Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 10:13 PM Jul 2012

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

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

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). 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.

The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

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

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill (Original Post) PoliticAverse Jul 2012 OP
ie, the usual suspects.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #1
I think this is a good thing Travis_0004 Jul 2012 #2
It's a backdoor "assault weapons" ban derby378 Jul 2012 #10
another good reason to shitcan a rotten POS bill. ileus Jul 2012 #3
So after Obama shot himself in one foot, his buddies were kind enought to shoot him in the other? TPaine7 Jul 2012 #4
Full text of the proposed amendment.... PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #5
Oh my, that's an even more moronic version than Frank's last one.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #6
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said. virginia mountainman Jul 2012 #7
what he's giving up, of course, HALO141 Jul 2012 #13
Fat chance. Clames Jul 2012 #8
I have a .380 that has 12 rounds for its standard magazine. GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #9
I'm against anything that has the modifier "cyber" in it slackmaster Jul 2012 #11
Looks like we've chosen to play it stupid once again. Simo 1939_1940 Jul 2012 #12
What I really find interesting is how far away from common sense legislation like this is. Clames Jul 2012 #14
What about my origional 1873 Winchester rifles. Do they become illegal? oneshooter Jul 2012 #15
They'll probably go with a two feature test. Clames Jul 2012 #17
"But street criminals are interested almost exclusively in semiautomatics..." Kaleva Jul 2012 #16
A Machiavellian effort to blunt opposition to their civil liberties eroding initiative TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #18
With any luck ErikO Jul 2012 #19
And it's dead. Clames Aug 2012 #20
wasn't the bill originally a gejohnston Aug 2012 #21

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
1. ie, the usual suspects..
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 10:34 PM
Jul 2012

Expect the house version to be sponsored by Rep Carolyn "Shoulder Thing that Goes Up" McCarthy.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
2. I think this is a good thing
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 10:39 PM
Jul 2012

I didn't want the bill to pass before. If you add gun control legislation, then its odds of getting passed go way down. Without a poision pill, this bill has a chance of passing.


derby378

(30,252 posts)
10. It's a backdoor "assault weapons" ban
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 07:18 PM
Jul 2012

This is gun-control legislation. And really stupid legislation, too.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
4. So after Obama shot himself in one foot, his buddies were kind enought to shoot him in the other?
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 10:57 PM
Jul 2012

So this is how the Democrats have chosen to destroy their chances at the White House? If Obama didn't want it, why couldn't he let someone else run?

Romney sucks on gun rights, so the gun card really wasn't his to play. Until now.

Sigh.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
5. Full text of the proposed amendment....
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 11:25 PM
Jul 2012


From: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-07-25/pdf/CREC-2012-07-25-pt1-PgS5401-3.pdf


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.’’.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
6. Oh my, that's an even more moronic version than Frank's last one..
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:20 AM
Jul 2012

Serial numbers on magazines?? No grandfathering? (Which is a big fuck you to any retailer with inventory.)

And of course the obligatory, "doesn't apply to cops".

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)
7. “Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:37 AM
Jul 2012

I wonder what HE, is willing to give up? After all, we already have the magazines....excuse me, clips, Since he is calling on HIS SIDE to "give some" I wonder what that means??

hmmm, I wonder?! Reopen the machine gun registry closed in 1986?? How about nation wide CCW, never mind about the national CCW, we are ABOUT to have that anyway, we almost had it a couple of years ago, and in the meantime, we have elected a couple of MORE pro gun legislators, so never mind, we will come back to this later....

That would be something on the table, after all he said, "each side gave some"...

If gun controllers like Schumer, are not willing to give up something in return, why should we even consider talking to them?? We are the ones with something they want, so, they need to bring something WE want.

After all, WE are in the position of strength, with almost overwhelming political support.

Chucky, bring something to the table, to "give to US" first... After all, what does your side wish to give, to get?

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
8. Fat chance.
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:46 AM
Jul 2012

There were untold millions of such magazines in 1994. There are a hell of a lot more now.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
9. I have a .380 that has 12 rounds for its standard magazine.
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:48 AM
Jul 2012

Lots of semiautos take more than 10 for standard magazines. There is one semiauto that takes 50 rounds for its standard magazine.

FN PS90 5.7mm carbine

Simo 1939_1940

(768 posts)
12. Looks like we've chosen to play it stupid once again.
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:46 PM
Jul 2012



(since there's no emoticon of a face with a single tear running down it's face)
 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
14. What I really find interesting is how far away from common sense legislation like this is.
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 11:17 PM
Jul 2012

Let's look at a list of the top 10 crime guns compiled by the FBI. It is an old list but I haven't seen a newer one come out.

1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html#ixzz21sptUz7U


Vast majority are cheap, poorly made semi-autos that held less than 10 rounds anyway. #1 is a revolver. What magazine ban will affect that? Idiocy, pure and simple.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
15. What about my origional 1873 Winchester rifles. Do they become illegal?
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 11:30 PM
Jul 2012

Or are we to saw off the magazine tube to comply?

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
17. They'll probably go with a two feature test.
Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:03 AM
Jul 2012

You'll be ok as long as you don't install one of those large "assault" loops on it...

Kaleva

(36,343 posts)
16. "But street criminals are interested almost exclusively in semiautomatics..."
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 11:35 PM
Jul 2012

Interesting article! Bookmarked.

TheKentuckian

(25,029 posts)
18. A Machiavellian effort to blunt opposition to their civil liberties eroding initiative
Sat Jul 28, 2012, 08:57 PM
Jul 2012

taking advantage of anti-gun passion.

That way you can, if things break that way, utilize the politically semi opposing fear of terror and the gun control movement to assault the Bill of Rights.

I'm supremely disgusted.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
21. wasn't the bill originally a
Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:51 PM
Aug 2012

a right wing attack on internet free speech? That was my understanding. If so, the poison pill did it's job.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Democratic senators offer...