Federal Magazine Ban to be attached to bill in Senate?

M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Just got this via Virginia Citizen's Defense League e-mail.

They're suggesting being proactive and contacting your senators NOW and not waiting.



"
I just got word that there may be an attempt to slip a magazine ban similar to the one proposed by anti-gun Congresswoman Caroline McCarthy into a normally benign Federal Aviation Administration bill using an amendment in the U.S. Senate.

They can't really "sneak" it on without a vote on the amendment and therein lies our defense against it.

I contacted Senator Warner's and Senator Webb's office and they confirmed that they have gotten phone calls on this issue this morning from concerned constituents. They say nothing is on the docket for *today* and they can't yet confirm the validity of the rumor, but they are working on doing so.

Either way, we need to play this safe and flood both offices with calls letting both Senator Warner and Senator Webb know that magazine bans are not acceptable and to please oppose any effort to impose such a ban in any way."



Obviously this is directed at Virginia members, but it definitely applies to EVERYONE.

Get in touch with your Senators' offices today.
 
Supposedly the Republicans are going to try to slip a motion repealing Health Care into the same bill, so I'm wondering if this may be a brinksmanship move by the Democrats...

It would make sense.
 
Unless you are a legislative junkie these things appear to happen in a vacuum but there is much more going on behind the scenes - we see the tip of the legislative iceberg. Fortunately, it will never make it past the House.
 
Repeal of health care has already passed in the house.... which I believe makes it possible for a simple amendment to pass the same bill in the Senate. Since no such magazine ban has passed the House, wouldn't this still need to get through there?
 
Since no such magazine ban has passed the House, wouldn't this still need to get through there?
Click to expand...
Yes.

FWIW I've been checking some aviation websites to see if there are any rumors circulating about any of these amendments, but I haven't found anything yet.
 
What I heard about the Health Care bill was speculation either last night or this morning from WTOP's congressional reporter.
 
VCDL is about as legitimate a source as you can find, Denny. Their reputation for reliability and correct information is nothing short of amazing, as is their success record for supporting bills that have made Virginia an even friendlier place for gun owners.
 
Got that today from the NAGR. Strange that it is not on the SAF, JFPO, NRA or any other pro-gun website. Dudley Brown has his big DONATE NOW sign up on his site. He must be strapped for cash.

In any event the amendment would require a vote.
 
I got this from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) today.

I've just received word from inside sources in the U.S. Senate.
Senate Democrats are planning to execute a sneak attack on gun rights as soon as TODAY!

Their plan is to sneak Carolyn McCarthy's Magazine Ban into law as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Bill, a routine piece of generally non-controversial legislation.

And they hope YOU won't notice.

That's why you and I need to make our voices heard RIGHT NOW!

We need to let them know we're watching them like a hawk!

Please call Sen. Mark Udall at (202) 224-5941 and Sen. Michael Bennet at (202) 224-5852.

Make sure they know about this scheme and that they must oppose Carolyn McCarthy's Magazine Ban every step of the way whether it's attached as an amendment or not.

And make sure they know you're watching.

Dudley Brown
Click to expand...
 
Amendments proposed for the FAA bill on February 2 included:

S.Amdt.9: ADOPTED by a vote of 81-17
"To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes."

S.Amdt.13: REJECTED by a vote of 51-47
"To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010."
 
How very strange that none of the credible pro-gun organizations have any information on a magazine ban being attached to the FAA funding bill or any other bill. i checked the GOA, NRA, and JFPO this morning-nothing.

This tidbit of mis-information is brought to you by Dudley Brown and his NAGR: Old Dudley is well known for yelling wolf when there are no wolves anywhere around. Beware of any guy who has a big read DONATE NOW sign on his organizations home page.

Dudley would like for you to believe that some anti-gun senator can "sneak" gun contrrol legislation onto legislation without it being voted on. This is not true. All amendments have to be voted on.

The stand alone senate bill is S. 32 and it was proposed by US senator Lautenberg of NJ. The bill presently has 10 co-sponsors.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...ativeData.php|
 
Last edited:
I was able to confirm this with my senator yesterday. He was well aware of it, and so are his colleagues. It won't pass.

Stuff like this comes up all the time. If you feel like digging, you'll find that Carolyn McCarthy spent a great deal of her time during the 110th session trying to tack a ban on "50 caliber sniper rifles" on to just about every bill she could. She'll try the same thing this time around with a "high capacity magazine ban."

Lest we call it sneaky and underhanded, let's remember that this is how we got carry in national parks ;)
 
H.R.308
Latest Title: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/18/2011) Cosponsors (65)
Related Bills: S.32
Latest Major Action: 1/18/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Judiciary committee chairman Lamar Smith (R) will get right on that. ;)
 
Two questions:

1. Does anyone have an update on this bill amendment?
2. When someone attaches a completely non-relevant amendment to a bill, is it possible for another legislator to attach a "reverse" of that amendment - basically nullifying anything mentioned by the repugnant amendment? Or is there some rule prohibiting this practice?
 
To question one, I actually answered it above.

A committee with a hostile chairman is like a black hole for an amendment. They go in, but they do not come out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top