United States cyber security legislation may include a high-capacity magazine ban

Why are politicians allowed to do this kind of stuff? Lucky for us living in the Internet age, congress-critters can’t sneak stuff into legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legislation. Some Democrat senators are trying to add a high-capacity magazine ban into S.3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.

Here is the full text of the act as provided to us by the good people at OpenCongress. org, which does not include the amendment submitted quietly on Wednesday. I had no idea the Internet was under threat of getting shot up by fruitcakes with high-capacity magazines. Please excuse the incorrect paragraph breaks, and my emphasis is in bold.

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.

Yes, they included a grandfather clause.

‘‘(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.’’.

More knee jerk reactions that will do nothing to “solve a problem.”

I challenge any of the senators who have brought forward to this amendment to a debate on live TV. I’ve never done anything like that before, so I’m certain to be a frazzled mess on air, but let’s get together, discuss the facts and let’s each take a shot at convincing the people their suggested action would actually do anything to reduce violent crimes with a firearm.

Keep in mind, these senators are not just targeting sport rifles, they are targeting self defense pistols as well. Again, I remind you all of my previous articles on the subject. PLEASE READ THESE POSTS AND SHARE WITH FRIENDS.

Back in Sept. 2010, notice how Susan Campbell (my post, her blog) at the Hartford Courant kept wondering why gun permit information in Connecticut should not be made public … and notice how she had absolutely no response to the questions I asked and details I provided, she couldn’t handle it … gun control advocates can’t handle a debate.
4 replies
  1. Shared Sacrifice
    Shared Sacrifice says:

    Seems like the debate used to be about 18 or 19 round clips, now they’re  down to 10? Gotta love progressives!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments are closed.