previous post next post  

Text of Lautenberg, Schumer, et.al. hi-cap ban

As I read this, it essentially re-imposes the magazine ban that was part of the AWB - except... and it's a big "except" - it can be read to say that if I own it on the day the law takes effect, I can keep it. But I can't transfer it to anyone else. That has some significant downstream impacts.

The other part is - if they the bill *does* allow transfer of "pre-ban" mags - they just made it harder to track the purchases, because they'll mostly be between private individuals. And, unless you catch me in the act of taking a pre-ban mag from someone, how do you prove I didn't own it pre-ban? This is more symbolic than useful. Sadly, like much of our law.

Oh, and I'm sure Cabelas, Midway, Cheaper Than Dirt, Bass Pro Shops, fill-in-the-blank retailer giggled with delight yesterday, as they get swamped this weekend, and the internet orders start rolling in.

And the makers started plans to ramp up production.

Text of Lautenberg's hi-cap ban from the Congressional Record:

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.

‘‘(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 offsite 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.’’.

Nothing like firing up the NRA to energize the Redneck base - quite a few of whom do vote Democrat, especially in the midwest and northern tier of states.

7 Comments

Remember, this was introduced the very same say that Narcissist in Chief Obama said he was not going to try to get any gun control stuff passed.

Those people CANNOT be trusted.  On anything.  Ever.

Besides the threat from actual legislation, we must be alert to other hidden schemes to attack gun rights (among other things).  Executive orders, agency regulations, prosecution or persecution by federal agencies aimed at implementing their desires that cannot get passed by Congress.

Incidentally, looks like the U.N. Arms Treaty failed to get consensus.  So, we won.  But, that was just this round.  They will be back at it again, and again, and again nibbling away until they pass something.  Then they will be back to nibble away at some more of our rights.
 
 So, as I read this, the word "belt" is included, and attaching 10 round segments of linked cartridges together into a 100 or 200 round belt would now make that a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" and subject the linkee to the Maximum Penalty Under The Law.  I don't see any exemption for Class 3 weapons held by private individuals.  This is going to put a bit of a crimp into the Knob Creek auto weapons exposition and other similar events.  But I guess you could still fire a minigun since some use a feed chute from the ammo supply and not a belt.  
On a not so related note is a hand cranked Gatling gun considered an automatic weapon?  I mean it takes the manual rotation of the operating handle to load and fire each barrel and if you are careful it is easy to fire single rounds.  The firing sequence is just a rapid firing of inidvidual rounds and does not have a mechanism for uninterrupted automatic fire with one action from the operator, like squeezing and holding the trigger down on an automatic weapon.
 
The legislation excludes LEOs on- or off-duty, as well as retired... THAT will raise a howl from the far  right fringe, eh?!!
 
Beavis-  Manually operated Gatling type guns are NOT considered to be "machine guns" under current BATFE interpretations.  Could that be changed?  Who knows.

Several people make full size guns and/or kits for those who desire one of these, and have several large bundles of bills in their gun show account.  I think that several originals (Span-Am War vintage) have sold in the last year or so at the big auctions, but prices well beyond what my tolerant spouse would tolerate me spending, er INVESTING, in hardware.  Besides, then I would have no money left to buy ammo, so what's the point in owning one?
 
Didn't the hi-cap magazine on the turkey's M16 save lives by jamming - thereby forcing him to switch guns?  We had a similar problem here years ago when an idiot ran amok in an office buiding in Melbourne.  He was using an M1 carbine, but had cut the barrel down to the gas block to make it shorter.  It regularly misfed, leading him to use it as a manual straight pull but they still clamped down on semi-autos on the strength of it.
 
Neffi, that is one of my (many) gripes. LE is ALWAYS exempt from this kind of BS legislation. I've called my State reps and suggested that any "reasonable gun safety legislation" be tested for 10 year by LE first. I mean, they carry every day, so a good test to see if it works would be for LE to do it first. For example, in CA there is the CADOJ "Safe Gun List" - guns that have met the arbitrary tests set up by the antis, and the manufacturers have paid the fees for the testing and listing - but LE is exempt. Which means that many cops are carrying guns that the State of CA says are "unsafe." Seems like cops should have to carry CA declared "safe" guns.
 
Didn't the hi-cap magazine on the turkey's M16 save lives by jamming - thereby forcing him to switch guns?

Thanks for saying it Seza... I was going to if no one else did.  If they ACTUALLY want to cut down on the number of victims in these things, maybe they should MANDATE hi-cap magazines, they seem to be saving lives over the low caps.