Skip to comments.Cyber bill has gun control amendment [Video at link]
Posted on 07/26/2012 5:46:43 PM PDT by jazusamo
Democratic senators included an amendment in 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 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 would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.
Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight for Republicans and gun rights activists.
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some, Schumer said.
He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.
The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns, Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that thats not true at all.
Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans dont need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.
We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle, Schumer said. Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties maybe theres a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.
Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on amendments to the Cybersecurity bill.
How typical. Add a last minute-kneejerk tag onto an existing bill to score some brownie points. We really are in sad shape with the current crop of Senators..is this the best they can do? God, where do these people come from?
This should be DOA in the House, but I hope the Democrats make gun control a major campaign issue. Hopefully, they'll make repealing the Second Amendment a plank in their platform.
Snakes is a good term for the bunch of them. This amendment has nothing to do with Cyber security but they’ve learned to sneak things by with their slimy paws.
Or more correctly, had sexy rifles, err, I mean, 'assault weapons' been banned, he probably would have just used a bomb and killed five times as many people. Gosh, we should have laws against bombs...
I think there are more players ,or maybe puppetmasters, behind the Aurora atrocity.
It did divert much attention rom the won’s ruination of the economy.
Exactly...Incrementalism is what it’s all about and every leftist is going to keep plugging away to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
There are laws against murder in Colorado...fat lot of good that did in Aurora.
Fact is that there are so many hundreds of millions of magazines out there that such a law would do nothing to stop crime. Even the Chuckie-logic fails, let alone real logic, let alone the Constitutionality of the whole thing.
Pubbies in the House had BETTER kill this, or a lot of us will go to the range or reload instead of going to the polls.
Millions of criminals made overnight. Possessing one 30 round mag would make you a criminal.
This is a good move. Doesn’t the cybersecurity bill already have some things in it most conservatives find objectionable? Hopefully, Chuckie Cheese had pushed a few more Pubbies into voting against the whole thing now.
I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Now that we have the Heller and McDonald decisions from the Supreme Court, I am expecting dramatic roll-backs in the many infringements in place here.
I am expecting the Appeals Courts, or the Supreme Court if necessary, to strike down "may issue" carry permits, ten day waiting periods, idiotic "unsafe handgun" lists, normal capacity magazine bans, and prohibitions against some rifles simply because they have a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.
We gun owners in Kalifornia are not only not going "one step further", we are going full steam ahead at taking back our rights.
Prior to the Kalifornia normal-capacity magazine ban, I purchased $1000 worth of magazines; many for guns I didn't yet own. I resolve here today that if Schumer succeeds in passing his infringement, I will personally purchase $10,000 worth of magazines. Because of Kalifornia's infringements, I will have to store them out-of-state, but buy them I will.
I will also encourage anyone I can to do the same, pointing out that I am among the elite in Kalifornia who owns "grand-fathered" normal-capacity magazines. There will be smoke rising from the overheated equipment manufacturing normal-capacity magazines if I have any say in the matter.
These fools sure are pushing hard. I wonder if they really think they can control the disaster they seem hell-bent on unleashing. Once it starts, all bets are off.
In my experience, high capacity magazine serve little benefit in all but machine guns.
Three, ten round magazines, in the hands of a competent rifleman, can put as much lead down range as accurately and as rapidly as a highcap mag in a civilian AR-15.
The California, off-list AK-47 certainly benefits from a highcap mag but the rifle is basically a spray gun beyond 25 meters.
Schumer and his wife both have NY carry permits
Feinstein and her husband both have CA carry permits
Sarah Brady carries a .38
Well at least they won’t be able to take away my 100,000 round 22 caliber multi barrel gatling gun....
Spot on. I think even the sheeples know that with us they get freedom to have a weapon so if one needs to, one can protect ones-self and their loved-ones.
Who would not want that? Dick-taters, that’s who. They want all your freedoms. Get a clue lefty’s!
I suspect they will put this on every bill until it passes.
(Schwuler = Fag in German)
Ditto for Midway USA - they’re limiting Magpul 20 rnd AR15 mags to one order every 48 hours due to high demand.
I don't totally disagree. However, if a single armed person wished to ambush a much larger group, I can see where not having to reload could be an advantage. I will leave to the imagination of the reader when such a circumstance might arise.