close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Dems propose full capacity magazine ban amendment

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Blunt object, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. Blunt object

    Blunt object

    347
    3
    Sep 4, 2002
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
  2. WayaX

    WayaX Lifetime Member

    2,558
    26
    Feb 27, 2007
    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.
     


  3. Foxtrotx1

    Foxtrotx1

    4,036
    0
    Jan 29, 2010
    Scottsdale AZ
    Will never pass. The last AWB burned a scar into the minds of so many Dems.
     
  4. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    8,983
    11
    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    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:
     
  5. W.E.G.

    W.E.G.

    673
    0
    Sep 20, 2005
    all over Virginia
    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.’’.
     
  6. theHIGHLANDER

    theHIGHLANDER

    10
    0
    Mar 13, 2010
    S. E. Mich
    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.
     
  7. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    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:
     
  8. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    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.
     
  9. CanMan

    CanMan Silver Member

    1,151
    21
    Jun 15, 2012
    in flagrante
    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!
     
  10. stopatrain

    stopatrain Lifetime Member

    2,201
    0
    Aug 28, 2005
    Texas
    It will not happen now, but will drive up prices.
     
  11. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    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.
     
  12. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012

    Ask the libtards how many people Timothy McVeigh shot:whistling:
     
  13. bdcremer

    bdcremer The No SpinZone

    551
    66
    Apr 8, 2005
    Metro Atlanta, GA
    I sent an email to my Senators and Rep. If we flood our politicians with emails about our 2nd amendment rights they might listen.
     
  14. Doog

    Doog REVOLUTION

    167
    0
    Dec 4, 2003
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I also emailed my Senators, and everyone else should as well!
     
  15. WayaX

    WayaX Lifetime Member

    2,558
    26
    Feb 27, 2007
    The vote was today. It did not pass (for many reasons).