Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Oppose Amendment to Cybersecurity Act - *Magazine Ban/Restrictions*

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267

    Oppose Amendment to Cybersecurity Act - *Magazine Ban/Restrictions*

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...azine-ban.aspx

    The U.S. Senate will take up the "Cybersecurity Act" starting Monday, July 30, but a group of Democrat Senators lead by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are looking to add an anti-gun amendment to the bill. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), joined in the effort to resurrect the failed 1994 magazine ban.

    A day after President Obama indicated his willingness to look at new gun laws, this group of reliably anti-gun Senators is hoping to take advantage of the environment to advance their political agenda.
    Email/Write your Legislators to oppose this amendment.


    Edit: This would limit magazine capacity to 10 max except for rim fire magazines.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 07-30-2012 at 03:59 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267

    Another bill introduced today... Online sale ammo, Track sales over 1000 rds and more

    Another bill introduced today by the one and only Sen Frank Lautenberg...

    http://njtoday.net/2012/07/30/lauten...#ixzz22889Z2Ru

    The bill, called the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, aims to keep Americans safe by limiting the ability to anonymously purchase unlimited quantities of ammunition through the internet or other mail-order means. It would also require that ammunition dealers report bulk sales of ammunition to law enforcement.


    ...


    The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through four components:

    • It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
    • It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
    • It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
    • It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days

    Last edited by slapmonkay; 07-30-2012 at 09:17 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member freak4cycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    St Charles
    Posts
    46

    I did my part, I sent emails via NRA site

    As you may know, the U.S. Senate will take up the "Cybersecurity Act" starting Monday, July 30, but a group of Democrat Senators lead by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are looking to add an anti-gun amendment to the bill. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), joined in the effort to resurrect the failed 1994 magazine ban.

    A day after President Obama indicated his willingness to look at new gun laws, this group of reliably anti-gun Senators is hoping to take advantage of the environment to advance their political agenda.

    The magazine ban was a failed idea from the Clinton era, and will have no impact on criminal misuse of firearms, now, or in the future. It only serves to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. NRA strongly opposes this amendment.

    PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT GUN REGULATIONS!

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by freak4cycles View Post

    PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT GUN REGULATIONS!


    Better yet, don't vote for those that do.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    It's past time to start voting these anti gun folks out. We need to send a message to all, Let them know we will not tolerate it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member freak4cycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    St Charles
    Posts
    46

    So I wrote my senators and this is what i got in Response!

    Dear Voter:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding S.A.2575, an amendment to S. 3412, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. It was good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

    As you may know, this amendment was proposed by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Furthermore it requires a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured to be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after the enactment of the legislation.

    Citizens legally employ firearms to protect lives and property more than 2 million times a year most never involving the firing of shots. The fact that criminals use these same products in the commission of their crimes is no reason to deprive Americans of their protection. Today, there are more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States. Effective enforcement of those laws, not further restrictions on law-abiding citizens, is the most effective means of reducing crime. For that reason, I support the prosecution and conviction of those who commit crimes, not depriving the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    I greatly appreciate your insight into the critical issues before the House of Representatives. Often times; by seeking to enact burdensome restrictions on gun ownership, gun-control advocates brush aside the principle of individual responsibility. They would allow an erosion of our constitutional rights rather than hold individual law-breakers accountable for their conduct. Gun control measures, while sounding well-intentioned, strike at the wrong segment of society.

    Unfortunately rumors, false warnings and out of date information relating to lawful gun ownership persist on the internet. Though this particular matter is not a threat to lawful firearms ownership, we must remain vigilant to protect all of our Constitutional rights, prerogatives and responsibilities.

    Please be assured that I will continue to support Second Amendment rights of the American people and will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come to the floor of the House for a vote.

    Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office. It is a privilege to represent you and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance. Please visit my website, where you can find more information on current issues, share further thoughts with me via email and subscribe to my e-newsletter for updates on issues you care about. You can also check out my channel on YouTube for clips of recent floor speeches.

    Sincerely,

    Todd Akin
    Member of Congress
    Missouri

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Washougal, WA
    Posts
    6
    I sent the following to my senators and representatives:

    This is in regards to S.A.2575, an amendment to S. 3412, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. It's time we focus on the criminal instead of enacting more meaningless gun laws.

    As you may know, this amendment was proposed by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Furthermore it requires a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured to be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after the enactment of the legislation.

    Citizens legally employ firearms to protect lives and property more than 2 million times a year – most never involving the firing of shots. The fact that criminals use these same products in the commission of their crimes is no reason to deprive Americans of their protection. Today, there are more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States. Effective enforcement of those laws, not further restrictions on law-abiding citizens, is the most effective means of reducing crime. For that reason, I support the prosecution and conviction of those who commit crimes, not depriving the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    Often times; by seeking to enact burdensome restrictions on gun ownership, gun-control advocates brush aside the principle of individual responsibility. They would allow an erosion of our constitutional rights rather than hold individual law-breakers accountable for their conduct. Gun control measures, while sounding well-intentioned, strike at the wrong segment of society.

    Unfortunately rumors, false warnings and out of date information relating to lawful gun ownership persist on the internet. Though this particular matter is not a threat to lawful firearms ownership, we must remain vigilant to protect all of our Constitutional rights, prerogatives and responsibilities.

    Please continue to support Second Amendment rights of the American people and keep your thoughts focused on the criminal should this legislation come to the floor of the House for a vote.
    Last edited by Hotolds442; 08-02-2012 at 10:28 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •