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.

    The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004."
  4. aa1911

    aa1911 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,194
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    this is so retarded. They should review the libby, TX diner shooting video...

    somehow you can't kill cops or do mass shootings if you have 10 rds but certainly if you had 13 or 15+ it would be game on... ???

    my average reload time for semi-auto pistol is well under 2 seconds, pretty sure most people are capable of that also. But what would someone who is ignorant to firearms know? I guess that's what pisses me off the most; you propose laws on a subject you know absolutely nothing about? how does that make sense to anyone?
  5. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,446
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL
    Democratic senators offer gun control amendment

    I ordered some 30 rounder's from Brownell's today

    Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

    This is ment to be informative and apolitical. The title is the title of the article - not my politics (other than 2A protection).

    Attaching it to the cybersecurity bill is a double dumbo move. Both are unpopular, and hanging a high capacity mag rider on an already unpopular bill only draws attention to the bill its self, which should be squashed!


    .....Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

    Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

    .....The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 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.
  6. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
  7. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,446
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL


    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
    - Mark Twain
  8. Twicepop

    Twicepop Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    801
    Location:
    NW Ohio
    Re: Democratic senators offer gun control amendment

    What mis-used words are they bastardizing this time to describe this, is it "Reasonable" or "Sensible". Lautenberg, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and Gillibrand the creme' de'la creme' of the gun grabbing, jackbooted thug division of the American Socialist Party, some people still call them Democrats.
    Wait until the speach that went like....full gun control has been implemented, the streets are now safe to walk down at night...I don't have the exact wording at my disposal right now, but the German people were given a speach similar to this before a hell broke loose in Europe about 75 years ago.


    those who beat their guns into plowshares, will plow for those who didn't
  9. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,446
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL
    Re: Democratic senators offer gun control amendment

    Complete wording

    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. __. 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.
    [Page: S5403] GPO’s PDF
    (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 off-site 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.”.

    Congressional Record – 112th Congress (2011-2012) – THOMAS (Library of Congress)"
  10. MrM4

    MrM4 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    I strongly doubt that it will pass the house but it never hurts to know what the dirty Dems are up to.
  11. mogunner

    mogunner Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,367
    Location:
    Eastern Missouri
    It's common practice to attache amendments to bills that you dont' want to pass, often even the bill's original sponsors will vote against it so that the amendments don't go into effect, just another way to wag the dog.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Reid Maneuvers Gun Bill to Save Red State Dems Mar 19, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum No No assault weapons ban: Not even in Dems' bill Mar 19, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Dems introduce legislation to do away with self defense May 10, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Dems Avoiding 2nd Amendment Comments ... Nov 24, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 5 Hawaiian Dems want to see birth certificate. Jan 27, 2011