• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Ban amendment-urgent

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/rkba-news- ... -mags.html

"This is an amendment that was snuck into the Cyber Bill to be voted on next week. It bans the sale and transfer of "high capacity" magazines. In other words, if this passes, no one will be able to purchase any new or old rifle or pistol magazines. It also makes it illegal to sell or give your old magazines to anyone else.


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:

``( 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.''.
 

MikeD

I'm Your Huckleberry
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Holly cow!! They are always trying to sneak stuff through. Where the hell are our pro-2A/pro-gun representatives? My reps from MI are useless.

I had heard rumblings about this a few days ago but I didn't hear any more so I thought it was just that.
 

Rossignol

The Original Sheriff
Global Moderator
Sponsor
Moderator
This so EFFIN rediculous!!! UGH!!!!!!!!

What flippin difference does a magazine make?
 

Ttutt

.270 WIN
next, when restricting the size of the magazine doesn't work, they will try to limit how many magazines one can have.
 

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
The politicians that added this to another bill are scum. For anyone that thinks the NRA is overboard, these clows are the reason why. I don't expect this to go anywhere when it's argued and voted on but you never know. Maybe they are hoping for negotiating to get anything concession thay can or just trying to make the pro gun members of Congress look bad.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
carbinemike said:
The politicians that added this to another bill are scum.


SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment
 

Towmaster21

.270 WIN
Here we go again, anyone think it will get the 60 votes needed to get out of the Senate or even make it through the House?
My answer would be no on both but given the recent trajedy in Colorado I get the feeling you have some politicians who are looking for an excuse to pass what they consider common sense laws. I got a good chuckle from Chuckles Schumer who said both parties needed to "give a little" yeah I'm sure his idea of giving a little is giving nothing.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
I'm just going to be my normal blunt self and say what's on my mind.

This amendment WILL affect your 2A rights. Let me explain.

I don't think anyone believes it, but just because you don't limit the MILLIONS of regular capacity magazines, or MILLIONS of owners during their lifetime, eventually (maybe 50 years or so) the entire population will be limited.

One of the things that disturbs me is that some old (C&R) guns, do not have 10 round magazines. nor have they ever have had small magazines available for them.

So what does that mean?

It means that this law will not only stop magazines from being transferred, it will turn some legitimate guns into a paperweight because they have no magazine that can be used in them.

I could go into a lot more detail, but a few examples would be

http://centerfiresystems.com/RIFLE-STER762x25.aspx

http://centerfiresystems.com/rifle-suomi.aspx

http://centerfiresystems.com/rifle-uzi.aspx

http://centerfiresystems.com/MP5GUN-VEL.aspx

http://centerfiresystems.com/rifle-m37.aspx

http://centerfiresystems.com/RIFLE-MG34.aspx

OK, now that we have some of the collector items were covered, now let's talk about a whole other aspect of this and I am going to use myself for an example.

I have spent a great deal of trouble and expense to buy a registered machine gun. That machinegun is an Ingram M10A1.

It has been converted to accept Suomi M31 9mm magazines which for anyone that doesn't know, was old world war 2 gun from finland.

What this law says is that I can transfer the legally owned gun to my heirs that could legally own them, BUT, I cannot give them magazines to go with the gun.

It will turn that open bolt machine gun into a taxed paperweight because it would be unsafe to manually push a round in the chamber with your finger and then pull the trigger and let the bolt fly home and shoot the gun. It is almost impossible to allow a bullet to just rest in the chamber of an open bolt gun and fire it.

So, this IS an attack on our second amendment freedoms. The left says that it isn't because they're not "banning" firearms, but when you take away the capability to use them, what else is it besides an infringement?
 

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
John is right that anti mag laws are against the 2nd ammendment. So are any laws that go after ammo. The part about being to pass on a gun but not the mags is part of the effort to disarm us incrementally over 2-3 generations.
 

Towmaster21

.270 WIN
No arguement there, its the same old same out of the left, we support the 2nd Amendment.....just don't look as we pick its pockets, stab it in the back and gut it.
 

Towmaster21

.270 WIN
I now see in addition to this magazine ban amendment Sen Lautenberg is also trying to restrict the sales of ammunition online to the public, has anyone heard about this bill or if the magazine ban amendment has gained any traction?
 

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Can anyone here comment that owns a drum mag? I have only ever read that they jam up constantly. Not that I think drums should be banned but I'd rather have (3) 30 round mags than a 100 round drum. Of course they want my 30 rounders too.

They said that the shooter in Colorado stopped because he had a jam. Did the AR jam or was it the drum? I have never heard which but it would be ironic if they are demonizing the drum and it was what caused him to stop, thus sparing more deaths.
 

Rossignol

The Original Sheriff
Global Moderator
Sponsor
Moderator
I believe it was the drum magazine that failed.

I too would rather have (3) 30 round magazines. They stack and store easier too I would think.
 

MikeD

I'm Your Huckleberry
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Good to hear. One battle down, many more to go.
 
Top