What Say To Up To 10 Years In Prison For Possessing A High Capacity Magazine?

The text for the Democrats high capacity magazine amendment to the Cybersecurity bill is finally on line, and it’s pretty damned simple (it’s under S5403)

“(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.

There are all sorts of exclusions for law enforcement and such (I’ve included the full amendment under the fold), but, here’s the penalty

(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.”.

(I’ve added the links to the relevant code.)

So, basically, possess a magazine that holds 11 rounds, and you could face up to 10 years in jail, if you cannot prove that it was possessed after the date that the bill goes into effect. Not that it will, the Senate voted on it today, and it only received 52 votes, with 46 voting to kill it. Of course, Lautenberg et all can slip it into other bills.

“(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.

[Page: S5403]  GPO's PDF

“(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.”.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “What Say To Up To 10 Years In Prison For Possessing A High Capacity Magazine?”

  1. Gumball_Brains says:

    the bill only needed 60 votes to move forward with the legislation. It only received 52 votes

    Ok, which Republican voted for this?!?!?!

    The Cybersecurity Act, introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine),

    “We know how important this legislation is, we know it’s more important than getting a pat on the back from Chamber of Commerce,” Reid said Thursday before the vote. “That’s why Republicans are running like a pack of scared cats.”

    I’ll have what he’s smoking!!!

    Republican senators that voted for the bill were Collins and Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), Dan Coats (Ind.) — who co-sponsored the rival bill — and Scott Brown (Mass.).

    Explains it. RINOs are still RINOs.

    Democrats voting against the bill were Sens. Ron Wyden (Ore.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Reid. Reid voted against the measure as a procedural move so that he can then bring the bill back to the floor later.

    Wow, if its even too liberal for some of the most liberal dems… says something.

    Way to go Reid.. way to stay courageous.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7157 access attempts in the last 7 days.