New BIll will outlaw Transfer or Ownership of ALL Hi-caps !! (??)

A Bill introduced by a Senator would go through the Senate first, CR.


Spartacus, that is the point of my idea.. FORCE them to Enorce their new law. Let people see just who these "criminals" are... lawyers, doctors, laborers, college students, etc..... Then we will be making a point.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Rob,

I agree with you. It's strange, but I find the prospect of losing my nursing license due to civil disobedience of this type to be more disturbing than the prospect of dying in armed rebellion to these laws.
 
As I understand the thing, federal, not California law, U.S.S. Dianne Feinstein had proposed another of her amendments, this one to the Senate Juvenile Justice Bill, which was adopted and sent to the House. Her latest effort would ban the import of large capacity magazines and or "feeding devices" larger than 10 rounds. Additionally it would CRIMINALIZE possession of any already owned. These is NO provision for "grandfathering" any existing items. As the lady said, respecting The Feinstein Amemdment to 1994 Crime Bill, her goal was/is to totally ban ALL firearms, her phrase was "turn them all in". As the interested reader can readily see, nothing much has changed. Ten round magazines today, no round magazines in the not to distant future.

By the way, respecting House action, what they actually passed, their version of Juvenile Justice STILL carries this latest Feinstein Amendment.

Alan
 
I think that the best thing that could happen (in the long term) is for the anti-gun folks to succeed in passing this ridiculous bill. They are killing us with incrementalism right now... if they were to get caught really over-reaching, it would hurt them very badly.
 
It's strange, but I find the prospect of losing my nursing license due to civil disobedience of this type to be more disturbing than the prospect of dying in armed rebellion to these laws.

Nothing strange about that at all, Spartacus. If you lose your license, you lose your livelihood. If you die, they can't hurt you anymore.

Good G*d, but that sounds cynical...

------------------
"We are going to fight. We are going to be hurt.
But in the end, we will stand."
--Roland Deschain
 
OK, I went straight to the source: Senator Feinstein's office and talked to her Juvenile Justice staffer. Her amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill was one of 50 amendments. This bill was debated and passed back in May. Feinstein's ammunition clip amendment was not tabled (gone- struck off the legislative calendar for all intents and purposes) by a vote of 39 to 59. So, that means 39 Senators voted to do away with it and 59 voted to keep it on the vote schedule. Well, it passed by a voice vote. You can see which Senators voted yea/nay by going to thomas.loc.gov/ (there's no www). Where it asks you for bill number - S.254. Click on table of contents (the whole bill is extremely long). Scroll down to amendments. When you click on amendments, it will list all 50. Feinstein offered a couple on this bill. You can click on the one on ammunition clips to see how they voted.

In the House the whole gun bill failed. But the Feinstein amendment also passed by voice vote in the House. So, when the House and Senate go to conference on the Commerce, Justice, and State bill they will have to decide which amendments stay and which will go. It could go either way on this one. But, the whole point: it's not law yet and won't be for a while.
 
This is the text of the Federal bill that I think you are talking about S594 IS.
Hopefully this link will work for y'all http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:2:./temp/~c106httgZe ::

It looks like according to Thomas that it's either dead or still in the Judiciary comittee. There was also the amendment to the Juvenile Justice Bill. I don't know what the status is of that.

------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
As I understand the situation, senate passed Juvenile Jstice bill contained an amendment by Feinstein, that would do the following:
1. Ban the import of large cap magazines or "feeding devices", large cap means greater than 10 rounds
2. CRIMINALIZE possession of the genre. No "grandfathering" of already owned magazines.

The House passed version contains this same amendment, however due to significant differences in the House and Senate versions, a conference committee might be called. Pay very close attention to the composition of this committee, and the antics of majority leaders in House and Senate, as I believe they are involved in determining the composition of such committees.

Feinstein and her amendments are, in plain english, very bad news.

Alan
 
(B)Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

what ya got ya got but no more new purchases

if you bought a few cases of mags for a nest egg & want to sell them, maybe you better sell before they enact this puppy

what would be cool is if everyone would sell their extra supply at cost

do it for the second amendments sake

dZ
 
I think somebody is confusing the word "paragraph" with "SUBparagraph".

The article said:

(w)(1) Except as provided in PARAGRAPH (B)...

it should be:

1(A) Except as provided in SUBparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

SUBparagraph (B) reads:

(B)Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

SO:

The whole thing reads like this:

1(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

Johannes
 
Note this language "... otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Where this exists in current law, it has been interpreted to mean magazines in existence before the Crime Bill of 1994. I don't think this new provision will be interpreted to prevent sales of pre-ban magazines - just to prevent imports of pre-ban mag's. But, Feinstein has been working on that as well.

Note, this doesn't mean I'm comfortable with this bill. More foolishness, and less freedom. Just another day in Congress ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top