Senate Bill 33 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013

Someone else here suggested that people write to their future reps in NH. A lot of gun-owners in MA on this site move to NH. It might not be a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -



Just like the Health Care bill. Right?

You mean back when the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, a super majority in the House, and the presidency?[rolleyes]
 
Unfortunately, gun owners in MA don't have any elected officials representing them in the Senate or House. Our letters, calls and emails are always replied to with "Shhhh, we know what's best for you. Thanks for your opinion, but I really don't give a **** what you think". For those of us in MA, our best bet is supporting GOA, the NRA and JPFO. If you are on the fence about donating to one of these organizations, remember Feinstein said herself that the NRA is making it increasingly difficult to pass these infringements on our civil liberties.

Write your sentators and representatives, then consider donating to someone who will actually represent your voice on these important issues.

This is true. That is why I called the new Senator from ND after reading that she is pro2A. Her staff hasn't yet caught on that they are supposed to ask where you live so they registered another call from a 'voter/constituent' as being pro 2A.
 
If this useless bill is going to pass it will piss off alot of MG collectors when they get approved but can't have the mags....
 
If this useless bill is going to pass it will piss off alot of MG collectors when they get approved but can't have the mags....


"Here's your $8K UZI Mr. X, It was just approved after 6 months of waiting! But I hope you have magazines for this already because I can't give you the ones it came with!"
 
Full text of the bill can be seen here.

Full Text of S. 33: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us



Those words are disconcerting.





So we know who our friends are. /sarcasm


...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 the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013.

this ^^ clause grandfather's what exists already.

Changes the "lawfully possessed" by adding "In the United States" ....AKA no more importing preban mags.



This ^^ is how they will know when it was made.

This is a suck ass law but likely to be seen by many as a 'good compromise' on 'reasonable restrictions.'

I am planning on calling my Senators tomorrow to oppose this. I may also call the Senators who are proposing it and a few Senators who are Pro 2A to let them know how I feel. Now, to find a senator who is pro 2A.
.
 
And what about linked-belt feed. Does every link in a belt need to be serialized & date stamped? How'd that work?

Yes they would have to be and it wouldn't work. Which is the intent of the law.

The whole point of this is to eliminate gun ownership step by step.
 
Full text of the bill can be seen here.

Full Text of S. 33: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

Based on the language:

"that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;"

Does that mean that any 10 round magazine that accepts a readily available "+1" or "+2" base extension would be banned as a high capacity magazine? With no additional clarifying language, it could certainly be read that way.



Those words are disconcerting.





So we know who our friends are. /sarcasm






this ^^ clause grandfather's what exists already.



This ^^ is how they will know when it was made.

This is a suck ass law but likely to be seen by many as a 'good compromise' on 'reasonable restrictions.'

I am planning on calling my Senators tomorrow to oppose this. I may also call the Senators who are proposing it and a few Senators who are Pro 2A to let them know how I feel. Now, to find a senator who is pro 2A.

Based on the language:

"that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;"

Does that mean any 10 round magazine capable of accepting a readily available "+1" or "+2" base extension would be banned as a high capacity magazine?

It certainly reads that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom