Magazine Ban in the works!

charger arms

charger arms

Ask Me About My Cocker Spaniels
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,388
Location
Osage City, Kansas
Contact your representative now!

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...1-3.pdf#page=3


SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POS- SESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AM-
MUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.â€"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’â€"
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or con- verted to accept, more than 10 rounds of am- munition; but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of op- erating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammu- nition.’’.
(B) PROHIBITIONS.â€"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 ammuni- tion feeding device. ‘‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the pos- session of a large capacity ammunition feed- ing device otherwise lawfully possessed with- in 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 toâ€"
‘‘(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or pos- session by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivi- sion of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforce- ment (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 or- ganization required by Federal law, or pos- session 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 mate- rials;
‘‘(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 re- tirement; or
‘‘(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding de- vice by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or ex- perimentation authorized by the Attorney General.’’.
(c) PENALTIES.â€"Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the fol- lowing:
‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, impris- oned not more than 10 years, or both.’’.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS.â€"Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘A large capacity am- munition 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 manufac- tured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.’’.
 
Register to hide this ad
You have link fail.
I think that's a re-hash of the Lautenberg bill.

Check here, is this the same?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.32:
 
That link doesn't seem to work for me on mobile, and I'm not finding that wording in the bills posted online, what's the bill number so I can find it
 
You beat me to it. I just logged on to post the same info. I didn't think the Democrats would react so quickly, but they're trying to squeeze a high-cap magazine ban into the Cybersecurity bill...so get educated before you vote. And stock up on your high-cap mags now ladies and gentlemen. The gun war is approaching...
 
yeah, but I've been reassured by people on a couple of sites that the libs and dems aren't after my guns. I'm torn as to what I should believe.
 
So you are going to take someone elses word with regards to your rights....did you even read the proposed amendment?

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN)​
[font=lucida grande']submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by [/font]​
[font=lucida grande']him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and [/font]​
[font=lucida grande']communications infrastructu[/font]​
[font=lucida grande']re 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.â€"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’â€"
‘‘(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
‘‘( does not include an attached tubular
device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
( PROHIBITIONS.â€"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.
‘‘( 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 toâ€"
‘‘(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);
‘‘( 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;
‘‘© 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.’’.
© PENALTIES.â€"Section 924(a) of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘( Whoever knowingly violates section
922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’’.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS.â€"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.’’.[/font]​
 
I highly doubt this will pass, but either way I just bought myself a few more 20 and 30 rounders. Turns out they don't have a shelf life. :)
 
Welp, two wrongs made a right:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/frank-lautenberg-gun-control_n_1725467.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

tl;dr Lautenberg stuck the mag ban onto the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 and refused to remove it. The Cybersecurity Act then failed to go to a vote. IDK if the mag ban contributed to that, but it couldn't have hurt!
 
while politicians are adding magazine restriction laws on other bills, they should tack on a banning of orange hair dye as well. Nobody needs to dye their hair orange. Well perhaps some insane people feel they need too. You guys see anyone in the future with orange hair, shoot 'em. You might be preventing a massacre.
 
seriously these magazine bans are stupid. there are sooooooooo many magazines larger then a 10 round capacity out there especially if you consider mil-surplus that would be preban this bill would do nothing to even restrict magazines that carry more than 10 rnds
 
okshooter26 said:
seriously these magazine bans are stupid. there are sooooooooo many magazines larger then a 10 round capacity out there especially if you consider mil-surplus that would be preban this bill would do nothing to even restrict magazines that carry more than 10 rnds
Click to expand...

Yeah, but being stupid never stopped liberals, they're actually encouraged to act this way. The changes that California is proposing to add the restriction of easily detachable magazines to the the semi-auto bill, if passed, you don't even have to be notified about the bill change, if you are caught in possession of such a weapon, right after your weapon(s) is confiscated, you will be escorted to jail. So don't say it can't happen here.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/08/california-top-democrat.html

I don't see the issue of going to jail in this article, but I did read it in some other article, if I'm wrong, someone please say so.
 
seriously do they really think that reducing magazine capacity will help stop active shooter scenarios? This video proves that if someone intended to do harm and takes sometime to practice realoading this law would at best be a minute inconvience to them! The law also seems to believe that for some reason the shooter that doesnt mind mowing people down will even slightly care about magazine restriction laws. Since they would be gettinga life sentence or death penalty which leaves me wondering why they should even care about the extra years. Or the shooter could just buy the plethora of 30 round mags available for most assault rifles that would be legally on preban status anyway! . its pretty much a moot point....
Its funny to me how we always elect people to make laws for us that have no experience in the area they are voting on and have no reason to care about it either. reduction in their magazine capacity dont really affect them as they have their own private security that in many cases is paid for by our tax dollars. The really dont even need a gun when they have four or more state troopers as private security.

I think our government is too proud to admit that their idea of gun control doesnt work. They are far more worried about saving face by not admitting their original plan of gun control just doesnt work then trying to find one that does work to deter crime. Why can't they just admit there might be a reason that police stations and gun stores do not getting robbed.

 
I think I need to stay out of this chat. It just makes me really angry! <sarcasm font>If only the founder fathers had guaranteed gun rights in the bill of rights!
grrr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Random media

22-2.jpg
45 SBR.jpg
AB7CD6AD-CDDE-4E8A-90C9-3180B570A7FE.jpeg
A857020C-6BB9-4684-8C16-7276D081675B.jpeg
P2281002x.jpg
71B59F7A-E609-4F75-A034-D0711F3DB667.jpeg
20180623_170306.jpg
Back
Top