Magazine Ban Amendment Offered to Senate Cybersecurity Bill

[W.E.G.]

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.''.

 

[IndianaDave]

The enemy never gives up.

 

[thndrchiken]

Reid already said that there would be no way to get a new bill through with the current schedule until after the new year. So this is there stopgap measure.

 

[Bullzaye]

I've already written my Senators & Rep. to express my opinion on this ridiculous idea.

Tim

 

[GKC]

IF this should come to pass, if I read it correctly, it grandfathers magazines with greater than 10 rounds capacity that were bought prior to the effective date of the legislation being enacted:

''(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."

So, if this or something similar should pass, then those who own/possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds (other than .22) prior to the effective date can still legally own them. It goes on to say that magazines manufactured after the effective date will be serialized and/or have other identifying markings.

I wonder how they will know if your magazines were made/bought before the effective date, or that you bought them illegally on the black market or something? Personally, I haven't kept receipts for my magazine purchases, but if I had to I guess I could track them back to the vendors where I bought them, and prove the date of purchase. That is ridiculous, but then so is the whole issue anyway.

 

[walnutred]

I wonder how they will know if your magazines were made/bought before the effective date, or that you bought them illegally on the black market or something? Personally, I haven't kept receipts for my magazine purchases, but if I had to I guess I could track them back to the vendors where I bought them, and prove the date of purchase. That is ridiculous, but then so is the whole issue anyway.

Probably offer an amnesty period during which you must register your magazines. Unregisterd magazines would then be subject to fines and confiscation. This would not be a firearms registration, only a magazine registration and as such would be called "reasonable".

 

[GKC]

Probably offer an amnesty period during which you must register your magazines. Unregisterd magazines would then be subject to fines and confiscation. This would not be a firearms registration, only a magazine registration and as such would be called "reasonable".

Oh, yeah....that's reasonable.

My wife and I were having a discussion about this issue the other night...she couldn't understand what difference it would make to have a magazine limited to 10 rounds versus a magazine with 15 rounds, other than the obvious 5 rounds. I couldn't explain the logic because there isn't any...if you carry one magazine with 10 rounds in your pistol and a spare magazines with 10 rounds, you still end up with more capacity than one magazine with 15 rounds. You might have to stop and reload, which might take a couple of seconds if you are proficient, so you end up with higher capacity. In fact, if you are going to carry a spare magazine, most people would tend to carry two. I usually don't carry a spare magazine for my P229 when I carry it, since I think that 15 rounds should suffice...but, if limited to ten, I'd probably carry a spare or two.

I guess I should stop saying that, or else they will add a provision to the bill making it illegal to carry more than one magazine at a time.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Why the 10 round limit? Where did that # come from? Was it arbitrary or was there a reason?

 

[nipster]

I thought this was dead...

 

[Road Rat]

I thought this was dead...

Not as long as the "anti's" can find money or votes in keeping it alive!!!

 

[walnutred]

Why the 10 round limit? Where did that # come from? Was it arbitrary or was there a reason?

I always figured the 10 round limit was selected because the politicians supporting this legislation knew that 10 was as high as most of their supporters could count reliably. This made it an easy number for their supporters to understand and so would seem "reasonable".

 

[nipster]

Not as long as the "anti's" can find money or votes in keeping it alive!!!

So without the "theoretical" rhetoric, the bill in question is dead, right?

 

[StatesRightist]

Every politician on that sponsor list is a treasonous enemy of the Constitution.

 

[627 city hunter]

Absolutely feckless authoritarian socialist
gloat at the ideas of firearm control!

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Don't you understand that by limiting the amount of ammo in a gun we will be reducing violence in our cities? This will be accomplished by forcing the shooters to reload more often, giving the victims time to take cover. Why didn't we think of this before?

 

[627 city hunter]

Until a punk pulls a mac 11 on you with a 50 round mag and a filed down firing pin!

(You are right; would need an auto seerer.)

 

[jlrhiner]

Until a punk pulls a mac 11 on you with a 50 round mag and a filed down firing pin!

If you file down the firing pin, isn't it a paperweight?

 

[66Park]

Oh, yeah....that's reasonable.

My wife and I were having a discussion about this issue the other night...she couldn't understand what difference it would make to have a magazine limited to 10 rounds versus a magazine with 15 rounds, other than the obvious 5 rounds. I couldn't explain the logic because there isn't any...if you carry one magazine with 10 rounds in your pistol and a spare magazines with 10 rounds, you still end up with more capacity than one magazine with 15 rounds. You might have to stop and reload, which might take a couple of seconds if you are proficient, so you end up with higher capacity. In fact, if you are going to carry a spare magazine, most people would tend to carry two. I usually don't carry a spare magazine for my P229 when I carry it, since I think that 15 rounds should suffice...but, if limited to ten, I'd probably carry a spare or two.

I guess I should stop saying that, or else they will add a provision to the bill making it illegal to carry more than one magazine at a time.

Of course there is no logic to it. There is no logic to most gun laws. They are enacted by politicians with no understanding of guns to show their constituents that they are "doing something" about gun violence. I lived in Chicago for 13 years before I moved to the suburbs. The handgun ban did nothing about gun violence. It just kept law abiding citizens like me from defending ourselves. Criminals do not follow laws. That's what makes them criminals. In Chicago, someone with a revolver could walk into a public place and start firing at people, have a bunch of speed loaders at the ready or just carry several guns, and kill lots of people before the cops arrived. And we law abiding citizens would be completely helpless, because we couldn't fire back. A high cap magazine ban would do absolutely nothing about that.

 

[GKC]

The handgun ban did nothing about gun violence. It just kept law abiding citizens like me from defending ourselves. Criminals do not follow laws. That's what makes them criminals.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make to my wife. She couldn't understand why I was getting worked up over a possible assault weapons ban, since I don't have any long guns (I have no interest in them, but I support the rights of those who do like them.) Once we start limiting freedom, it's a slippery slope to eliminating them all.

To me, it's the same as the laws against selling or using heroin, and how effective they are in ending the drug trade. Whatever laws we enact only affect the people who will abide by them...the criminals by their very nature will not abide by the law anyway.

 

[IFFV]

If you have to register a AR-15 Magazine or a AK-47 Magazine, they know what kind of Firearm you have.
I hope some of the S&W members on this Forum that do not belong to the N.R.A. will rethink their position.
This Bill may or May not pass. Buy your mags now. This kind of talk on the Liberal news will only drive up the price, again.
We will have a Safer nation without Guns, Adolf Hitler in 1936 or 1938.
Here we go again.