search
top

Schumer Attempting to Attach Magazine Ban to Cybersecurity Bill

In a way I’m glad for this. I could stand a good fight to all this sneaking around:

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.

So there we have it folks. Our opponents have made their move. Now we have to counter.

18 Responses to “Schumer Attempting to Attach Magazine Ban to Cybersecurity Bill”

  1. Terraformer says:

    I havent seen a cyber security bill that needed to be passed so burn that sucker down. We don’t need any of it.

  2. mike says:

    Good. Hopefully it gets attached to the Senate bill and the bill dies, although I don’t trust 100% that the House GOP wouldn’t pass it, because they’re just slightly less freedom-hating than the Dems.

    Either way, the Dems are out there drumming up donations for the NRA again.

    • Shawn says:

      The house republicans would love to have one of their internet censorship bills pass. If it gets attached I FULLY expect the house to pass it. Which means the republicans will have thrown gun rights and free speech rights under the bus at the same time.

      They are not going to let a simple gun magazine ban stop them from killing free speech on the internet. I mean how many of these bills have they introduced in just they last year? And then they would pass it to have obama sign it so they can go ‘look! obama signed for gun control’ to try and stir up support for romney which will fail. obama’s re-selection as president is 100% assurred.

      So I FULLY expect this to pass. Expect magazines over 10 rounds to be illegal to buy, sell or transfer by the start of next year. The dems that introduced this ammendment are baking on the rights hellish intent to end free speech and privacy on the internet. And I fear it’s going to work.

  3. Yep. Time to burn them all down. Let’s scorch them so badly that no one will say “gun control” for another 20 years.

  4. Garrett Lee says:

    Interesting thought – if the language is rather imprecise, the banning of belts that hold more than 10 rounds could seriously annoy cowboy action shooters – no cartridge loops for you!

    (Yes, I know they’re talking about belts to feed MGs and the like. Still a funny thought, though.)

  5. AndyN says:

    So the Schumer, et al think they’re going to tell all those folks who shelled out > $1k for a Five-seveN that they’ll never be able to by a factory original replacement magazine? Not to mention countless handguns in 9mm, .380, etc? Sure, that’s gonna fly.

    • TS says:

      Plus they’ll be thinking “Damn, I could have had a .45”, when their capacity advantge goes out the window.

  6. Shawn says:

    I am confused. I thought this anti-freedom bill already passed the senate and therefore this ammendment was attached after the fact. I understand that if that’s the case the ammendment would have to be voted on as well.

    So what is the current situation with the bill as a whole?

    From my understanding the republicans are the ones pushing hard for these anti-freedom internet anti-privacy and anti-free speech bills to pass. So even if this ammendments makes it there is a 100% certainty this will pass the house and land on obama’s desk. Then he just has to wait until after his 100% certain re-selection to pass it and we now will have a permanent magazine capacity law due to one freedom hating f*ckfurters knowing replublicans hate internet freedom of speech and would love to kill the internet. And then they WOULD pass it so guin control is an issue again to try and fail to get romney the job. In ay case I fully expect this ammendment to pass, I fully expect this bill to pass, I fully expect obama to sign it. So opposition to this is not going to work because the internet censorship bill the republicans want to bad and they are perfectly willing to take away this right to do it. Unless obama sticks by hos word he would veto such a thing (his promises are all lies) to get gun control. I highly doubt it.

    Or am I wrong? I would love to know the current status of everything.

    • SDN says:

      Shawn, Obama can’t wait. If he waits more than 10 working days to sign it it becomes law anyway, unless the Congress adjourns first. If they adjourn, it doesn’t go into effect under what’s called a “pocket veto”. He could veto it explicitly. Then they either have to re-pass a different bill, or muster 2/3 of the House and Senate to override.

      Bottom line, this will go into effect well before the election if it does at all.

      Or he could do the things Major Garrett, formerly Fox News, suggests here by EO and regulation, no law needed.

  7. Jacob says:

    It’s a PR stunt. It would not even pass the Senate.

  8. Oranje Mike says:

    Schumer is a pathetic liberal fascist clown that runs his yapper nonstop. Just a few months back he was bringing up his “Un-Patriot Act” before the media. A clown and nothing more. He is so starved for attention.

  9. FatWhiteMan says:

    Some people sure do overestimate the power of a has-been turd. Schumer said it so turn them in now.

    Lighten up, Francis.

  10. Weer'd Beard says:

    Time to stock up on large capacity “Feed Stripes”!

    LOL these guys are idiots.

  11. MichigammeDave says:

    There’s a disconnect here. I think I saw something yesterday that indicated the nutjob’s “assault rifle” was the .22LR version of the AR15. If that’s true, then banning 100-round drums but exempting .22 caliber seems like they’re not really reacting to the shooting, but rather “not letting a good crisis go to waste.”
    Seems a little cynical to me.

  12. Ken says:

    Shawn, are you a moby? Your repeated misspellings, particularly of the word “amendment”–not exactly a difficult word to spell–cause me to suspect that you’re trying to simultaneously make us look bad and drive us to despair (and failing miserably on both counts).

  13. asdf says:

    Time to buy another dozen or so of those “shoulder things that go up”!

  14. Dave says:

    An often overlooked resource – those in the firearms business. We need to pressure them as well as the legislators NOT to arm government and police agencies with larger capacity “feeding devices” that are not available to the general public. FFLs, Distributors, and manufacturers – all of them.

    We should call this campaign – “LoCaps for Chuckieis Crew”

  15. Harold Lloyd says:

    He’s just pandering to the home base, not trying to accomplish anything.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Remember ‘Chuckie’? « Guffaw in AZ - [...] our old friend Senator Charles Schumer is up to his old tricks, again… S.A. 2575 would make it…
  2. Liberals propose arbitrary capacity magazine ban in Senate « BornLib's Blog - [...] Via Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned: [...]
top