More "under the radar" gun control

fiundagner · Jul 27, 2012

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... ol-measure

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

(Cybersecurity Bill (S. 3414); Ban amendment (SA. 2575))

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. (and only attached tubular mags for 22 rimfire ammo are exempted, so detachable mags are still illegal if they have more than 10round capacity)

Begin Diatribe - @##^&#*%!@*^$!( !&*%@ @B (*@^$%*^$@#^*((&$@ %&^^$%&^ %$##^%^$ER @*^#&**(*(&%%#< $(!&%@*(#U)(&@^%&@ @()* !(^@ ()! !()&@ !)# )@(&# () #)# ()@&)(!&*(@^ )(!(#&*()*(!&!)* )&!() - End diatribe

Now for the parts fit to print. They are not even bringing this up as a separate bill. This is attached as an amendment to a cube security bill. I guess this applies in limiting how often you need to reload after having one to many blue screens of death. They know they can't push through on their own, so they are attaching it as a rider on a different bill they expect to pass. Isn't this how the MG registry got closed? How much will it take for the American people to vote these people out?!

the exact text if you are interested
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 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.??

C_Carson · Jul 27, 2012

I was going to post this too, but you beat me to it .

My response to Schumer; "I don't want the government telling me what is "reasonable" or "rational" for me to own." And his whole comment about both sides giving a little? :roll:

John Canuck · Jul 27, 2012

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.

What an a-hole. It has been made abundantly clear that certain powerful people have that very thing in mind. I don't car what little letter is behind your name on the ballot as each party has their share of authoritarian d-bags.

Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary ? as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don?t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

?We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,? Schumer said. ?Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties ? maybe there?s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.?

The guy in Colorado passed your background check. Deal with it.

Considering you and your ilk cannot define what an "assault weapon" is, why not just stick your head back in the sand until you get a clue. By the way "senator", it's the Bill of Rights, not Bill of Needs. Deal with that too.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Translation; please please please let me bambozzle you with a sincere, heart wrenching speech and get you to go along with my ideas on how you should behave. Two words dude, piss off.

dreamerofdreams · Jul 27, 2012

Funny how "compromise" seems to mean "I get some of what I want and you get none of what you want." And then they do it again.

The "middle ground" just keeps creeping further and further to their side.

Tigerstripe · Jul 27, 2012

i knew i wasnt relieved about the last post, "we arent signing".

fiundagner · Jul 30, 2012

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... gislation/

And now to top off the ice cream sunday started with the amendment to the cybersecurity bill we have one of the more conservitive justices on the court saying there is an open door for further gun control legislation. After the Roberts flip flop on the health care law, and now this, I'm starting to wonder if someone has something on the justices these days.

John Canuck · Jul 30, 2012

I don't think that's what he said at all. I read what he said, and interpreted it similar to what is written here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... um=twitter

fiundagner · Jul 30, 2012

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/0 ... 00-rounds/

http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/newsro ... id=337363&

Senator Lautenberg nor Senator McCarthy hae decided to leave all those nasty assault rifles and high capacity magazines alone, and go after the real evil: Ammunition

the following is taken from truth about guns

"The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through four components:
? It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
? It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
? It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
? It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days."

"If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition, they should have to come face-to-face with the seller,? stated Lautenberg. ?It's one thing to buy a pair of shoes online, but it should take more than a click of the mouse to amass thousands of rounds of ammunition. This legislation is a simple common-sense step that would put safeguards in place to detect suspicious activity, helping to prevent the sale of ammunition to a terrorist or the next would-be mass murderer.?

?The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act pulls ammunition sales out of the shadows and into the light, where criminals can?t hide and responsible dealers can act as a line of defense against the planning and stockpiling of a potential mass killer,? Rep. McCarthy said. ?Law-abiding gun owners and shooters should support this legislation because it hinders criminals from abusing the Second Amendment right that our nation promises and could save innocent lives in the process.?

ammo is already expensive enough, and if anyone thinks that dealers wont crank the prices up to cover the expected costs, and a few dollars for their own troubles (perfectly reasonable for a locked market) you need to share whatever your smoking with the rest of us. and it would probably stand up in court. the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't say anything about ammo. Oh, and i almost forgot the backdoor gun registration in their. if they are keeping records of who buys ammo, you think they wont use it to search for who owns what caliber weapons?

fiundagner · Jul 31, 2012

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ion-sales/

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that President Obama will "evaluate" a new bill that would ban online ammunition sales in the wake of the shooting massacre in Aurora, Colo. That left 12 dead and dozens more injured.

During the daily press briefing, Mr. Earnest was asked whether Mr. Obama supports the measure, which aims to end sales of unlimited amounts of ammunition on the Internet and other mail orders. The bill also would force ammunition dealers to report large sales of bullets and other munitions to law enforcement authorities

At first Mr. Earnest said he didn't know if Mr. Obama was aware of a bill sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. He later amended this remarks to say the White House would evaluate the measure.

"The president's view that have been relayed quite frequently over the last few days, you know, is that he believes in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, in the right to bear arms but he also believes that we should take robust steps within existing law to ensure that guns don't fall in the hands of criminals or others [who] shouldn't have them,"

i wonder if by "evaluate" he means "place into law via executive order". The courts have already upheld his "emergency" long gun reporting measure that he forced into law after fast and furious came to light. I have to wnder if, after this reporting requirement goes into effect, they wont start mandateing the size of your ammo storage (no more than 2000 round per household or something)? Or start mandating it be stored in special containers or locations like industrial hazmat?

Parhams0508 · Jul 31, 2012

If I'm not mistaken, Canada and the UK already have something like that in place; your ammunition has to be stored securely in a locked container away from your guns. And I think you cannot have a loaded longarm in your house. I think.

And don't they realize that Holmes didn't use all of his ammunition? He shot maybe 200 rounds, TOPS...not 6000.

This whole thing keeps getting fishier and fishier....

bigfutz · Jul 31, 2012

Surely no criminally derranged nutjob would attack anyone if he only had 10 rounds. And if he did, only 10 people might be killed, and that's an acceptable number.