Senate Democrats

Senate Democrats’ Gun ‘Control’ Legislation Doomed To Fail (Again)?

“Senate Democrats unveiled plans on Thursday for gun control reforms that include closing background check loopholes, expanding the background check database, and tightening regulations on illegal gun purchases…”

-NBCNews.com, October 8

A number of regular observers of the gun “control” movement in the United States may have already concluded the latest push for more firearm restrictions being launched by Democrats in the U.S. Senate is doomed to fail (again). As the Associated Press reported earlier today:

Democrats fell five votes short of moving their background check expansion through the Senate two years ago. Thanks to retirements and losses in the 2014 elections, they now are probably 11 votes shy of the support they’d need to succeed.

Republicans running the House have shown no interest in even permitting votes on the issue…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphais)

So why would Senate Democrats even bother?

Well, besides obvious reasons like posturing for their “base” come the 2016 elections and diverting the rest of the country’s attention away from the Democratic Party’s failures in domestic and foreign policy, I suspect the strategy is to get the legislation out there should another mass shooting along the lines of Sandy Hook take place while it’s still in the pipeline. Senate Democrats may be banking on a knee-jerk reaction by the American public calling for more gun “control” to be implemented- such as what’s contained in their proposal.

And as any long-time observer of the gun “control” movement knows, their push for more restrictions never subsides, with the goal of the most rabid anti-Second Amendment “activist” being the complete disarmament of the civilian population in the United States.

They envision utopia once that’s achieved.

Realists understand it will only lead to one thing:

Unequivocal subjugation.

Which the “Founding Fathers” knew only too well about.


“Schoolhouse Rock!: America – The Shot Heard ‘Round the World”
YouTube Video

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

“Senate Democrats Are Preparing a Legislative Package on Gun Control — Here’s a Preview of What’s Coming.” Associated Press. 8 Oct. 2015. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/08/senate-democrats-are-preparing-a-legislative-package-on-gun-control-heres-a-preview-of-whats-coming/). 8 Oct. 2015.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Congressional Democrats Push ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban

Like I blogged Monday, the gun “control” crowd is off-and-running several weeks into the new year. In addition to a ban on certain AR-15 rifle ammunition, they’re also pushing to ban “high-capacity” firearm ammunition magazines. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action (NRA-ILA) last Friday:

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), have introduced their Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (S. 407 and H.R. 752, respectively), in yet another attempt to ban magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. Similar legislation has been introduced in previous Congresses, and has repeatedly failed since the expiration of the Clinton “large” magazine ban in 2004.

Firearms designed to use magazines that hold more than ten rounds have been around for more than a hundred years. Today they constitute a majority of all new firearms manufactured, imported and sold in the United States, for what the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), called the central purpose of the Second Amendment: self-defense. While gun control supporters claim that the magazines are unnecessary for self-defense, millions of Americans disagree, and the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that laws are unconstitutional if they prohibit firearms that are in common use for defensive purposes.

Moreover, studies have shown that magazine bans don’t reduce crime. The congressionally-mandated study of the 1994-2004 federal “large” magazine “ban” concluded that its 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. A follow-up study concluded that “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” And a majority of law enforcement in the United States acknowledges that banning standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds will not increase public safety.

A person attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense.

The NRA opposes this legislation and will continue to fight attempts in Congress to limit magazine capacity.

As I type this, each and every co-sponsor of this legislation is a Democrat (16 in the Senate and 107 in the House).

You can track the status of Senate Bill 407 here and House Bill 752 here via Congress.gov.

Permission has been granted by the NRA-ILA to reproduce the above.

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dead: ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban Amendment To Cybersecurity Bill

Looking at a number of personal safety-related websites and blogs these last couple of days, I’ve noticed some chatter among owners of firearms that utilize detachable ammunition magazines about acquiring as many “high-capacity” magazines as they can afford as soon as possible.

No doubt talk of more gun “control”- and banning such magazines- in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting incident is contributing to this.

But when U.S. Senate Bill 3414, otherwise known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, died the other day, so too did controversial Senate Amendment 2575, which proposed to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. SA 2575 was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by fellows Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA), Jack Reed (RI), Robert Menendez (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Charles Schumer (NY), Dianne Feinstein (CA), and Carl Levin (MI).

The following is the text of that amendment:

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following

SEC. __. 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.”.

Time will tell if SA 2575 is reincarnated as some other legislation at the national level. You can read the original text of the amendment here in THOMAS, under “Page: S5402,” “TITLE VIII- MISCELLANEOUS”

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Survival And Prosperity
Est. 2010, Chicagoland, USA
Christopher E. Hill, Editor

Successor to Boom2Bust.com
"The Most Hated Blog On Wall Street"
(Memorial Day Weekend 2007-2010)

Happy New Year

PLEASE RATE this blog HERE,
and PLEASE VOTE for the blog below:



Thank you very, very much!
Advertising Disclosure here.
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Emergency Foods Local vendor (Forest Park, IL). Review coming soon.
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Legacy Food Storage Review coming soon
ANY CHARACTER HERE
MyPatriotSupply.com reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Buy Gold And Silver Coins BGASC reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BulletSafe reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BullionVault BullionVault.com reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
This project dedicated to St. Jude
Patron Saint of Desperate Situations

Categories

 

Archives