Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Lautenberg amendment (S.A. 2575) (Large capacity magazine ban.)

  1. #1
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default Lautenberg amendment (S.A. 2575) (Large capacity magazine ban.)

    [SIZE=2]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.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2](a) Definition.–Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device’–[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed *****, 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[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2](b) Prohibitions.–Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(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.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2][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.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to–[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(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);[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(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;[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(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[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(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.”.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=2](c) Penalties.–Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2]“(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=2](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.”.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=2]Congressional Record – 112th Congress (2011-2012) – THOMAS (Library of Congress)"



    Thought it deserved its own thread. Thoughts? [/SIZE][SIZE=2]
    [/SIZE]

  2. #2
    Senior Member RICHICOQUI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    new york city
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    LAUTENBERG is useless good for nothing! This wont pass the house!!

  3. #3
    Gun Nut Geezah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hey everyone, look at me, I'm the only important one here...
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,324

    Default

    It will be intersting how much attention this gets, as it will be the death of the Dems in the Senate/House, or the icing on top of the cake in my mind, given the general pulbic do not want to further restrict the 2nd AM, when they understand that nuts will always have access to dangerous things.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RICHICOQUI View Post
    LAUTENBERG is useless good for nothing! This wont pass the house!!
    The problem is...the main bill HAS passed the house. It means that if the Senate CAN get it through fillabuster and get it attached to the cyber security bill, it'll have to go to conference committee and be ironed out. That doesn't leave me feeling good (as there are too many backroom, shady deals that happen in conference).

  5. #5
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    If nothing else this is going to elicit a run on large cap magazines as ones you already have would appear to be legal.

    "[SIZE=2]“(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."[/SIZE]

  6. #6
    Member Odd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Self-serf Nolij Station
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Not sure what a capacity limit on magazines can even accomplish. I mean the CO shooter's gun apparently jammed and no one rushed him. Even if the magazine capacity limit had been in place at the time, due to the panic and confusion I doubt anyone would of even noticed if the guy was reloading. Pointless law seeing as someone could buy many 10rd mags and practice reloading/tape two mags together.

  7. #7
    Banned User Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    45
    Posts
    44,152

    Default

    I bet staffers invest in weapons accessories the day before these kinds of things are announced.

  8. #8
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    32,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RICHICOQUI View Post
    LAUTENBERG is useless good for nothing! This wont pass the house!!
    Wont pass the Current house. IF the GOP loses control in November expect it to fly through when re introduced.

  9. #9
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,327

    Arrow

    Anti-gun amendments like this get proposed and killed all the time.

  10. #10
    Senior Member KillerBD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    Not to mention the "CA legal" 30-round look alike magazines that only hold 10, can be easily converted to normal capacity. So even if this shooter had been under those restrictions and had half a brain, he still could have modified his kit out, essentially breaking the law in doing so.

    Oh yeah, almost forgot. Law prevents crime, how stupid I am to assume criminals don't obey the law...

  11. #11
    Member ljrmisty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    On my Sail boat, waiting for the tide
    Age
    61
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RICHICOQUI View Post
    LAUTENBERG is useless good for nothing! This wont pass the house!!
    Wow! You obviously don't know Bill. Or squat. Bill Lautenburg has been responsible for bringing to the table more difficult subjects to talk about than most anyone I know. He is a scientist first. A well respected scientist. I disagree with much of and many of his opinions, but I applaud his courage to speak up and to speak out on a controversial subject. He has been known to change his mind, (my dear God), when more facts have been offered. To call this man "useless good for nothing is as ignorant a statement as I have heard on this forum.
    And before you rant, read this again. For some reason, I feel it necessary to repeat myself. I disagree with much of and many of his opinions, but I applaud........
    Here we go....

  12. #12
    Senior Member Roebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FightinBluHen51 View Post
    The problem is...the main bill HAS passed the house. It means that if the Senate CAN get it through fillabuster and get it attached to the cyber security bill, it'll have to go to conference committee and be ironed out. That doesn't leave me feeling good (as there are too many backroom, shady deals that happen in conference).
    No. the senate. link? proof?

  13. #13
    Member Gunfighter-AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    République de Louisiane
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roebuck View Post
    No. the senate. link? proof?
    It hasn't. You can track it here.

  14. #14
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ljrmisty View Post
    Wow! You obviously don't know Bill. Or squat. Bill Lautenburg has been responsible for bringing to the table more difficult subjects to talk about than most anyone I know. He is a scientist first. A well respected scientist. I disagree with much of and many of his opinions, but I applaud his courage to speak up and to speak out on a controversial subject. He has been known to change his mind, (my dear God), when more facts have been offered. To call this man "useless good for nothing is as ignorant a statement as I have heard on this forum.
    And before you rant, read this again. For some reason, I feel it necessary to repeat myself. I disagree with much of and many of his opinions, but I applaud........
    Here we go....
    Him being a scientist has no particular merit when we're discussing political opinions. At best, he has the ability to cast a more informed vote on a topic within his field of expertise. Such a false equivalence has no place in informed debate.

    Furthermore, if he's so "courageous" in attempting to bring such controversial topics to the center of debate, why, tell me, is he attempting to hide his little present in a bill on an entirely different subject? Riders are done for two reasons:

    1. To pass a piece of legislation that would likely fail or be damaging politically if it were presented on its own
    2. To slow or delay the passage of another bill by making it untenable for its supporters

    I'm not seeing courage here. Shrewd political sense, possibly, but courage? No, he's attempting to hide his proposal. Luckily, it appears he's failed at doing so.

    Also, shouldn't Lautenberg, a scientist, be concerned with data when formulating positions? If he were, he'd note that this sort of measure has been tried in the past here -- and has been demonstrated to have no effect on the violent crime rate. Mass killings didn't suddenly stop after 1994 either; the Jonesboro school shootings, Columbine, and Oklahoma City (not a shooting, but certainly more deadly than any shooting we've had in this country thus far) are among many examples of mass killings that occurred under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which included a 10-round capacity limit).
    Last edited by NeedsABetterName; 07-27-2012 at 09:45 PM.

  15. #15
    Member ljrmisty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    On my Sail boat, waiting for the tide
    Age
    61
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsABetterName View Post
    Him being a scientist has no particular merit when we're discussing political opinions. At best, he has the ability to cast a more informed vote on a topic within his field of expertise. Such a false equivalence has no place in informed debate.

    Furthermore, if he's so "courageous" in attempting to bring such controversial topics to the center of debate, why, tell me, is he attempting to hide his little present in a bill on an entirely different subject? Riders are done for two reasons:

    1. To pass a piece of legislation that would likely fail or be damaging politically if it were presented on its own
    2. To slow or delay the passage of another bill by making it untenable for its supporters

    I'm not seeing courage here. Shrewd political sense, possibly, but courage? No, he's attempting to hide his proposal. Luckily, it appears he's failed at doing so.

    Furthermore, shouldn't Lautenberg, a scientist, be concerned with data when formulating positions? If he were, he'd note that this sort of measure has been tried in the past here -- and has been demonstrated to have no effect on the violent crime rate. Mass killings didn't suddenly stop after 1994 either; the Jonesboro school shootings, Columbine, and Oklahoma City (not a shooting, but certainly more deadly than any shooting we've had in this country thus far) are among many examples of mass killings that occurred under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which included a 10-round capacity limit).
    Point taken. My point is he brings to bear (to me) difficult subjects, as I said, many of which I don't agree with. At no time did you, in your response refer to him nor denigrate him as "useless good for nothing". That is a place I rarely see this forum go too. Disagree. Please. But at least know whom your referring to.
    FYI: Your talking to a Centrist/liberal who believes you can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers. I don't care HOW many round you've got in your mag, it won't change Aurora.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •