PDA

View Full Version : Federal S 3414 (Lieberman, 2012) regulate magazines S.A. 2575 - Bill FAILED 8/2


m16
07-26-2012, 6:45 PM
Link to video:

http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

Editing to add info from Librarian's post:

THE BILL:

It's S.3414, "PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3414

THE AMENDMENT:


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.''.

AeroEngi
07-26-2012, 6:49 PM
And the guys from the out-of-state forums didn't want to help us with SB249 because they thought they were immune from gun control. I'd like to see what they have to say now.

advocatusdiaboli
07-26-2012, 6:51 PM
I'd guess it doesn't have a chance, maybe that is why?

mag360
07-26-2012, 6:56 PM
the liberal loonies. Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer.

Harry Reid already said "nice try" when asked if they were going to pass more gun laws this year, or next. He knows it would likely keep their savior from being re-elected.

With that said, i am still going to write and call people to oppose it.

Kingofthehill
07-26-2012, 7:02 PM
Yup, I already fired off some emails, posted on facebook, spread that everywhere i could.

Im from CA and this board IMO is the best gun forum online, no joke... and even in Texas now i still see whats going on in CA and help when i can. I hate the fact that CA is still "Behind enemy lines"

stix213
07-26-2012, 7:08 PM
the liberal loonies. Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer.

Harry Reid already said "nice try" when asked if they were going to pass more gun laws this year, or next. He knows it would likely keep their savior from being re-elected.

With that said, i am still going to write and call people to oppose it.

I'm not a fan of Harry Reid on most issues, but he's probably the best ally to us on 2A issues we can hope for in a Democratically controlled Senate with a Democrat president.

huntercf
07-26-2012, 7:19 PM
I wonder what this would mean to all our rebuild kits, would this make it illegal to use them for repair or in free states?

RMP91
07-26-2012, 7:24 PM
I was hoping (read: waiting) for this to happen. Now the "free" states will feel our pain if they refuse to do anything about it! And after that they'll come help us!

SilverTauron
07-26-2012, 7:52 PM
I was hoping (read: waiting) for this to happen. Now the "free" states will feel our pain if they refuse to do anything about it! And after that they'll come help us!

Is this a joke?

You're clamoring that everyone in the country should join you in your prison so that we can help your jailbreak.I'm stunned that there's any question why people from out of state are hesitant to lend you guys support.

BTW,I'm not exactly jumping on CDNNs website to order 10 rounders just yet.According to my calendar its still an election year,and if Obama isn't politically secure enough to endorse gun control publically he sure as spit can't sign a gun control bill into law.

Assuming of course the Republican controlled House lets this amendment stand.

Rossi357
07-26-2012, 7:58 PM
So everyone that has a 10+ rd mag has to get rid of them if this passes.

dustoff31
07-26-2012, 8:02 PM
And the guys from the out-of-state forums didn't want to help us with SB249 because they thought they were immune from gun control. I'd like to see what they have to say now.

They will say, as others here have said, the fact that an amendment was introduced means nothing. It is the usual political posturing by the usual suspects.

If it somehow manages to pass in the Senate, which is extremely unlikely, it will definitely not pass in the House

RMP91
07-26-2012, 8:04 PM
Is this a joke?


No. I'm dead serious (I honestly wish I was joking though, alas "free" states aren't kind to Californians under any conditions)

I tried being polite.

I tried being kind.

But I'm always ignored.

The time for playing nice is OVER.

I'm sick and tired of begging gun owners from "free" states to help California rid itself of it's unconstitutional laws. But instead of receiving a sympathetic ear or an acknowledgement of our plight, I get rude gestures, hostile attitudes and warnings to leave and to not "bring your bull**** here".

One of them even told me "I'll keep my unmolested AR/AK with 100 round drum mags while you Californian gun owners pay for my freedom to do so and keep suffering (WHAT THE ****ING HELL!!!!!!!!!? :26:)

Hate to say it, but I almost WISH this upon those who refuse to aid the Oppressed while enjoying their own Freedoms (Selfish ingrates!) :mad:

You're either with us on the front lines in California, or you're with "them"!

77bawls
07-26-2012, 8:18 PM
Is this a joke?

You're clamoring that everyone in the country should join you in your prison so that we can help your jailbreak.I'm stunned that there's any question why people from out of state are hesitant to lend you guys support.

BTW,I'm not exactly jumping on CDNNs website to order 10 rounders just yet.According to my calendar its still an election year,and if Obama isn't politically secure enough to endorse gun control publically he sure as spit can't sign a gun control bill into law.

Assuming of course the Republican controlled House lets this amendment stand.

You need a space after your punctuation. I'm surprised you don't know this as your posts typically have proper punctuation and grammar. Even if there's an occasional typo.

jonzer77
07-26-2012, 8:19 PM
No. I'm dead serious (I honestly wish I was joking though, alas "free" states aren't kind to Californians under any conditions)

I tried being polite.

I tried being kind.

But I'm always ignored.

The time for playing nice is OVER.

I'm sick and tired of begging gun owners from "free" states to help California rid itself of it's unconstitutional laws. But instead of receiving a sympathetic ear or an acknowledgement of our plight, I get rude gestures, hostile attitudes and warnings to leave and to not "bring your bull**** here".

One of them even told me "I'll keep my unmolested AR/AK with 100 round drum mags while you Californian gun owners pay for my freedom to do so and keep suffering (WHAT THE ****ING HELL!!!!!!!!!? :26:)

Hate to say it, but I almost WISH this upon those who refuse to aid the Oppressed while enjoying their own Freedoms (Selfish ingrates!) :mad:

You're either with us on the front lines in California, or you're with "them"!

Are you sure they don't like you because you like gun registration?

RMP91
07-26-2012, 8:23 PM
Are you sure they don't like you because you like gun registration?

No. Where did that even come from?

I withdrew from that thread days ago. Other people are keeping that thread going for whatever reason.

Back on topic though...

They just like their un-BB'ed AR/AKs, NFA/DDs and Standard-Cap mags too much to even acknowledge that there are gun owners in California that cannot have ANY of those things without becoming felons. We are (unnecessarily) paying the price for their freedoms. Time for us to call in the "debt" so to speak.

Rossi357
07-26-2012, 8:24 PM
You need a space after your punctuation. I'm surprised you don't know this as your posts typically have proper punctuation and grammar. Even if there's an occasional typo.

Doyouproofreadeverypostonthisforum?

skyscraper
07-26-2012, 8:27 PM
Is this a joke?

You're clamoring that everyone in the country should join you in your prison so that we can help your jailbreak.I'm stunned that there's any question why people from out of state are hesitant to lend you guys support.

BTW,I'm not exactly jumping on CDNNs website to order 10 rounders just yet.According to my calendar its still an election year,and if Obama isn't politically secure enough to endorse gun control publically he sure as spit can't sign a gun control bill into law.

Assuming of course the Republican controlled House lets this amendment stand.

If I remember correctly, you dont live in california. If you read the posting from out of staters on ar-15 and others, you would understand. Since you dont, maybe read up and understand why californians feel the way they do before wasting bandwidth.

77bawls
07-26-2012, 8:31 PM
Doyouproofreadeverypostonthisforum?

No, but that stuck out.

Quser.619
07-26-2012, 8:36 PM
Wow, Democrats using a tragedy to further political goals... Babs & Feinstein are at it again, wish I could say I'm surprised

Librarian
07-26-2012, 8:41 PM
It would be REALLY helpful if you would identify the BILL this is an AMENDMENT for...

It's S.3414, "PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3414

and here's the text of the amendment 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.''.

Since this bill didn't start out with anything to do do with guns, I'm certainly glad that someone is watching.

phrogg111
07-26-2012, 8:48 PM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

m16
07-26-2012, 9:12 PM
Sorry about that, and thanks for taking care of title edit.

I posted this and left to go have dinner, was going to research it more when I got home.

jonzer77
07-26-2012, 9:18 PM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

You forgot to add sarcasm at the end.......I hope.

gunsandrockets
07-26-2012, 9:21 PM
It would be REALLY helpful if you would identify the BILL this is an AMENDMENT for...

It's S.3414, "PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3414

and here's the text of the amendment
Since this bill didn't start out with anything to do do with guns, I'm certainly glad that someone is watching.

Thanx for digging up that bill text. Very helpful.

My understanding of that text is that the usual suspects are trying to bring back the old Federal magazine freeze of 1994. What maroons! After all, the last freeze worked so well for them.:smilielol5:

It really is true. Anti-gun politicians are the worlds greatest gun salesmen!

mud99
07-26-2012, 10:03 PM
I can't understand how some on this forum are still democrats. The writing is on the wall.

Anchors
07-26-2012, 10:45 PM
Curious to see what CGF leadership thinks of this.

Brandon, Gene, Bill?

What are we looking at here..

mag360
07-26-2012, 10:52 PM
anyone read this:

``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.''.

LOL. K yea this one doesn't have a date on it either.

and to the war vet that said we can't have mags greater than 30rds, is that sarcasm?

RMP91
07-26-2012, 10:54 PM
anyone read this:

``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.''.


Selling hi-cap mags, post-ban no serial numbers for premium $$$ :43:

Don29palms
07-26-2012, 11:05 PM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

I do not agree with any of this. I can't imagine anyone on this site will.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 11:05 PM
And the guys from the out-of-state forums didn't want to help us with SB249 because they thought they were immune from gun control. I'd like to see what they have to say now.

Compassion is CA's primary export. Lets make friends, not enemies. :chris:

Ripon83
07-26-2012, 11:12 PM
I love my Rossi 357 24 inch lever....and as I read section "b" in the first outline a tube feed only applies to 22LR's.....this could be a serious issue for those of us that like our levers!


Doyouproofreadeverypostonthisforum?

mag360
07-26-2012, 11:22 PM
Selling hi-cap mags, post-ban no serial numbers for premium $$$ :43:

exactly, lol you know there will be guys in "china town" type places selling pre-dated post ban manufactured mags.

yiiiippp, just found a new box in the storage shed...

mag360
07-26-2012, 11:23 PM
plus what if i need to repair my pre bans, will they still make bodies and followers and springs? what did they do during the 94-04 ban?

Write Winger
07-26-2012, 11:23 PM
This whole attaching amendments to things completely unrelated to what they're voting on... there's a word I can't seem to get out right now... tip of my tongue...

DJ Skillz
07-26-2012, 11:29 PM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

So... you emailed the senators agreeing that they should ban "high capacity" magazines? Thanks, you're such a big help. :rolleyes:

nick
07-26-2012, 11:47 PM
Ah, the usual reactionary asshollery. Can't expect much else from the morons proudly sponsoring this garbage of a law.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 11:55 PM
This whole attaching amendments to things completely unrelated to what they're voting on... there's a word I can't seem to get out right now... tip of my tongue...

http://www.fuzzygalore.com/photos/2009/IMG_6204.jpg

all i got but i feel like im super close

huntercf
07-27-2012, 1:09 AM
`(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

Looks like DF & BB are going after 10/30's and the like.
Plus read down the amendment to the punishment phase, fine and up to 10 years in prison, they want to make it a felony. If this garbage goes through how many people are going to suffer at the hands of DA's making a name for themselves and have to wait several years in prison waiting for their appeal to go through.
Can we perform a citizen's arrest on these wackos for violating our constitutional rights?

m16
07-27-2012, 6:44 AM
Looks like DF & BB are going after 10/30's and the like.


My 10/20 and 10/30 round PMAG base plates are held on by a roll pin that is installed in a blind hole, it would be a pain in the butt to remove them but still makes me wonder if they fall into the "readily converted" category.

wilit
07-27-2012, 7:13 AM
More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.


You are absolutely correct about the terminology between standard and high capacity. The flaw in your thinking is, is that you can apply a finite number to what is standard and what is high across the entire firearms spectrum. Standard for an AR-15 is 30 (now, it was 20 in the 60's). Standard for a STEN is 32. Standard for a 1919A4 is 100. Standard for a PS90 is 50. Standard for a DP28 is 47.

The Wingnut
07-27-2012, 7:26 AM
I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people.

You thought wrong.

Creeping incrementalism is what's in play here. Start with something that's marginally reasonable, chip that away, that opens the door to the next little chip, and chip, chip, chip until there's nothing left.

There is no such thing as a 'common sense gun law', the goal behind all of this is to disarm the populace, remove the ability of the citizens to enforce their will, and place all power in the halls of government.

You've fallen for the scam hook, line and sinker.

SilverTauron
07-27-2012, 8:36 AM
No. Where did that even come from?

I withdrew from that thread days ago. Other people are keeping that thread going for whatever reason.

Back on topic though...

They just like their un-BB'ed AR/AKs, NFA/DDs and Standard-Cap mags too much to even acknowledge that there are gun owners in California that cannot have ANY of those things without becoming felons. We are (unnecessarily) paying the price for their freedoms. Time for us to call in the "debt" so to speak.
Wrong.

Those restrictions were not imposed by some dictatorial military junta. Those laws were voted on, enacted, and passed by elected officials picked by your neighbors in California who think Feinstein and Boxer have it right about gun control.


Put simply, this is a bed the State of California has made for itself. To turn that around you will have to convince the San Diego Soccer Moms to think the same way Texas Soccer Moms about guns;that is, positively. Imposing a 10 round ban on the rest of the nation out of a warped sense of spite does nothing for you and it does nothing for the cause of the RKBA in America.

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2012, 8:52 AM
The left's so called "pro-gun" Kirsten Gillibrand sure has done a 180 since becoming a senator. LMAO!

This is what was said about her back in 2009. (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333350)

taperxz
07-27-2012, 9:00 AM
Magazine manufacture companies will be selling magazines as fast as a rocket to the moon until this is voted on. Then the authors will only be able to take credit for putting millions more LCM's on the streets. Of course the bill will fail. Love it when a plan comes together! :D

goodlookin1
07-27-2012, 9:07 AM
No. Where did that even come from?

I withdrew from that thread days ago. Other people are keeping that thread going for whatever reason.

Back on topic though...

They just like their un-BB'ed AR/AKs, NFA/DDs and Standard-Cap mags too much to even acknowledge that there are gun owners in California that cannot have ANY of those things without becoming felons. We are (unnecessarily) paying the price for their freedoms. Time for us to call in the "debt" so to speak.

We are not paying the price because for THEIR freedoms, we are paying the price because of our population's stupidity in their choice of vote.

If you dont like it, move.

5thgen4runner
07-27-2012, 9:07 AM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

My head almost exploded from reading a single post

curtisfong
07-27-2012, 9:32 AM
If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

Fail. Prove efficacy.


More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people.


Fail. Generally magazines containing more than 30 rounds are unreliable anyway. In particular, the 100 round drum Holmes was using.

I think more than 30 isn't really necessary

Fail. "Isn't necessary" won't pass strict scrutiny. Remember, you have to prove efficacy.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Fail. The efficacy of *any kind* of gun control in "large cities" is provably zero.


I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun.

Complete and utter fail from pretty much any rational perspective.

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2012, 9:34 AM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

Yikes!

I can't believe what I just read.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic?

ptoguy2002
07-27-2012, 9:36 AM
I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people.
No, we can't agree on that.
Not one inch, enough laws already.

JackRydden224
07-27-2012, 9:38 AM
Awesome! I'm so for this bill. Once it passes we'll be able to buy all kinds of guns from out of state without worrying about the gun coming with a high capacity magazine. While they are at it I hope they make every state use the BB. This way everybody will ship to CA since we'll all be equal!

I love this bill ! SWEEEET!

morfeeis
07-27-2012, 10:14 AM
So is now the time for me to start stocking up?

Fish
07-27-2012, 10:31 AM
"Dear Mr. Schumer: I notice your proposed amendment has an exception for retired law enforcement officers. Help me understand why, if standard capacity magazines are not useful for self-defense, retired law enforcement officers need this exception?"

I was having a similar discussion with a friend of mine a year or so ago. He's a fairly smart and open-minded guy, but he's lived all his life in lefty enclaves like San Francisco and really hasn't ever thought outside those boundaries.

I showed him my carry equipment, a single-stack 9mm that holds 8+1 with two spare mags. He got a bit of a surprised look on his face and said, "that means you can shoot twenty-five people...". I gave him the statistic that, for firearm use by police officers, the effective hit rate is around 12%. He instantly put two and two together and realized that if I were attacked by multiple assailants I'd be mighty glad I had those spare mags.

Ten rounds in a self-defense situation, statistically, is good for 1.2 assailants. Attacked by more than that? You'll be wanting more rounds, then.

jsragman
07-27-2012, 12:16 PM
AeroEngi: I live in Florida. I have no idea what SB249 is, or how I should help the Citizens of California. I simply don't understand why you get cranked up because of "lack of support" for Californians. We had absolutely nothing to do with the enactment of your illegal, unconstitutional laws. Your legislators voted for this garbage and your governor signed it, if I'm not mistaken.

jonzer77
07-27-2012, 12:22 PM
AeroEngi: I live in Florida. I have no idea what SB249 is, or how I should help the Citizens of California. I simply don't understand why you get cranked up because of "lack of support" for Californians. We had absolutely nothing to do with the enactment of your illegal, unconstitutional laws. Your legislators voted for this garbage and your governor signed it, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't take him seriously, it's called jealousy.

AeroEngi
07-27-2012, 1:14 PM
AeroEngi: I live in Florida. I have no idea what SB249 is, or how I should help the Citizens of California. I simply don't understand why you get cranked up because of "lack of support" for Californians. We had absolutely nothing to do with the enactment of your illegal, unconstitutional laws. Your legislators voted for this garbage and your governor signed it, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not talking about you. If you read my comment again, I said those people that did not want to help us in the out-of-state forums when we asked them to. Many people from Calguns went on forums like AR15.com, M4carbine.net, 1911forum.com, etc. asking for help in signing our petition. A good majority of them had some really awful things to say about us Californians and refused to help. I'm not getting cranked up about anything. If my comment offended you then I apologize. My intent was not to offend anyone, I just want for those who do not live in California to understand that we're all on the same team.

Don't take him seriously, it's called jealousy.

Right.

jonzer77
07-27-2012, 1:21 PM
I'm not talking about you. If you read my comment again, I said those people that did not want to help us in the out-of-state forums when we asked them to. Many people from Calguns went on forums like AR15.com, M4carbine.net, 1911forum.com, etc. asking for help in signing our petition. A good majority of them had some really awful things to say about us Californians and refused to help. I'm not getting cranked up about anything. If my comment offended you then I apologize. My intent was not to offend anyone, I just want for those who do not live in California to understand that we're all on the same team.



Right.

Aero,

Sorry about that, when I first read his comment I thought it was aimed at another poster in here. That was not aimed at you in anyway.

AeroEngi
07-27-2012, 1:22 PM
Aero,

Sorry about that, when I first read his comment I thought it was aimed at another poster in here. That was not aimed at you in anyway.

It's all good.

SoCalXD
07-27-2012, 1:41 PM
If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

... I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

Please use some of your "GI College Fund" to get yourself to a local junior college and take some US History Classes. You sir, are a threat to our liberties at this point in your infantile understanding of our Rights, freedoms and history.

I used to think that military service should be a requirement for suffrage. With your post, I think some extra tests should be required!

Oh... do you hear that phone ringing? That's the NRA calling you... they want their membership card back! The next call will likely be Boxer's office asking you to join her press conference.

wash
07-27-2012, 1:41 PM
I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

This is the most stupid thing I've read on here in a long time.

I'm not going to pee in a cup or have a needle put in me in exchange for a right that is guaranteed by the constitution.

As a person who doesn't even drink, I have nothing to worry about but the idea is still offensive.

SuperSet
07-27-2012, 1:49 PM
Phrogg111's post is quite unbelievalbe and just gave people like Schumer political ammunition that they need to further this. It's especially sad coming from a vet too, who's sworn to protect our freedoms.

Dantedamean
07-27-2012, 3:00 PM
Don't know if this was posted yet but here's the NRAILA link.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2012/7/anti-gun-senators-offer-gun-control-amendment-for-cybersecurity-bill.aspx

Lugiahua
07-27-2012, 3:08 PM
Curious to see what CGF leadership thinks of this.

Brandon, Gene, Bill?

What are we looking at here..

kind OP here, but do you mind if I use your picture regarding AR-15 on my facebook?

cdtx2001
07-27-2012, 3:09 PM
When criminals stop using hi-cap mags, only then will I consider the idea that I should give up mine. Even then it would be a very tough sell.

dfletcher
07-27-2012, 3:17 PM
More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.



Hopefully you left out these two paragraphs?

CA gun owners. Some so willing to toss in the towel on the politics of gun control. Capacity limits, registration, the "gunshow loophole" - we sure are an agreeable lot, yes?

Just curious. If having a 50 round magazine is bad, isn't having 2 30 round magazines just as bad? Unless one limits the number of magazines a person may possess what's the point of capacity limitations? More importantly, since you're for capacity limitations how do you propose to be intellectually honest and oppose magazine possession limitations? Please, let's not beguile ourselves that the one wouldn't follow the other.

This is for now a political issue. It doesn't seem to me that allowing someone to stick it in halfway is a particularly effective way of convincing them we don't want to be screwed.

dfletcher
07-27-2012, 3:25 PM
Phrogg111's post is quite unbelievable and just gave people like Schumer political ammunition that they need to further this.

Agree. Imagine if during the civil rights issue someone from NAACP said "Well,maybe a little race based discrimination is OK" or from an ACLU attorney who said "not all civil rights are particularly important - we could give up on a few of them".

How about this from GLAD or The Advocate - "Hmm, maybe those 'gays shouldn't be married' folks have a point ....":rolleyes:

Dragunov
07-27-2012, 5:23 PM
So, I just emailed both California senators on this subject, as well as Charles Schumer, and I'm hoping to hear back from at least the California senators. I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people. I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other, and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.Has your cheeze slipped off its cracker?!?:confused: NO, We DO NOT agree... Clear??

NO license. NO mag ban. NO registration.
NO WAY!!! Not a SINGLE INCH!

I better not continue this post, otherwise I will get banned!:mad::mad:

tankarian
07-27-2012, 5:26 PM
People who vote to keep these gun grabbing politicians in power are my enemies. And to be clear, I don't care if they are gun owners or not.

RMP91
07-27-2012, 7:26 PM
People who vote to keep these gun grabbing politicians in power are my enemies. And to be clear, I don't care if they are gun owners or not.

This. Believe it or not, we are our own worst enemies.

Your next door neighbor.

Your best friend.

Your own FAMILY.

Even if they are our own countrymen or even our own flesh and blood, if they support "gun control" they border on Treason and Unamericanism!

Educate every man, woman and child you see! Show them the truth!

epilepticninja
07-27-2012, 7:37 PM
What do STANDARD capacity magazines have to do with cyber security? I worked in that field for many years, don't remember having to use a gun for any of it...

TNP'R
07-27-2012, 7:40 PM
And the guys from the out-of-state forums didn't want to help us with SB249 because they thought they were immune from gun control. I'd like to see what they have to say now.

Yeah ok, that's why every time I shop on amazon some of the money is donated to the calguns foundation.. Think before you speak..

wjc
07-27-2012, 7:44 PM
Just for the record, I flamed DiFi and Boxer over this....not that it will do any good.

I did get a "faster-than-usual" reply from the Boxer camp that basically said nothing.

TNP'R
07-27-2012, 7:54 PM
Just for the record, I flamed DiFi and Boxer over this....not that it will do any good.

I did get a "faster-than-usual" reply from the Boxer camp that basically said nothing.

There's no use in contacting them she doesn't listen never have never will. She needs voted out big time.

Spartanmk1
07-27-2012, 8:06 PM
What the hell does magazine capacity have to do with cyber security?

TNP'R
07-27-2012, 8:09 PM
What the hell does magazine capacity have to do with cyber security?

Nothing, I guess they tried to sneak it in.

Spartanmk1
07-27-2012, 8:14 PM
Nothing, I guess they tried to sneak it in.

This just makes me plain angry.

scootle
07-27-2012, 8:15 PM
sigh, here we go...

i do love how they "amend" this into a completely unrelated bill too... gotta love our political system. here's another blurb if anyone cares to read more:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

bigdawg86
07-27-2012, 8:16 PM
What the hell does magazine capacity have to do with cyber security?

What did SB249 have to do with agriculture? Talk about flaming loopholes... the ability to gut/amend or tack bull**** like this on something unrelated is ridiculous.

creekside
07-27-2012, 8:30 PM
I included that I'm an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in the beginning.

Thank you for your service -- I think but see below at the end. You went to both? With who?

Basically, I think an "assault weapon" ban will do nothing. If these people want to ban weapons that will be used in assault, that have far too much firepower, they should be banning high capacity magazines instead.

I'd argue that high capacity magazines have saved lives in two massacres so far by breaking and depriving the shooter of a weapon.

More importantly, magazines containing 30 rounds and less are "standard" capacity, not "high" capacity. I think we can all agree that magazines containing more than 30 rounds are just for range toys or for killing multiple people.

Disagree. Strongly. The US Forest Service finds all sorts of interesting uses for flamethrowers, recoilless rifles and heavy rifles. You seem to think that firearms are only for killing people.

As for "range toys," I'd like to point out that people don't commit drive-by shootings with late-model sports cars.

I can handle 5 guys with 20 rounds pretty confidently, so I think more than 30 isn't really necessary - but that would still allow us our AR-15s, Mini-14s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. with standard capacity magazines.

"What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable." It was thinking like yours that got Class 3 firearms effectively banned in the first place.

You can't compromise with a gun grabber. NRA has wisely stopped trying.

Resist the temptation to compromise with people who broadcast their intent with Web site addresses such as smartgunlaws.com

I do think that having high-capacity magazines without having a concealed handgun license (which should be allowed everywhere) inside of a large city (by name in the law) might be another thing to regulate.

Why? What is the big deal about having a 30 round magazine? How does a 30 round magazine endanger public safety more than a 20 round magazine? Or a 50 round magazine more than a 30 round magazine?

One of my big issues with SB249 is that it actively endangers soldiers and police who cannot train with the rifles they are expected to defend us with. Do you think that all of them magically live outside the city limits or something?

Gun crime is mostly people in gangs (or similar quality people) shooting each other,

Uh, no. Crime is crime. Guns are tools. A bit over fourteen thousand killings took place in America last year, and about nine thousand of them were with firearms. Most of those were with handguns.

and we want to prevent them from killing each other, not prevent us from having fun at the shooting range or protecting ourselves and ours.

Why do you think there is any connection at all between gun laws and the acts of criminals?

I also think having an assault weapon license that requires no fees but has a drug test would pretty much prevent everyone who's crazy from getting a gun. Once every 3-5 years or so seems reasonable.

I no longer believe you are a vet. Where's veriseal (http://www.veriseal.org/) when you need it? I'm reluctant to waste thanks owed to real heroes on someone who may be impersonating.

The dead giveaway: you used the mythological term "assault weapon." Soldiers call them rifles or carbines. Police call them patrol rifles. You have to be an aspiring police chief or a gun banner to use the term "assault weapon" in a serious conversation.

You must not have been in the US Army, because the definition of an assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle) is well known.

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

Class 3 weapons capable of selective fire are essentially banned in California and difficult to get in other states.

Drug testing detects whether someone is a drug user. It does little to nothing for detecting whether someone is going to commit a violent crime. (It does detect a tendency to steal everything not nailed down, and to carry a hammer or pry bar, but that's junkies for you.)

I suppose next you'll be referring to 30+ round magazines as "assault clips."

Sigh.

AeroEngi
07-27-2012, 8:38 PM
Yeah ok, that's why every time I shop on amazon some of the money is donated to the calguns foundation.. Think before you speak..

Read my previous post before you speak. I wasn't referring to those who are helping us already. I'm referring to those people on the other forums that were so rude to Calgunners when they asked for their help.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

wjc
07-27-2012, 9:54 PM
There's no use in contacting them she doesn't listen never have never will. She needs voted out big time.

I agree but I gotta try...

soap box, ballot box, ammo box.

selfshrevident
07-28-2012, 2:05 AM
So what do you all think the chances are of this thing passing the house?

wjc
07-28-2012, 4:57 PM
Hard to tell. It depends a lot on the sentiment towards the Cybersecurity Bill that this amendment was shoved into.

I'm sure any Democrat would be for it.

dustoff31
07-28-2012, 6:15 PM
So what do you all think the chances are of this thing passing the house?

It has to go through two votes in the senate before it even gets to the house. First the senate has to vote on approving the amendment and including it in the bill.

If it passes, they then have to vote on the bill itself. So the dems from pro gun states will have two opportunities to piss off their constituients, or perhaps conversely, placate them. Hopefully they choose wisely.

Only after that does it go to the House.

selfshrevident
07-29-2012, 3:50 AM
It has to go through two votes in the senate before it even gets to the house. First the senate has to vote on approving the amendment and including it in the bill.

If it passes, they then have to vote on the bill itself. So the dems from pro gun states will have two opportunities to piss off their constituients, or perhaps conversely, placate them. Hopefully they choose wisely.

Only after that does it go to the House.

Right. I was kinda figuring that it was easily going to sail through the senate (could be wrong) but hopefully met by hard resistance from the house.

Bhobbs
07-29-2012, 1:00 PM
Gee what a surprise, LEOs are exempt. If there is no purpose for hi caps other than slaughtering as many people as possible, why do cops need them?

Edit: I think I'm going to email that question to the author and see what they say.

Glock22Fan
07-29-2012, 1:11 PM
AeroEngi: I live in Florida. I have no idea what SB249 is, or how I should help the Citizens of California. I simply don't understand why you get cranked up because of "lack of support" for Californians. We had absolutely nothing to do with the enactment of your illegal, unconstitutional laws. Your legislators voted for this garbage and your governor signed it, if I'm not mistaken.

Obviously it was all the Jews fault that they were incarcerated in concentration camps; after all, they voted for Hitler!

</Sarcasm>

RMP91
07-29-2012, 1:48 PM
I thought it was my understanding that the NRA has a... well, I don't want to use the word "stranglehold" but it's the best way to describe it, on Congress?

Which pretty much means anything even remotely related to gun control (such as this amendment to a CYBER SECURITY bill) is DoA and those who authored it will be voted out of office in November...

The Bradys can ***** and moan and cry and use their emotions all they want, but they are losing and they know it, as much as they don't want to admit it. They are being sore losers... They need to know when to quit.

Guns are here to stay in all their "evil" glory!

We have the FACTS on OUR side (which reminds me, the Brady Camp website says you can "get the facts", can we sue them for lying? :D )

PS: The NRA outnumbers the Bradys 4.3 million : 28,000 (anyone who's a math nerd can round that down to an appropriate ratio, I'm too lazy to do it right now :p )

Nyanman
07-29-2012, 1:54 PM
Sounds like they are going with a variant of the hughes amendment and sticking laws on a bill few people will read.

RMP91
07-29-2012, 1:56 PM
Sounds like they are going with a variant of the hughes amendment and sticking laws on a bill few people will read.

Come to think of it... Wasn't this how the '86 MG Registration cutoff was passed? (and even then, it didn't get all the votes needed, but it went through anyway! :mad: )

But technically, the original bill itself was supposed to help us...

scarville
07-29-2012, 4:30 PM
I love my Rossi 357 24 inch lever....and as I read section "b" in the first outline a tube feed only applies to 22LR's.....this could be a serious issue for those of us that like our levers!

I was thinking about that too. What are the DC peckerheads going to do with a lever rifle that holds 12 or 13 rounds? Or a carbine that holds 10 X 44 magnum but 11 X 44 spl?

abishai
07-30-2012, 11:08 AM
From NAGR TODAY:

Democrat anti-gunners could force a "Magazine Ban" vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate as early as today.

They're attempting to ban magazines used commonly for self-defense and sport shooting by burying an amendment deep inside the "Cybersecurity Act" (S. 3414).

The amendment (S.A. 2575) allows for serial number tracking and the potential for additional gun control regulations by Attorney General Eric Holder -- without Congressional approval.

And to makes matters worse for gun owners, if you get caught carrying one of these “high capacity magazines” you could be looking at the inside of a prison cell for the next ten years.

Please call and right now:

202-225-3121

Demand they OPPOSE S. 3414, the so-called “Cybersecurity Act,” and S.A. 2575, the Schumer “Magazine Ban.”

Thanks in advance for taking action.

Call the switchboard and demand they oppose this Bill, and the Ammendment, to create a FEDERAL magazine ban on capacities over 10 rounds, or every state will be CA.

Switchboard: 202-225-3121
Feinstein: 202-224-3841
Boxer: 202-224-3553

abishai
07-30-2012, 11:10 AM
From NAGR TODAY:

Democrat anti-gunners could force a "Magazine Ban" vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate as early as today.

They're attempting to ban magazines used commonly for self-defense and sport shooting by burying an amendment deep inside the "Cybersecurity Act" (S. 3414).

The amendment (S.A. 2575) allows for serial number tracking and the potential for additional gun control regulations by Attorney General Eric Holder -- without Congressional approval.

And to makes matters worse for gun owners, if you get caught carrying one of these “high capacity magazines” you could be looking at the inside of a prison cell for the next ten years.

Please call and right now:

202-225-3121

Demand they OPPOSE S. 3414, the so-called “Cybersecurity Act,” and S.A. 2575, the Schumer “Magazine Ban.”

Thanks in advance for taking action.

Call the switchboard and demand they oppose this Bill, and the Ammendment, to create a FEDERAL magazine ban on capacities over 10 rounds, or every state will be CA.

Switchboard: 202-225-3121
Feinstein: 202-224-3841
Boxer: 202-224-3553

RMP91
07-30-2012, 11:40 AM
Any update on this? Are they going to vote on it today?

someR1
07-30-2012, 12:23 PM
SOFB. First SB249, now this?! :mad:


I really hate America for what it is becoming. Seriously.

wjc
07-30-2012, 5:20 PM
SOFB. First SB249, now this?! :mad:


I really hate America for what it is becoming. Seriously.

The problem is not America...it's the leadership...or lack thereof.

someR1
07-30-2012, 5:24 PM
The problem is not America...it's the leadership...or lack thereof.

INCORRECT ....there are a lot of idiotic people in this country .... including democrats and people like Lautenberg :p

Wherryj
07-31-2012, 9:16 AM
exactly, lol you know there will be guys in "china town" type places selling pre-dated post ban manufactured mags.

yiiiippp, just found a new box in the storage shed...

The funny thing is that this actually does happen.

I was cleaning out my safe about a year ago. I had purchased a couple of "standard cap" magazines for my 92FS when I purchased it in 1990, but I forgot about the other four that I stashed in the plastic case that the firearm was shipped in.

I opened the box and to my surprise found an additional four magazines still in the packaging with very faded price stickers.

You may not believe stories like that, but it actually does happen occasionally.

Wherryj
07-31-2012, 9:36 AM
INCORRECT ....there are a lot of idiotic people in this country .... including democrats and people like Lautenberg :p

True. I was talking to one of my brothers-in-law over the weekend. He was surprised at some idiotic law that was on the books, so I said "What do you expect, you live in the Nanny state?"

He took great offense at my calling it the Nanny state, so I asked him if he knew about the LA Co beaches banning digging holes/throwing objects other than a beach ball. The stated, "that sounds like a good idea. That can be dangerous."

It appears that even supposedly well-educated people have been indoctrinated with the "only WE can protect you" mentality by this state. There is NO way to remove all risk from life. There IS a way to remove ALL freedom/enjoyment from it.

YubaRiver
07-31-2012, 9:43 AM
The cyber security bill is not popular with all. For example, our local congress woman (GOP) wants this bill badly and the local liberals are afraid the bill will further allow government meddling into private affairs.

Adding the magazine bans into this bill is one way to gum up the works and stop the cyber bill. A poison pill.

cortayack
07-31-2012, 10:03 AM
tag for later update

dfletcher
07-31-2012, 1:04 PM
If it hasn't been mentioned Lautenberg, not Leiberman authored the bill.

Librarian
07-31-2012, 1:56 PM
If it hasn't been mentioned Lautenberg, not Leiberman authored the bill.

Slight mis-statement: Lieberman is the sponsor for S 3414; Lautenberg is the first listed sponsor for the amendment which is the topic of the thread.

SuperSet
08-02-2012, 11:51 AM
Defeated in the Senate this morning!

http://mobile.complianceweek.com/cybersecurity-act-defeated-in-senate/marticle/253177/

Rock6.3
08-02-2012, 11:54 AM
Defeated in the Senate this morning!

http://mobile.complianceweek.com/cybersecurity-act-defeated-in-senate/marticle/253177/

Thank you for the good news.

AeroEngi
08-02-2012, 12:00 PM
Defeated in the Senate this morning!

http://mobile.complianceweek.com/cybersecurity-act-defeated-in-senate/marticle/253177/

That's excellent news! Thanks for the update.

mmayer707
08-02-2012, 12:00 PM
Defeated in the Senate this morning!

http://mobile.complianceweek.com/cybersecurity-act-defeated-in-senate/marticle/253177/

Nice! :D

adampolo13
08-02-2012, 12:00 PM
Another Victory!!! In the Senate to boot!

RMP91
08-02-2012, 12:26 PM
This song was the first thing that came to mind when I saw that the bill was killed! :cool:

tVm7LOHNA24&feature=plcp

chead
08-02-2012, 12:51 PM
I'd guess it doesn't have a chance, maybe that is why?

Remember the Federal "AW" ban?

wash
08-02-2012, 5:41 PM
I opened the box and to my surprise found an additional four magazines still in the packaging with very faded price stickers.

You may not believe stories like that, but it actually does happen occasionally.
Most of my pre-ban magazines are pretty banged up...

cdtx2001
08-02-2012, 7:17 PM
Nice to get some good news today.

Dantedamean
08-02-2012, 7:18 PM
Huzzah! Some good news.

Mesa Tactical
08-03-2012, 6:27 AM
Remember the Federal "AW" ban?

I remember that and so does the Congressional Democratic leadership (or more specifically, they remember what happened in the 1994 election).

CDFingers
08-03-2012, 6:37 AM
Defeated: good.

Congress as a whole has no stomach for new gun laws, but that does not stop election year grandstanding.

CDFingers

hill billy
08-03-2012, 10:17 AM
Excellent.

PixelBender
08-03-2012, 10:38 AM
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.''.



Because nothing says safer America than locking someone up for 10 years over a magazine. *eye roll*

wilit
08-03-2012, 11:01 AM
Huzzah!

Fiveohmike
08-03-2012, 11:33 AM
Thank god....now back to SB249 >.<

WOLFN8TR
08-03-2012, 11:56 AM
And the guys from the out-of-state forums didn't want to help us with SB249 because they thought they were immune from gun control. I'd like to see what they have to say now.

Are you sure about that? I'm from Las Vegas, I voted and spread the word to everyone I know that are gun enthusiast's. We are all in this together! I'm on Nevada Shooters under the same name. Alot of guys up here are on Calguns also. You all should join, it will help us all to stay informed on the latest news/info.

AWESOME NEWS!!!!

Cnynrat
08-03-2012, 12:02 PM
Some great news for a change!

DonFerrando
08-03-2012, 12:17 PM
Encouraging! My spirits are up this morning!

Knife Edge
08-03-2012, 12:33 PM
When criminals stop using hi-cap mags, only then will I consider the idea that I should give up mine. Even then it would be a very tough sell.

Define criminal.. Hither? SS? Death squads? Extremists? Terrorists? Cartel controlled special police?

tuolumnejim
08-03-2012, 1:16 PM
Are you sure about that? I'm from Las Vegas, I voted and spread the word to everyone I know that are gun enthusiast's. We are all in this together! I'm on Nevada Shooters under the same name. Alot of guys up here are on Calguns also. You all should join, it will help us all to stay informed on the latest news/info.

AWESOME NEWS!!!!

I'm over there on the same user name myself. :D

WOLFN8TR
08-07-2012, 12:43 PM
I'm over there on the same user name myself. :D

Cool

bwiese
08-07-2012, 12:47 PM
As long as we are slightly on our toes, we will NOT have a Federal mag ban.

Which means (depending on a bit of handwaving that may be over in a month or two) we can pursue special path to hicap magazines in CA, regardless of CA law.

Chosen_1
08-07-2012, 12:54 PM
As long as we are slightly on our toes, we will NOT have a Federal mag ban.

Which means (depending on a bit of handwaving that may be over in a month or two) we can pursue special path to hicap magazines in CA, regardless of CA law.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/Ilikewherethisthreadisgoing.jpg