Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Bill Seeks to Ban ALL Magazines that Hold over 10 Rounds
KeepandBeararms.com

Posted on 05/14/2003 9:48:27 PM PDT by conservativefromGa

Senate Bill Seeks to Ban ALL Firearm Magazines that Hold over 10 Rounds

by Angel Shamaya

May 15, 2003

KeepAndBearArms.com -- With the sunset of the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal semi-auto rifle and magazine ban looming, bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate -- to renew and expand the gun and magazine ban. Links to those two bills are as follows:

House Version

Senate Version

The House version expands the current gun ban measurably. Many educated gun rights activists believe the House version is bait designed to make the "moderate" Senate version easier to swallow -- and to pass. House Majority Leader Tom Delay disagrees, saying "the votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it." His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "we have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.

Let's hope they are being honest. The House version bans firearms in the closets and gun safes of literally millions of peaceable Americans -- and we'd hate to go through life with open warfare declared on us. Even for decent, law-abiding citizens determined to exercise their rights, every interaction with a police officer would be a potentially life-destroying event -- with all the ramifications you might imagine.

Senate Version Seeks to Ban YOUR Magazines

BACKGROUND

The normal-capacity magazine ban signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994 made exceptions for "pre-ban" magazines. Though the cost of pre-ban 11-round-or-greater magazines skyrocketed, many were and still are available. You can still find magazines with 11+ capacity -- if you're willing to pay a premium and risk the possible purchase of a low quality magazine that jams, doesn't feed properly, doesn't fit your firearm properly, etc. The quality of many greater-than-10 capacity magazines has indeed gone down in many instances. But sufficient-capacity magazines can still be found, and some of them are even worth their ridiculously inflated prices.

RETROACTIVE BAN

Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the original Senate text signed into law. Depending on how you translate her intentions, you might come away thinking she wants to do away with ALL 11-round-or-greater magazines in private possession. Naturally, the exemption for government employees would continue under her new bill.

Feinstein's Senate bill appears that it would ban EVERY magazine ("feeding device") "that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition". The text of the Senate version, S1034, says:

"(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'."

Following is the section of U.S. Code the Senate bill would alter. The strikethroughs seen below would result from Sen. Feinstein's new bill:

(31) The term ''large capacity ammunition feeding device'' -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 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.

Section 921 [backup copy]

What could be the purpose of changing the definition of a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in this way? The only reason that seems to make sense in law would be a desire to extend the ban to include magazines manufactured before the ban went into effect. What other rational explanation can there be for this little snippet of S.1034?

Several leaders of gun rights organizations and numerous dedicated activists have studied this text in the last 24 hours. All who did so and then responded to an inquiry as to its meaning agree: this change in U.S. Code would ban ALL magazines that hold, or could be readily converted to hold, more than 10 rounds of ammunition -- including ALL of them currently in private possession.

Do YOU own any "large capacity feeding devices" as defined under Senate Bill 1034? Does becoming an instant felon appeal to you? If not... This Ban Must Be Stopped


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Free Republic; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

1 posted on 05/14/2003 9:48:28 PM PDT by conservativefromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bang_list
*
2 posted on 05/14/2003 9:49:13 PM PDT by conservativefromGa (www.awbansunset.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
lets hope Tom DeLay keeps this off the President's desk
3 posted on 05/14/2003 9:51:37 PM PDT by conservativefromGa (www.awbansunset.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Ping
4 posted on 05/14/2003 9:51:54 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
Wait. Is THIS the bill our President sees as "reasonable?"

5 posted on 05/14/2003 9:56:03 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
BTTT
6 posted on 05/14/2003 9:57:20 PM PDT by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
bump for watching.
7 posted on 05/14/2003 10:04:31 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
Many educated gun rights activists believe the House version is bait designed to make the "moderate" Senate version easier to swallow -- and to pass.

Which raises an important point - we don't want to put much emphasis on how bad the House bill is compared to current law - current law is plenty bad enough.

We need to make it clear that the current law is unacceptable. That any ban on semi-automatic weapons is unacceptable. That magazine limits are unacceptable.

The bill must die.

8 posted on 05/14/2003 10:10:53 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Is it better to get it over with now?
9 posted on 05/14/2003 10:55:08 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
book marked
10 posted on 05/14/2003 11:06:00 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
Not to worry; Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the Congress should get Bush's message loud and clear - he's going to sign the extension/new bill. Way to go Dubya! Sorry to see that when Bush lurches away from the Constitution yet again, the thread gets pulled. Go figure!
11 posted on 05/14/2003 11:11:39 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the Congress should get Bush's message loud and clear - he's going to sign the extension/new bill.

Congress will indeed get Bush's message loud and clear, and that's why the bill will be killed in the House. The message, in effect, is "don't let this thing see the top of my desk."

12 posted on 05/14/2003 11:15:27 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
So, instead of making a good case and actually educating a Constitutionally illiterate American sheepulace, he triangulates the issue? Good work Dubya. /sarcasm
13 posted on 05/14/2003 11:19:38 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
We agree.....I despise the WH's tactics as well, and would obviously prefer Bush doing what you suggest. But I'm fairly confident that DeLay is right -- that the end result will be the sunsetting of the AWB.
14 posted on 05/14/2003 11:24:29 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
I pray for our country that someone can clean up yet another W Constitutional mess and electoral nightmare...'night.
15 posted on 05/15/2003 1:13:13 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dd5339; cavtrooper21
gun grabber ping again
16 posted on 05/15/2003 5:08:02 AM PDT by Vic3O3 (Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
The only gun I own is a Ruger 9mm with a 15 clip purchased just before the ban. Would this bill make it illegal? Is the government going to reimburse me?
17 posted on 05/15/2003 5:11:55 AM PDT by Glenn (What were you thinking, Al?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
That means that if we were, say, invaded by the Chinese or our government were overthrown by socialists, that our enemy would be at great advantage because we can only fire ten shots at a time. I don't think there exist words foul enough to describe the people messing with our constitution.
18 posted on 05/15/2003 5:17:27 AM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; ...
Looks like another busy day.


19 posted on 05/15/2003 6:24:02 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Would this bill make it illegal?

Yes.

Is the government going to reimburse me?

Not just no, but Hell No.


20 posted on 05/15/2003 6:25:43 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson