The usual Democrats are trying

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

Hopefully it will go bye bye

[AZRedhawk44]

3 months before an election?

None of them are THIS stupid.

It's just Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein and their ilk pandering to their bases as they're required to do.

Harry Reid will be GONE if he allows this to the full floor for a vote.  And it'll never get through the House.

Pure pandering.

[Ben]

Schumer is an idiot with his, "We want people to know we're not taking away their guns, we just want both sides to give a little".

Sure.

"We don't want to take away all your guns, just the 'military' ones."

"Okay."

"We don't want to take away your guns, we just want you to register them."

"Okay."

"We don't want to take away your guns, we just want you to wait ten days to 'cool off' before you pick them up."

"Okay."

"We don't want to take away your guns, we just want to limit their capacity."

"Okay."



When has this ever been about "both sides giving a little"? Obviously I don't support magazine restrictions, but to give Schumer his, "both sides have to give something" it would be funny if, for the sake of argument, someone said, "Sure, we'll agree to the magazine restriction if you agree to national reciprocity". "We will give up our ability to carry standard capacity magazines if we can CCW in all 50 states."

I'm guessing he wouldn't be very enthused about such a compromise.

[TommyGunn]

Schumer is an idiot with his, "We want people to know we're not taking away their guns, we just want both sides to give a little".

He's  NOT taking mine, for sure! ! ! ! !

[HankB]

"We want people to know we're not taking away their guns, we just want both sides to give a little".

"OK, Chuck, we'll give in to you on magazine capacity. In return, your side agrees to Vermont carry nationwide and national pre emption. Deal?"

[dm1333]

I agree that we don't need high capacity magazines.  Feel free to ban anything that holds more than 100 rounds!  They jam and are waaaaayyyyy too heavy!       

[zxcvbob]

I agree that we don't need high capacity magazines.  Feel free to ban anything that holds more than 100 rounds!  They jam and are waaaaayyyyy too heavy!       

Magazines maybe, but what about belt-feed?  (that amendment specifically outlaws belts)

I'd also kind of like a American 180 machine gun with a drum magazine:  http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/american-10-e.html

[Jim147]

Looks like they missed listing links. Unless that is a feed stripe. 

jim

[Hutch]

This just being reported
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.
When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

Feel free to continue your reliance on SCOTUS.