[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Senate Ammendment 2575 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/27/2012 10:50:41 AM EDT
|
Democrat Senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have proposed an amendment to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012:
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. (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.''. |
|
For those of you that didn't read all of that, they snuck in a Hi-capacity magazine ban into that bill because they think the bill will pass. Essentially those fucking worms tried to sneak one by on us. I already wrote both of my state senators, here write yours. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ |
|
My favorite part ...notice how they just bought support and loyalty with this exemption
(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;
|
|
Quoted:
For those of you that didn't read all of that, they snuck in a Hi-capacity magazine ban into that bill because they think the bill will pass. Essentially those fucking worms tried to sneak one by on us. I already wrote both of my state senators, here write yours. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ Just a small minor point, they are trying to sneak in a ban, the amendment hasn't been voted on and has only been proposed at this point. It still needs to be beaten down like a baby seal of course..... |
|
For anyone else interested in more reading on the subject
Cyber security bill has magazine ban amendment (SA 2575) |
|
I emailed AND called both of my senators.
Here is a sample email you can send. I tried to keep it simple and to the point. Insert your two senators' names: Subject: Gun control amendment SA 2575 slipped into Cyber-Security bill S. 3414 Senator ______ - please act to prevent this from passing! This Amendment would make it a felony to possess or transfer MOST gun magazines in use today. Virtually any modern pistol or semi-automatic rifle on the market today holds more than 10 rounds. This Amendment would outlaw all of them. PLEASE DEFEAT THIS. It is of the utmost importance to me as a voter. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, |
|
It's getting plenty of publicity. GOOD. That means it won't SNEAK by. This is a test to see how our senators really think. If the bill passes, it still has to be reconciled with the House version, which contains no matching language. In reconciliation, it's likely that it'll be struck out. CJ |
|
Here was my letter––feel free to use it if you like:
Dear Senator _____________
It has come to my attention that in the wake of the recent tragic Aurora CO shooting, an unconstitutional and draconian gun control measure (S.A. 2575) is currently being offered as an amendment to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This amendment would unconstitutionally ban the further production, transfer, or possession of standard ammunition feeding devices for the majority of America’s popular sporting rifles, pistols, and shotguns. As a law abiding gun-enthusiast, stalwart defender of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and registered Washington State voter, I urge you to vote NO on this amendment and/or bill—should S.A. 2575 pass the amendment phase. Your NO vote would be in keeping with your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect the rights of Washington State citizens. Please understand that this issue is of the utmost importance to not only myself, but all 80 million law-abiding gun owners nationwide. I can say with confidence, my vote this November will most certainly rest on your opposition to, and vote(s) against, S.A. 2575, and/or any other gun control measures that may be proposed in the future. I certainly appreciate your consideration on this matter and I look forward to seeing this and any other gun control measure swiftly stricken down. Most Sincerely ––––––––––––––––- |
|
Quoted:
Democrat Senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have proposed an amendment to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012: SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN)... But she's a conservative democrat and friend of hunters and shooters. 
|
|
Does anyone have a link to a nice, easy to digest flowchart showing how proposed amendments are processed in the senate? I thought anything like this would have to go through some type of committee review before being officially attached to a bill.
What are the chances that anything could actually be slipped in, or secretly attached to, a bill without every senator being aware of it? I've got to think it's pretty far fetched to believe that can happen. Maybe someone has actual facts to show me why I'm wrong about that? |
|
My favorite part. "(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.''. Seriously?  |
|
Quoted:
Democrat Senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have proposed an amendment to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012: 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:  Sorry guys, my emails won't be of much help.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Democrat Senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have proposed an amendment to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012: 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: Sorry guys, my emails won't be of much help.Who says you "live" in California? You could "live" in a state that has a fence sitting politician that maybe swayed by your opinion.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those of you that didn't read all of that, they snuck in a Hi-capacity magazine ban into that bill because they think the bill will pass. Essentially those fucking worms tried to sneak one by on us. I already wrote both of my state senators, here write yours. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ Just a small minor point, they are trying to sneak in a ban, the amendment hasn't been voted on and has only been proposed at this point. It still needs to be beaten down like a baby seal of course.....  That's some irony right there.
|
|
Senate Dems are more useless than their counterparts in the House, those fuckers should be more concerned with why we're still in a fucking recession (we know why) or at least look like they give two shits!
FUCK SCHUMER and the crazy senile old fuckstain from Jersey |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrat Senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have proposed an amendment to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012: 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: Sorry guys, my emails won't be of much help.Send one anyway. My Senators are Cantwell and Murray... I still took the time out of my day to make my voice heard. |
|
Quoted:
Does anyone have a link to a nice, easy to digest flowchart showing how proposed amendments are processed in the senate? I thought anything like this would have to go through some type of committee review before being officially attached to a bill. What are the chances that anything could actually be slipped in, or secretly attached to, a bill without every senator being aware of it? I've got to think it's pretty far fetched to believe that can happen. Maybe someone has actual facts to show me why I'm wrong about that? Nothing easy to digest - think "draft up whatever you want, file it with the clerk, offer it if you want to, maybe get a vote." No real germaneness rules in the Senate to speak of, but you still need to survive cloture/filibuster. Or get it adopted by unanimous consent, which won't happen here. Most likely scenario, if Schumer really pushes it: he gets agreement to get an up or down vote, but with a 60-vote threshold. |
.
I just now saw it on Drudge 
|
Quoted:
Here was my letter––feel free to use it if you like: Dear Senator _____________
It has come to my attention that in the wake of the recent tragic Aurora CO shooting, an unconstitutional and draconian gun control measure (S.A. 2575) is currently being offered as an amendment to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This amendment would unconstitutionally ban the further production, transfer, or possession of standard ammunition feeding devices for the majority of America’s popular sporting rifles, pistols, and shotguns. As a law abiding gun-enthusiast, stalwart defender of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and registered Washington State voter, I urge you to vote NO on this amendment and/or bill—should S.A. 2575 pass the amendment phase. Your NO vote would be in keeping with your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect the rights of Washington State citizens. Please understand that this issue is of the utmost importance to not only myself, but all 80 million law-abiding gun owners nationwide. I can say with confidence, my vote this November will most certainly rest on your opposition to, and vote(s) against, S.A. 2575, and/or any other gun control measures that may be proposed in the future. I certainly appreciate your consideration on this matter and I look forward to seeing this and any other gun control measure swiftly stricken down. Most Sincerely ––––––––––––––––- Done. Thanks for the words. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not coming up for a vote ETA: Unless Schumer has plans to unseat Reid as ML and Reid caves to prevent this You never know... it could be Schumer's first shot in a palace coup. He definitely wants the job. He does and he does not like Reid's stance on gun control Nevada and NYC are worlds apart on the issue A vote on this could quiet Chuck down |
|
Call and write today. This can be a test to see if us gun owners will unite. If they get this they will be back for more. Many of you don't remember the clinton years. They got the brady bill passed and they were all set up for brady 2. Then they lost the house. This took the wind right out of their sails.
Call and write on this. Most of all vote. I know Romney is no great choice but you see how he is walking away from guns on this issue. This is better then obama. obama is saying no new gun laws but he will sign this bill with the Amendment if it is attached .Then he will sign the un treaty. Call and write!!!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not coming up for a vote ETA: Unless Schumer has plans to unseat Reid as ML and Reid caves to prevent this You never know... it could be Schumer's first shot in a palace coup. He definitely wants the job. He does and he does not like Reid's stance on gun control Nevada and NYC are worlds apart on the issue A vote on this could quiet Chuck down Not sure about that - he may be doing a little pre-November maneuvering. Win or lose on the amendment, he gets credit in a smaller, more liberal Democrat caucus in the next Congress... |