• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

H.R. 308 - To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity magazines

Floyd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
30
Location
Leesburg, Virginia, USA
This was just introduced:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-308

Text added:

HR 308 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 308

To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 18, 2011

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. CLAY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. ISRAEL, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. NADLER, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. CHU, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. HOLT, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. HIMES, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FARR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act’.

SEC. 2. 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 off-site 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.’.
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Useless and dead on arrival.

Notes:

1) There are many firearms that only come with magazines with more than 10 rounds. These firearms would not be transferrable in an operable condition, because the magazines would be verbotten.
2) Many firearms with an internal capacity of 11 or more would become prohibited, such as the new Kel-Tec tactical shotgun with a 14 round internal capacity, and many lever action rifles!

Did you see the harsh penalty - 10 years - for violation. If only the penalty for violating our civil rights and the US Constitution was 1/10th of that, we would have more liberty and less tyranny in this land.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
:banghead:

This is just insane,

just about all magazines then would be gone...

AIMSURPLUS is SOLD out of ak47 magazines and drums.....

10 years because I have a 12 round magazine for my bolt action .177 HMR rifle??? Why would you think it insane?

It is only insane to those that understand firearms. To those that pour out hate towards us it is sweet music.
 

ocholsteroc

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,317
Location
Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
Useless and dead on arrival.

Notes:

1) There are many firearms that only come with magazines with more than 10 rounds. These firearms would not be transferrable in an operable condition, because the magazines would be verbotten.
2) Many firearms with an internal capacity of 11 or more would become prohibited, such as the new Kel-Tec tactical shotgun with a 14 round internal capacity, and many lever action rifles!

Did you see the harsh penalty - 10 years - for violation. If only the penalty for violating our civil rights and the US Constitution was 1/10th of that, we would have more liberty and less tyranny in this land.

I forgot about all the lever actions, this bill needs to be killed asap. This would make most firearms illgeal. Only hunting rifles/revolvers/1911's/pee hooters/db shotguns/pumps would be the LEGAL firearms, look at Australia.


When does this new shotgun come out?
 
Last edited:

Shovelhead

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
315
Location
NO VA, ,
Unless I'm reading it wrong, it states that any magazine owned/manufactured AFTER the bill passes would be illegal to posess/transfer.

‘(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.

I think this stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
It's posturing for the CSPAN viewers.
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
Useless and dead on arrival.

Agreed. However, I dont' think you are completely characterizing it correctly:

Notes:

1) There are many firearms that only come with magazines with more than 10 rounds. These firearms would not be transferrable in an operable condition, because the magazines would be verbotten.
2) Many firearms with an internal capacity of 11 or more would become prohibited, such as the new Kel-Tec tactical shotgun with a 14 round internal capacity, and many lever action rifles!

Did you see the harsh penalty - 10 years - for violation. If only the penalty for violating our civil rights and the US Constitution was 1/10th of that, we would have more liberty and less tyranny in this land.
The text of the bill says it "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." That means that any current production firearms and magazines would be allowed, but any new ones after the bill goes into effect would not be. Existing firearms with "high capacity" magazines would still be allowed, it's just that no new ones could be manufactured or imported for civilian use.

Of course, it's just an all-around bad idea, and it wouldn't actually fix anything. However, we should criticize it for what it is, not for what it's not.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Unless I'm reading it wrong, it states that any magazine owned/manufactured AFTER the bill passes would be illegal to posess/transfer.

That is one of the real gems in her legislation. You can own onethat is pre-existing, but you cannot transfer it. Quite an trampling of our personal property rights.

Give your son your lever action rifle and go to a federal prison for 10 years!

Here is the exception:

‘(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.

See, no transfer exception, only posession.
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
That is one of the real gems in her legislation. You can own onethat is pre-existing, but you cannot transfer it. Quite an trampling of our personal property rights.

Give your son your lever action rifle and go to a federal prison for 10 years!
Incorrect.

(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.​

Both transfer and possession are in clause (i). Clause (ii) exempts all "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" that predate the date of enactment from the entirety of clause (i), both possession and transfer limitations.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
So....how is this interstate commerce again? I can't loan a friend of mine who's also a VA resident a standard capacity magazine (the kind the firearm was designed for) at the range?

This, the GFSZA, and NFA are all unconstitutional and is not interstate commerce when the item never leaves the state in transfer.:banghead:

we need to gut the commerce clause NOW and restore it to its original meaning...to make interstate commerce regular, uniform, between the states.
 

ocholsteroc

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,317
Location
Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
So....how is this interstate commerce again? I can't loan a friend of mine who's also a VA resident a standard capacity magazine (the kind the firearm was designed for) at the range?

This, the GFSZA, and NFA are all unconstitutional and is not interstate commerce when the item never leaves the state in transfer.:banghead:

we need to gut the commerce clause NOW and restore it to its original meaning...to make interstate commerce regular, uniform, between the states.

We would need all pro gunners in house/senate/president. Then declare all gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and thus it is invalid for ANY firearm law. Then if you are legal to own a gun you a free to carry anywhere. I believe ammo companys would make a tons of money, and new companys. If full autos are legal, then people would be shooting 1000's a year.
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
That is one of the real gems in her legislation. You can own onethat is pre-existing, but you cannot transfer it. Quite an trampling of our personal property rights.

Give your son your lever action rifle and go to a federal prison for 10 years!

Here is the exception:

‘(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.

See, not reansfer exception, only posession.

You edited while I was writing my response. Now I see your point.

You are correct. The original AWB (HR3355 in the 103rd Congress) did not apply to possession or transfer of preexisting magazines. This one only lists possession.

My apologies.

EDIT: It appears that the only two Virginia Representatives to sign on are Gerry Connelly (VA-11) and Jim Moran (VA-8). Surprise, surprise. I guess it's time for me to write my Congressman to chew him out for signing on to this abomination.
 
Last edited:
Top