senate Democraps adding high capacity mag ban to cyberbill.

[battle_sight_zero]

That did not take long. You know the 2nd was created for hunters. Hunters don't need high cap mags. Sarcasm of course

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/foghorn/democrats-tack-high-cap-magazine-ban-onto-cybersecurity-bill/

[ghettodub]

Yep, writing my senators now.

[Zundfolge]

Also, S.3414 creates a new DHS linked government bureaucracy to regulate the internet ... at the expense of our privacy and liberty of course.

So maybe this amendment will get two birds knocked out with one stone.

[Whistler]

Underhanded, sneaky, traitorous...

Obligatory mails sent to elected officials (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=CO).

This is not something to be quietly hidden in the pages of an unrelated bill and surreptitiously adopted in the dark of night. Despite the widely held belief of many of our elected representatives, the Federal Government exists for The People. Subsequently I appeal to your sense of honesty and fair play to do the right thing and either force this insidious deceit to brave the light of public scrutiny or better decried by the just sons of Liberty for it's chicanery.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Kind regards,
W. ********

[josh7328]

When does this come up for a vote?

[Teufelhund]

Letters sent to both. Mine were not nearly so eloquent as Whistler's.

It has come to my attention that legislation which would place restrictions on the sale, manufacture, and possession of "high-capacity" magazines has been proposed as an amendment to a pending cyber-security bill.

I oppose legislation which would place restrictions on magazines of any capacity, and will not support legislators who would back such legislation.

Sincerely,
Jason ********

[Scanker19]

Do we have an amendment number for this. I'm seeing two different ones.

[Waywardson174]

Does it really matter if the Senate does manage to pass this? The house will never approve it.

[Teufelhund]

Does it really matter if the Senate does manage to pass this? The house will never approve it.

Does it matter that a large number of the nation's elected representatives would pass legislation of this type? I think so.

[Adawg38]

MF's! God, I want the pimp hand for them Dems right now!

[Ronin13]

I'm going to put this plainly and simply- Stripper clips don't work with 10 round magazines! I buy most of my ammo for my AR as M855 5.56mm ball rounds from Federal. They come in an ammo can on stripper clips with the loading tool and it makes for loading my mags 100x faster and easier... if this goes through what happens if one of my PMAGs breaks? What if I want more? Fuck you stupid dems and your false thinking that this will fix anything.

[Mazin]

You know what would be nice, a law that says you can't add unrelated legislation to a bill whos topic has nothing to do with bill's primary focus.

[Scanker19]

You know what would be nice, a law that says you can't add unrelated legislation to a bill whos topic has nothing to do with bill's primary focus.

Sentence would be life living next to a gun range, to watch the horror of freedom lovin fools having fun.

[HoneyBadger]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like possession of a mag that can hold more than 10 rounds is illegal, not just the transfer.

[josh7328]

did you guys see that shit?! 10 years for selling a freakin' magazine! AND my dumb ass brought my pmags to the stan with me, since we weren't going to be issued any, and I just read the part in there about not being able to bring mags into the states. Fuck me and the money I spent, right?

[Teufelhund]

You know what would be nice, a law that says you can't add unrelated legislation to a bill whos topic has nothing to do with bill's primary focus.

I'm with you on this 100%. I don't know how we've allowed such an under-handed practice to persist.


Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like possession of a mag that can hold more than 10 rounds is illegal, not just the transfer.

That's exactly how it reads. It places restrictions on the transfer, possession, import, and manufacture (requires serial numbers for new mags) for anyone except government organizations.

The mags you own before the bill is passed would be grandfathered in.

[Skully]

I sent to both as well, took me less than 3 minutes! [Rant1]


................wankers!

[TFOGGER]

The cyber bill is a shitstorm to begin with. Add this and it is a veritable typhoon of diarrhea. Apparently they think they can accomplish more by lumping assaults on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights together...

Sent to all appropriate reps:


Good Day,
It has come to my attention that a rider to the pending cybersecurity bill has been added to restrict the possession, sale, and manufacture of magazines for semiautomatic firearms that hold more than 10 rounds. While I am against the initial bill as a poorly written piece of legislation that will egregiously abridge our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the addition of this backdoor gun control measure is unconscionable. Magazine restrictions historically have had no effect on crime rates, and only affect those that abide by the law in the first place. Instead of placing onerous and unconstitutional burdens on law abiding gun enthusiasts, more effort should be concentrated on enforcement of the thousands of gun laws already on the books. Attempting to sidestep the legitimate legislative process on an issue that affects tens of millions of law abiding gun owners is reprehensible at best, and I respectfully request that you express your vigorous opposition.

[BPTactical]

Sent today:

Good morning Mr Bennett,
Current events in Colorado has caused quite the uproar in the political scene.
While the event of late is most assuredly a tragedy what is almost as tragic is the pathetic knee jerk reaction of our elected officials, media and public figures.
Do the above realize the ignorance and immaturity of placing blame of of a deranged individual on an inanimate object(s)? The voting public certainly do.
The firearms and or magazines DID NOT commit this heinous act, rather a very sick individual did.
As an enthusiast of the shooting sports I take an extremely dim view of any individual or organization who endorses or attempts to further infringe on the Rights of lawful firearms owners.
When a tragic incident such as Aurora, Virginia Tech or Columbine occurs the first reaction is to blame an object, impose new laws and regulations in an attempt to change human behaviors.
FAIL!
All what is accomplished when such regulations are imposed is further infringing upon individuals that did not commit a crime.
These people vote Mr Bennett.
And they remember.
Now I see that an attempt to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is being attached to a "Cybersecurity Bill".
I do not support politics as this, sneaking additional riders is reprehensible and underhanded.
I strongly urge you NOT to support such a bill. If we are to have a discussion regarding firearms and the issues that surround potential further restrictions then have the courage to stand before your constituents and have the discussion.
Along the same note, the United States is currently in discussion with the United Nations regarding international trade in small arms. This treaty has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the rights of lawful firearms owners within the United States.
Let me remind you Mr Bennett, the United States is a sovereign nation.
A sovereign nation with a Constitution.
A Constitution that you, as an elected official swore an oath to uphold.
Any endorsement of the above named treaty is a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States.
This borders on treason Mr Bennett. I believe the overwhelming majority of your constituents and citizens of the United States would view upon your endorsement of the above treaty and any other attempt to further restrict, ban or otherwise infringe upon the rights of lawful firearm owners and enthusiasts with great disfavor.
We vote.
We remember.

[josh7328]

"I am absolutely terrified of all this gun control talk floating around lately. The UN Arms trade treaty... Obama's lip service on "AK47's on the streets"... the rider that was tacked onto the cyber bill... I want to let you know that I support absolutely NO more gun control in America, and will not support any official who thinks that the government can destroy my rights. I'm in Afghanistan right now and I fully expect to return home to a country that is just as safe and free as when I left it.
Thanks,
Josh."

My letters.

[Ridge]

I sent this to both:


It has been brought to my attention that Sen. Schumer has made an addendum to the Cyber Security Bill that would ban sales of new firearm magazines. This is unfair. One person out of 80 million used his gun to commit an atrocity last week here in Aurora. It makes no sense to punish the rest of the populace like this. Never mind the fact that this evil high capacity magazine was the only weapon he brought with him to the theater that failed. That crappy magazine saved lives. Please respect my right to own firearms as I see fit, knowing that I, nor the rest of the shooting community has any intention of committing a crime with our tools.

Thank you.

[josh7328]

FAIL!

HAHA He really wrote FAIL in a letter to his rep! Love it![Beer]

[sniper7]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like possession of a mag that can hold more than 10 rounds is illegal, not just the transfer.

I see this as well. An all out ban. no grandfathering or anything.

It won't pass, but this goes to show you what we are up against.

and don't think for a second obama wouldn't sign it either.

And Eric Holder won't be signing off on anything to help us out. that is a well known fact.

Just imagine what kind of crap can be put on the presidents desk if he has 4 more years. I hope this churns your stomach a bit...especially at the polls.

[jscwerve]

I wrote them both. Simple and to the point.


It has come to my attention that there is a rider currently being attached to the cybersecurity bill that would ban "high capacity" magazines from sale or transfer. As a sportsman, hunter, and lawful gun owner I can not support such a law. Additionally it very underhanded to attach this rider to a completely unrelated bill.

I can not in good conscience support this bill, nor any public office holder that would.

Sincerely,
-------------

[Ronin13]

I see this as well. An all out ban. no grandfathering or anything.

It won't pass, but this goes to show you what we are up against.

and don't think for a second obama wouldn't sign it either.

And Eric Holder won't be signing off on anything to help us out. that is a well known fact.

Just imagine what kind of crap can be put on the presidents desk if he has 4 more years. I hope this churns your stomach a bit...especially at the polls.

I'll just go ahead and say it right now... I feel the urge to vomit every time I hear or read the word "Obama"- and "Democrat" doesn't fare much better. These assholes make me sick... again it's back to that "If we don't like something we simply don't use it, if they don't like something they want to see it banned."

[sniper7]

Udall will be worthless, this was on his facebook:

Mark Udall (http://www.facebook.com/markudall?ref=stream)


Passing a strong cybersecurity bill is one of the most important things the Senate can do next week. I will use my positions on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee to do everything I can to improve our cybersecurity and strengthen our national security.


Time to vote him out.

[Teufelhund]

I see this as well. An all out ban. no grandfathering or anything.

You can keep the ones you already have. Not that this makes it any better.

From the proposed Amendment:

‘‘(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.

‘‘(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.

[Teufelhund]

Udall will be worthless, this was on his facebook:

Mark Udall (http://www.facebook.com/markudall?ref=stream)


Passing a strong cybersecurity bill is one of the most important things the Senate can do next week. I will use my positions on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee to do everything I can to improve our cybersecurity and strengthen our national security.


Time to vote him out.

I see Ridge posted (your avatar gave you away). I posted there as well. I wasn't as nice as you were, so they will probably remove it.

[Wiggity]

What an awful bill, I am severely dissappointed

[Ridge]

I see Ridge posted (your avatar gave you away). I posted there as well. I wasn't as nice as you were, so they will probably remove it.

I had a more "tactical" looking avatar, but changed it last friday morning in the aftermath. Didn't want to do anything to resemble the guy.

[Zundfolge]

Time to vote him out.
Was time to vote him out before he was voted in. [Tooth]

Bennet is worse, but they're both Democrats.

[sniper7]

You can keep the ones you already have. Not that this makes it any better.

From the proposed Amendment:


ssshhh... your killing my scare tactics.

[Teufelhund]

I had a more "tactical" looking avatar, but changed it last friday morning in the aftermath. Didn't want to do anything to resemble the guy.

Probably a good idea. Last Friday there were other boards (incorrectly, of course) pointing at one of our members here as "the shooter," I suspect his avatar had something to do with it.

[Teufelhund]

ssshhh... your killing my scare tactics.

[ROFL1]

Sorry, I'll play along from now on. [Flower]

[Wiggity]

Email sent to both senators. Can't believe this horseshit.

[O2HeN2]

I see this as well. An all out ban. no grandfathering or anything.

It won't pass, but this goes to show you what we are up against.
For those of you that haven't figured this out yet, this is a sucessful approach that the antis have been using for years. Ask for everything, then "compromise" and the [mostly] republicans fall for it hook, line and sinker every time -- if this magazine ploy reaches its endgame, the 'pubs will be happily voting for a freeze on > 10 round magazines and defending it on the grounds "We made sure you could keep yours! See, we're pro-gun!"

O2

[hollohas]

For those of you that haven't figured this out yet, this is a sucessful approach that the antis have been using for years. Ask for everything, then "compromise" and the [mostly] republicans fall for it hook, line and sinker every time

^This exactly.

[theGinsue]

Just added this to my FB page:


Since the tragedy at the theater in Aurora last week there has been a renewed call among the anti-gun community to restrict gun ownership and to limit the capacity of magazines in firearms that use magazines to feed them. It is the latter issue I want to address now.

Those with any experience know that limiting magazine capacity won't stop or minimize the violence of those out to commit atrocities such as the Aurora shooting. With a little practice, a magazine can be changed out in under a second. These limitations already exist in places like California but have not should to decrease the level of violent crime one bit. Such restrictions are nothing more than a "feel good" measure for the anti-gun community and those naive to believe they could make a difference.

On Thursday, Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY) Went to the Senate floor to introduce an amendment to the CyberSecurity Act bill. This amendment, with many others, is up for vote next week. A major long-time anti-gun activist, Sen. Shumer has come to realize that the legislative tide turned against him after the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban (AWB) went into effect; the same AWB that most experts agree did little to nothing to reduce incidents of violent crime. Since then, Sen. Shumer -whose state has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, yet still leads with some of the worst violent crime in the tion - has changed his tactics. Now, instead of the hard-edged anti-gun assaults he's known for, he's playing a different angle to the same goal. In his speech before his fellow Senators, he gently stated that Democrats don't want to take guns away from the law-abiding citizens of our nation but, perhaps, we need to implement a few "reasonable" restrictions. In listening to his speech I could almost hear him saying "It's for the children". Sen. Shumer called for "compromise".

It's interesting how these calls for "reasonable" or "common-sense" restrictions and compromises always leave law-abiding gun owners with a little more infringment upon their rights but never give them back anything that's already been taken away. Not much of a compromise from where I stand.

The amendment Senator Shumer introduced for inclusion in the CyberSecurity Act bill would make it illegal to possess any firearms magazine with A capacity over 10 rounds. 10 rounds? This is the same limitation in place in California which is plagued with violent crime. This limitation WILL NOT make it harder from criminals to cause harm or even reduce the severity of their violent acts. This would apply to ALL firearms - handguns, rifles and shotguns with the exception of .22 rimfire.

Remember, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (the foremost law of our land) ends with "shall not be infringed". If you feel like I do and believe that this amendment would not effect criminals but does infringe upon our lawful right, then I urge you to immediately start contacting the members of the U.S. Senate around the country (not just from your own state) and tell them to vote AGAINST this amendment. Let them know that law-abiding firearms owners have a long memory and we'll remember their vote when we vote!

https://apps.facebook.com/thehillsocial/content/240657

[bogie]

What's the plan for the millions of high capacity mags already in circulation? Could the next logical step be dispatchment of TSA agents to pound the pavement and round them all up? They can pound sand.

Limiting mag capacity is a token victory for the liberal base and will have no consequence except to make the law abiding citizen weaker. Well that is their point after all.

[PSS]

Looks like it would also ban tube fed magazines which would affect lever action rifles. It does have an exception for tube fed .22 caliber weapons. How considerate.

[sniper7]

Looks like it would also ban tube fed magazines which would affect lever action rifles. It does have an exception for tube fed .22 caliber weapons. How considerate.

that's because tube fed .22's are not deadly.

[jerrymrc]

We have been through this once before. That is why you see all those MIL/LEO ar mags. There were still millions for sale. I bought all of my good Fal mags cheap during the last ban.

The big thing is it would affect new manufacture of Pmags etc.

[bogie]

We have been through this once before. That is why you see all those MIL/LEO ar mags. There were still millions for sale. I bought all of my good Fal mags cheap during the last ban.

The big thing is it would affect new manufacture of Pmags etc.

Good angle! This bill will kill jobs!

[Big Wall]

Letters sent to both. What a bunch of butt holes.

[M2MG]

The BIG thing is it effects future transfer of high cap mags, 10 years in prison. This passes, you can't give, sell, transfer, your mags to your kids, SO, or anyone else, EVER. When you die the mags must be turned over to the .GOV.

So how has voting for Obama worked out for you so far?

M2MG

[josh7328]

Just got an email saying that this goes up for a vote today.

[cofi]

Just got an email saying that this goes up for a vote today.
DAMNIT that fast?

[SouthPaw]

DAMNIT that fast?

No kidding, just sent my emails today.

[josh7328]

yeah I didn't expect it to be that fast. Scarey stuff, because there may not have been enough time in the public with this crap for people to really get eyes on it and contact their reps about it. I hope to God that it doesn't get snuck into law without making waves.

[Whistler]

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration "strongly supports" a new cybersecurity bill scheduled to be debated on the Senate floor soon, even though some of its provisions are watered down from earlier legislation, the White House Office of Management and Budget said Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he’s open to having amendments to the cybersecurity bill and hopes to vote on them next week.


“There’s plenty of room for changes,” Reid said on the floor Thursday. “Let’s have as many amendments as people feel appropriate.”

This bill will very likely pass the Senate intact though we have a chance to stop it in the Republican dominated House.

[sniper7]

Yep Got the email as well. I think they are voting whether or not to add the amendment to the cyber security bill, not on the actual bill itself? maybe I a wrong

[Mr_RoP]

I do believe that Udall and Bennett voted for the UN Gun Control treaty. What do you think is going to happen here? IMHO they will vote for the addition of the rider and the mag cap laws. Just my non-educated 2 cents worth!

[josh7328]

Dear joshua,

At 5:30 PM eastern time today, Senate Democrats could attempt to force a vote on banning magazines used by sportsmen and for self-defense.

S.A. 2575, the Schumer "Magazine Ban" Amendment, could soon come to the floor of the U.S. Senate for an up or down vote. Anti-gun Senators are attempting to tack it onto the "Cybersecurity Act," S. 3414.

The Schumer "Magazine Ban" would give Barack Obama's anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder power to pass new regulations without Congressional approval, include serial number stamping and anyone "found" with one could be facing ten years in prison.

Please call our Colorado U.S. Senators right now and tell them to vote "NO" on S. 3414 (Cybersecurity Act) and S.A. 2575 (The Schumer "Magazine Ban"):

Senator Michael Bennet: 202-224-5852

Senator Mark Udall: 202-224-5941

Thanks in advance for taking action.

For freedom,

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/cimages/d9b0764a441755fae84a0de3b2016bbd/DWBsignature.jpg

Dudley Brown
Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

[lebru]

Looks like they want to restrict online and mail order ammo sales too

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-gives-cool-welcome-bill-restricting-online-182934423.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240909-dem-lawmakers-to-unveil-bill-regulating-online-sale-of-ammo

What we really need is someone to run down a farmers market in an SUV and show people that you don't need a gun to cause mass murder...

[Clint45]

I cannot understand why hiding controversial amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill being voted on inside a 100+ page document that few Senators will even bother to have an assistant read can be legal . . . and why amendments passed into law through such a sneaky and underhanded method are not automatically nullified or made void as with any other unlawful clause.

If it was prohibited to sneak unrelated riders into Bills going before the Senate, things would be a lot simpler and people would have more trust in the Legislature. I would strongly support a Bill making it a federal felony to insert unrelated riders into Bills with the intent to have them passed into law without proper review.

[TS12000]

If it was prohibited to sneak unrelated riders into Bills going before the Senate, things would be a lot simpler and people would have more trust in the Legislature. I would strongly support a Bill making it a federal felony to insert unrelated riders into Bills with the intent to have them passed into law without proper review.

You are making a real common sense proposal there, too bad that bill would get it's throat cut before ever seeing a vote. Remember, those with power rarely if ever give it up willingly.

[Teufelhund]

It doesn't matter what the rules are; the Senate gets to write the rules by which they must operate, and then they completely disregard them. You could outlaw unrelated riders, and they would still sneak them in.

Something is seriously broken when a Senator feels the need to introduce a bill to require Senators to read a Bill before voting on it. /facepalm

Good on Senator Paul for calling them out on it.

svGDZOW-brA&feature=player_embedded#!

[james_bond_007]

"High Capacity Mag / Drum Mag" Ban into Cyber Security Bill!


SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
(b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
‘‘(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.
‘‘(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 offsite 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.’’.


Retrieved on 30JUL12 4:27MDT from http://www.dailypaul.com/246478/video-alert-dem-senators-sneak-high-capacity-mag-drum-mag-ban-into-cyber-security-bill

[J]

This is why so many presidents have asked for line item veto power. To strike out crap that is snuck through. The "ideal" bad situation would be to stick something un-popular on an otherwise very popular bill. The president doesn't want to veto the bill and risk political suicide, so they pass it whole.

Of course with the current POTUS, this line would definitely be included, but in other times it might help.

[TFOGGER]

The Republicans have also used this tactic. That's how we got the right to CCW in National Parks. They stuck the rider in on Dodd-Frank (that godawful "creditcard reform" disaster). I'm absolutely in favor of a line item veto.

[josh7328]

"When is a better time? When is more security sought by the people?" Lautenberg asked. "There is not a more, in my view, opportune moment than when there's still a period of mourning coming from Colorado. Timing, it's said, is everything. And this is the time."

POS arrogant little bit** of a ...... never let a crisis go to waste, right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/frank-lautenberg-gun-control_n_1725467.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

[james_bond_007]

Cybersecurity Bill Blocked by Republicans in U.S. Senate


By Eric Engleman - Aug 2, 2012 9:33 AM MT



Senate Republicans today blocked a bill intended to boost U.S. computer defenses, dealing a blow to a measure President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/) says is needed to prevent potentially crippling cyber attacks by foreign hackers.
An attempt by the Senate’s Democratic leadership to force a final vote on the measure failed to get the 60 votes needed under Senate rules. The tally was 52-46, largely along party lines.



Retrieved 02AUG12 10:37 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/cybersecurity-bill-blocked-by-republicans-in-u-s-senate.html




NOTE: This is the bill that included the the High Cap Mag Ban section.

[Teufelhund]

. . . and your legislative representatives don't give a damn what you have to say about it. They do not represent us; they strive only to further their careers by advocating their particular party's agenda.

All the commotion I've seen around the web about this bill and its riders has been negative and yet here is one of your Senators, urging his fellow legislators to pass it and stating that this is "what Coloradans want."

2tmHcZiguLM

[sniper7]

This is why so many presidents have asked for line item veto power. To strike out crap that is snuck through. The "ideal" bad situation would be to stick something un-popular on an otherwise very popular bill. The president doesn't want to veto the bill and risk political suicide, so they pass it whole.

Of course with the current POTUS, this line would definitely be included, but in other times it might help.

There is always good and bad. If line item veto were around we would still not be allowed weapons in national parks.

That is the best example that I know of.

The other one would have been the machine gun ban. I believe that could have been a line item veto as well.

[Whistler]

. . . and your legislative representatives don't give a damn what you have to say about it. They do not represent us; they strive only to further their careers by advocating their particular party's agenda.

All the commotion I've seen around the web about this bill and its riders has been negative and yet here is one of your Senators, urging his fellow legislators to pass it and stating that this is "what Coloradans want."

2tmHcZiguLM

Apparently he didn't read my emails. Shocking :(

[Zundfolge]

If Republicans wouldn't have killed it, Democrats would have after this. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/01/Sen-Mike-Lee-R-UT-Introduces-D-C-Abortion-Ban-Amendment-To-Cybersecurity-Bill)


The Hill reports (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/241421-sen-lee-files-abortion-amendment-to-cybersecurity-bill) that Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) filed an amendment to a cybersecurity bill that would outlaw abortions in D.C. after the fetus reaches 20 weeks...

[clublights]

If Republicans wouldn't have killed it, Democrats would have after this. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/01/Sen-Mike-Lee-R-UT-Introduces-D-C-Abortion-Ban-Amendment-To-Cybersecurity-Bill)

So HAS This been killed ?

I've only been following it here ... it's a royal whore to google shit like this and get answers.

or where should I go to get these answers?

[Whistler]

Maybe we could have "Opposite Month" for Congress - instead of inventing a bunch of stupid new laws they could get rid of a bunch of stupid old laws.

[cofi]

i hate these riders that have absolutely nothing to do with the original bill being snuck on there....it just dosent seem right

[BPTactical]

Maybe we could have "Opposite Month" for Congress - instead of inventing a bunch of stupid new laws they could get rid of a bunch of stupid old POLLYTICKIANS.

FIXED it fer ya!

[newracer]

It was killed in the Senate