Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)


PDA






Jake!
April 18, 2007, 09:26 PM
well, this didn't take very long

Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1859 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1859
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 16, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.


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 `Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Sections 921(a)(31) and 922(w), and the last sentence of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provision Partially Repealed- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), or (w) of section 922;'.

SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (z) the following:

`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(3) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SoCalShooter
April 18, 2007, 09:28 PM
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


(edited by user)Seriously. magazine capacity was not the problem they dont damn listen at all do they. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :fire: :fire: :fire:

ACP
April 18, 2007, 09:45 PM
Good reply, SoCalShooter. I'm sure the FBI is interested in your THR handle and your desire for the death a federal official. Brilliant. Keep up the good work representing all us crazy, hair-trigger, ultra-conservative gun nuts.

That is to say, there's other ways of expressing the inanity of her proposal without resulting to death wishes and flaming, expletive-filled icons.

Or not. Again, your choice. I think you made the wrong one.

glockarmourer40517
April 18, 2007, 09:52 PM
there is a NEW report today , AGAIN SAYING that G18 9mm 33rd. Glock magazines were recovered off the body of the shooter.

-----the report came from a "source" that was reported on the (anti-gun) MSNBC network.
I reported this info a day ago, but there is now more confirmation of same....




------when that info fully comes out, it will strengthen the anti-gun scums case for hicap bans.

which is WHY i bought over 200 AK47 mags and 40 handgun mags.

Gun Wielding Maniac
April 18, 2007, 09:54 PM
People these days are so uptight.:rolleyes:

Geno
April 18, 2007, 10:03 PM
Explain the difference:

1) A woman purchases 500 rounds of 9mm and loads them into 33-round magazines.

2) A woman purchases 500 rounds of 9mm and loads them into 17-round magazines.

3) A woman purchases 500 rounds of 9mm and loads them into 10-round magazines.

What difference does it make? None whatsoever. It takes less than 1 second to change a magazine. Note that I used a woman in the example. I'm an equal-opportunity blamer. :neener:

This bill will not pass. In closing, please edit any post that is not THR quality. We don't need hyper-reactive, and unprofessional posts. It makes us look foolish and imprudent. Furthermore, and simply stated, it is not The High Road.

Autolycus
April 18, 2007, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Doc2005:
This bill will not pass.

I dont know about that.

LawBot5000
April 18, 2007, 10:57 PM
Wishing death upon someone isnt a crime. Now if multiple users agreed that THEY were going to CAUSE her death, that would be over the line. If I remember correctly, federal conspiracy jurisprudence tracks the common law and doesnt require an affirmative act towards the completion of the conspiracy, but it still requires agreement and intent to cause an illegal act to take place.

You can even advocate the killing of officials and the overthrow of the US government so long as you do it as part of expounding a system of belief. For example, communism requires the overthrow of all governments but unless you actually conspire to carry this out, you havent crossed the line.

As a caveat, I would warn everyone that this sort of speech is definitely close enough to the line that someone not careful and knowledgable could EASILY put themselves afoul of the law. It is sort of like putting your hand just far enough inside the lion's cage to agitate it, but not so far that it can actually get a grip and pull you through the bars. Not the sort of game you play if you want to die an old man.

LawBot5000
April 18, 2007, 11:00 PM
And no, this wont pass. McCarthy would win a lifetime achievement award from the republicans for returning control of both houses to them again.

Gun control is a consistent winner whenever the democrats run with it. The problem is that it isnt them that does the winning.

gm
April 18, 2007, 11:14 PM
Id rather see antigunners exposed before their peers:D or their foolishness redirected at some other aspect that could actually work for everyone besides criminals.


Theyve been trying to get the expired awban or its parts, restarted since its sunset,this effort on their part is no surprise and their lack of knowledge is understandable as well.They cant see the trees for the forest.

Jim K
April 18, 2007, 11:17 PM
Of course it was introduced quickly. I wonder if it was already written and ready to go, just waiting word that the Brady Campaign's poster boy had started shooting.

Jim

Geno
April 18, 2007, 11:20 PM
As the Governor stated today about anyone who brings up gun control and changing laws in this grieving period,

"I have nothing but loathing for them!"

Wow! And that was from a Democrat governor!!! Hello! This bill isn't going anywhere. This Governor and others intend to let the steel cool. The old strike-while-the-steel-is-hot...it's past mentality.

kcmarine
April 18, 2007, 11:21 PM
Saying that anyone should die is not The High Road.


I mean, with exceptions. UBL should be with :evil: .


I know that McCarthy is a gun banning, freedom- hating liberal, but she's still a human being.

Keep it real, guys.

Reddbecca
April 18, 2007, 11:39 PM
Death wishes aside, this thing has little chance of passing.

JLStorm
April 18, 2007, 11:57 PM
from what I have heard today on CNN and fox news, it sounds like the raging liberals will be introducing laws, but most dems dont want their names attached to gun control laws right now. As one senator was quoted (cant remember who) "When I mention gun control to other members of congress, I am told, that their main goal is not gun control, and if they were to endorse a gun control bill they would most probably not get re-elected." she then went on to say "and that is probably true"

We shall see where everyone falls on this and other gun control issues, but the fact is that I have NEVER seen such middle of the road commentary on the news about guns, it seems like hell has frozen over for the moment....:what: Of course HR1022 still has many signers soooo it remains to be seen...

SoCalShooter
April 19, 2007, 12:01 AM
We shall see where everyone falls on this and other gun control issues, but the fact is that I have NEVER seen such middle of the road commentary on the news about guns, it seems like hell has frozen over for the moment.... Of course HR1022 still has many signers soooo it remains to be seen...

I agree. Did you guys get a chance to see the interview with mcarthy? She has no idea what the function of a barrel shroud is. I fail to see why anyone takes her seriously when she does not know what she is talking about.

flynlr
April 19, 2007, 05:26 AM
after reading this ladys bills I am dumbfounded as to who the hell is writing these for her, cause she is dumber then a box of rocks yet there are many big words in all her bills.

SWMAN
April 19, 2007, 09:33 AM
there is a NEW report today , AGAIN SAYING that G18 9mm 33rd. Glock magazines were recovered off the body of the shooter.

The killer had a Glock 19, not a select fire Glock 18.

logical
April 19, 2007, 09:59 AM
Don't take this as an acceptance of any new anti-gun laws....but if all they do is re-instate that dopey assault weapons/hi-cap ban we had before.....well, it could be a lot worse.

alucard0822
April 19, 2007, 11:15 AM
"When I mention gun control to other members of congress, I am told, that their main goal is not gun control, and if they were to endorse a gun control bill they would most probably not get re-elected." she then went on to say "and that is probably true"


This should encourage us all to actively fight all gun bills that come down the line. with more balanced media coverage and those pro-gun dems that got elected making good on their promise, we should turn the heat up, we have the anti-s on the run. we definitely dont want to sit back and hope for the best.

JLStorm
April 19, 2007, 12:11 PM
As a follow up to my previous post:

from what I have heard today on CNN and fox news, it sounds like the raging liberals will be introducing laws, but most dems dont want their names attached to gun control laws right now. As one senator was quoted (cant remember who) "When I mention gun control to other members of congress, I am told, that their main goal is not gun control, and if they were to endorse a gun control bill they would most probably not get re-elected." she then went on to say "and that is probably true"


While I still cant find the transcript of that part of the interview on the net, here is what CNN said regarding the reasons why this is the case:


Three reasons:

1. Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Galllup Poll. The latest figure shows 49 percent support for stricter laws in January 2007, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990. The decline seems to be attributable to decreasing violent crime rates since 1994.

2. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control usually don't. Politicians know they will pay a price at the polls if they vote for new gun laws, even if most voters agree with them.

3. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises, but it's usually not sustained very long. Whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights.


If we keep doing this, we may actually be able to keep some of our rights

illspirit
April 19, 2007, 02:12 PM
I had an idea, not sure if anyone else has thought of it, or if it would be stupid.

What if we made a video of someone making a quick-and-dirty "high capacity" magazine using a chunk of sheet metal, some tin snips, and the follower/floor plate from a factory mag? Obviously, it wouldn't be pretty or safe, but in theory one could make something functional enough for a criminal's throwaway gun in a matter of minutes.

Then post the video to YouTube and everywhere else, so as to educate people just how utterly useless a mag ban would be. What's McCarthy going to do then? Ban sheet metal and hand tools? :neener:

Or would they just flip it on us and try to ban all guns since magazines of any size could be made for all of them? And if they did, would it really be a bad thing to draw them into the open and make them admit what they really want?

Daniel T
April 19, 2007, 02:37 PM
Read this thing carefully.


`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

Words don't fail me, but I'm not going to use the particular ones that come to mind.

This is an "assault weapon" BAN. A real one. The "large capacity blah-blah-blah" BS is a smoke screen.

alucard0822
April 19, 2007, 03:03 PM
This is an "assault weapon" BAN. A real one. The "large capacity blah-blah-blah" BS is a smoke screen my thoughts exactly

If we put out a video of homemade hicap mags, it would feed into the BS that they kill more people deader than reduced caps. and as a "manufacturer" would be subject to the 10 years in prison.

We need to fight and fight hard with the truth, the reps already know gun control has lost them elections, and has become taboo for all but the most liberal reps, we should work to make it political suicide.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!