Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

[ANGLICO]

This is ment to be informative and apolitical. The title is the title of the article - not my politics (other than 2A protection).

Attaching it to the cybersecurity bill is a double dumbo move. Both are unpopular, and hanging a high capacity mag rider on an already unpopular bill only draws attention to the bill its self, which should be squashed!


.....Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

.....The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

[B] (my comments - good bye to 10+ pistol mags for Defensive Carry!) [B]

.....Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on proposed amendments to the cybersecurity bill.

(this is some weak rationalizing going on by the Left side of the Senate - they are using the 'can't we all get along' argument)

Call your Senators to protect your 2A rights. Even Democratic Senators know that Gun Control (even this type of creeping compromise encrochment on your 2A rights is not popular, even in heavily Democratic districts.

Read the rest and the 'arguments' that Chucky S uses: Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill - The Hill's Video

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[msgt/ret]

This is something that bears close watching. The anti-gunners will attempt to sneak anti-gun amendments to bills currently being considered. Actually that is how we got National Park carry approved, it was attached to the credit card bill the Whitehouse resident demanded knowing HE would sign it.

[RightyLefty]

I can make the argument that if 100 rnd. drum mags had been banned before last week, more people may have died in Colorado. Those mags are known to have reliability issues. Sure he may have had to reload more often, but I doubt the gun would have jammed if he would only have been able to use standard mags. Be careful what you wish for you anti-gunners.

[RightyLefty]

This guy was obviously aware the the accessories that can be acquired for an AR-15. Can you imagine if he would have used a bump-fire stock when he committed this horrible act? The media, anti-gunners, politicians, etc. would really be going crazy. He probably would have killed fewer people because everyone knows "full auto" is harder to control than semi-auto. Just saying though.

[Ionracas]

Im sorry, maybe I deeply overlooked something but what do guns have to do with cyber security? For that matter what did carrying in parks have to do with credit cards?

Go easy on me, I am slow to understand some political ways but I do try.

[Hiram25]

Anyone see the common theme of the bill's sponsorship? All the gun friendly States, although I didn't know Rhode Island was amoung them.

[Ionracas]

Anyone see the common theme of the bill's sponsorship? All the gun friendly States, although I didn't know Rhode Island was amoung them.

I picked up on that but Im not sure about Rhode Island. I used to spend a lot of time in RI, they are calm and freindly people overall. My interactions with most have been that they are anti-Bush and anti-war so I can speculate anti-gun.

[RightyLefty]

Im sorry, maybe I deeply overlooked something but what do guns have to do with cyber security? For that matter what did carrying in parks have to do with credit cards?

Go easy on me, I am slow to understand some political ways but I do try.

This is done all the time when bills are just about ready to pass. Throw these amendments in at the last minute that having nothing to do with nothing to try to sneak something through before anyone catches on. Or it is done as a quid pro quo to try gain support for a bill when it otherwise might not pass. You want me to vote for this bill, well you need to put this or that in the bill before I will vote for the bill. All a bunch of B.S.

[archer51]

Poor Chucky.....you could tell he was almost choking on his words.

[Ionracas]

This is done all the time when bills are just about ready to pass. Throw these amendments in at the last minute that having nothing to do with nothing to try to sneak something through before anyone catches on. Or it is done as a quid pro quo to try gain support for a bill when it otherwise might not pass. You want me to vote for this bill, well you need to put this or that in the bill before I will vote for the bill. All a bunch of B.S.

Thanks for the breakdown. I understand the quid pro quoe, not that I agree with it. How is that legal though? How is that different from a city official offering work to a contractor for some personal favors?

As far as the other part, your saying that they actualy slip in completley unrelated information to a bill and it will get passed if the bill is? How can it hold ground if discovered? Is that something like Obamacare when it first came out and had to be voted on in a day despite several thousand pages to read?

[lordofwyr]

Once signed, is signed and law, whether or not it was "slipped in." That is why they try it. And never assume that just because someone can get elected they will actually read any legislation, even their own. They let their flunkies do it.

Years ago the Texas Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a revision in the Texas Penal Code that basically banned anyone from possession of a firearm on a school campus for any reason. When we the police read it, we asked, "Where is the exception for Police Officers?" Oopsie...they forgot to put that it. So basically, even an on duty officer responding to a call was, by the letter and definition of the law, in violation if they carried a weapon on a campus.

Of course the Attorney General of Texas gave his opinion that the law would not be enforces against police until the law was fixed, but I do not trust opinion against vindictive prosecution.....

So, yes, if it get's snuck into any law that passes and is signed into law, it is law. We have to always be vigilant.

[suntzu]

Stuff like this worries me way more than the ATT. Both sides of the aisle do it and it needs to stop.

[F350]

This is done all the time when bills are just about ready to pass. Throw these amendments in at the last minute that having nothing to do with nothing to try to sneak something through before anyone catches on. Or it is done as a quid pro quo to try gain support for a bill when it otherwise might not pass. You want me to vote for this bill, well you need to put this or that in the bill before I will vote for the bill. All a bunch of B.S.

That is exactly how the "No new machineguns in the civilian market came to be" along with a voice vote obviously opposed but ruled passed by the speaker. Congress critters hide all kinds of things in bills; just look at all the taxes hidden in Obammacare!

[Ionracas]

I guess in a way I and many others are just as guilty of simillar crimes. I never read the 60 or so pages of a user agreement before installing a free app on my phone. But Im also not buying a $20k car or making laws for people I am supposed to protect.

Guess the next time I download Angry Birds I better read the fine print or else I might wind up nuking a third world country.

Anyways as far as writing a bill and passing it is concerned, Im appaled that irrelevant information can be snuck in like that. I understand that if its passed its passed but what about a clause the makes the irrelivant stuff null and void?

[tangoseal]

Stuff like this worries me way more than the ATT. Both sides of the aisle do it and it needs to stop.

I agree but how do you stop it? We keep voting the lesser guys out but the heads of the vipers keep getting voted back in. UNtil we completely refresh the congress with a new law, term limits, this will NEVER stop.