Summary

1/3/2013--Introduced.Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit: (1) the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device,... Read More

Status

This bill was introduced on Jan 3, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not passed.

Date Introduced
Jan 3, 2013

Co-Sponsors

d-80

Bill Text

A BILL

To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.

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 ``Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act''.

SEC. 2. 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...

Read Full Text

Sentiment Map

Select:

Nation

385 Supporting
5153 Opposing
7% 93%

State: CA

35 Supporting
366 Opposing
9% 91%

District: 1st

0 Supporting
19 Opposing
0% 100%

Popularity Trend

Organizations Supporting

No organizations supporting yet.

Organizations Opposing

Any attempt to ban magazines is a waste of time, and will make criminals of law-abiding citizens. Adam Lanza had multiple magazines with him at Newtown, and no effective resistance inside the school until law enforcement arrived. It makes no difference if he had 10-round or 30-round magazines, since he had ample time to change magazines. He didn't even empty his 30-round magazines, opting to 'tactical reload', leaving 15 rounds behind. We strongly oppose this bill.

Your are not my Father, nor my Brother nor my Husband, Government needs to say out of our lives... Quit Trying to Trample on the 2nd Amendment to forward your gun grabbings agenda!

Next-Gen Patriots 2 years ago

We vehemently oppose legislation restricting our firearms ability to be employed to some arbitrary and pointless capacity such as seven or ten rounds.

H.R. 138 would prohibit the transfer, possession, and importation into the United States of any “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” The bill defines “large capacity ammunition feeding device” as “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 does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

Florida Carry 2 years ago

Restricting or prohibiting standard (or "large") capacity magazines will not solve the crime problem. Criminals will get around this restriction by using two or three low capacity magazines as opposed to one standard capacity magazine. It takes very little time to change the magazine on any modern firearm. Therefore, criminals can create the same amount of carnage with several low capacity magazines as with one standard capacity magazine.

H.R. 138 would prohibit the transfer, possession, and importation into the United States of any “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” The bill defines “large capacity ammunition feeding device” as “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 does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

Users Supporting

I support The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because... evidence suggests that a ban on large magazines would have reduced the number of those killed in mass shootings. There is no reason for the sports hunter to need large magazines and even though the target shooter may be inconvenienced somewhat, the large capacity magazines increase carnage in mass shootings. In the name of humanity this needs to end!

Share
NC
5
Micki
NC-5
10 months ago

I support The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because there are no reasons from a public safety perspective that highly lethal capacity devices should be in public hands. Using guns rationally does not support such devices under any circumstances. The purpose of such devices is killing in war situations.

Share
CA
45
Safety
CA-45
1 year ago

I support The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because...to many weapons now.

Share
TN
6
Anonymous520951
TN-6
1 year ago

I support H.R. 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because...there is no legitimate reason or need for this outside of military uses.

Share
AZ
5
dmcrane1
AZ-5
1 year ago

I support H.R. 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because private citizens should not own weapons of mass destruction

Share
CO
4
WildSweetnCool
CO-4
1 year ago

I support H.R. 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because my children and my grandchildren have a right to go to school in a safe and secure environment. Yesterday Georgia had a wake-up call in the DeKalb school district. It's time to change Georgia.

Share
GA
3
Anonymous729807
GA-3
2 years ago

Users Opposing

I oppose The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because it will have no effect on gun violence, and will only affect other forms of violence by limiting the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Every murderer who has gotten mass press coverage by mass shootings has carried multiple magazines and had ample opportunity to change them out as they were emptied. This law makes no sense. Vote no.

Share
VA
1
gherlone
VA-1
11 months ago

I oppose The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because...BECAUSE IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS IT SAYS WE SHOULD BE EQUALLY ARMED AS THE ARMY

Share
RI
1
HaroldERyan
RI-1
11 months ago

I oppose The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because...as with most "common sense" legislation designed to stop gun violence, true common sense and logic are found lacking. Laws such as this only burden the law abiding citizen yet does nothing to prevent gun violence. A prime example is what happened in Southern California, which already has state limits on capacity.

Share
CO
6
panman06
CO-6
11 months ago

I oppose The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because...this bill is the very definition of arbitrary. It threatens the safety of all Americans who may one day face the necessity of defending their lives and loved ones.

Share
NV
4
Ken1139
NV-4
11 months ago

I oppose The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because it is an unjustifiable infringement on good, law abiding citizens freedom to own a product that would be necessary and useful in the event that the Government or State became tyrannical or attempted to turn into a Police State. The people should be able to arm themselves with the same equipment that could be used against them. Banning these only limits the efficiency in which someone can return fire. I believe large capacity magazines to be protected under the 2nd Amendment. Many legal firearms were designed to have high capacity magazines which are useful for providing cover fire. I want my fellow militia members to be able to provide covering fire while they advance on an enemy's position. Foreign or Domestic. - I am a United States Marine. I will defend the constitution. H.R. 138 is an attack against the 2nd Amendment. Attacking the 2nd Amendment is an attack on the people of the United States. Do not pass this. I strongly encourage you to oppose H.R. 138.

Share
CA
18
RichTinker
CA-18
1 year ago

I oppose The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act because of the uninformed and ludicrous definition of "Large capacity" in use in the ill-thought out piece of legislation. Most of what is referred to as "Large Capacity" are the designed capacities of the weapons affected.

Share
CA
5
jimmylee.kirk
CA-5
1 year ago

Bill Summary

1/3/2013--Introduced.Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit: (1) the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for such a device lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of this Act's enactment; and (2) the importation or bringing into the United States of such a device. Exempts: (1) the transfer or possession of such a device by a federal, state, or local agency or law enforcement officer; (2) certain transfers to licensees under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; (3) possession of such a device transferred to an individual upon retirement from a law enforcement agency if such individual is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition; and (4) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of such a device by a licensed manufacturer or importer for authorized testing or experimentation purposes. Sets penalties for violations. Requires a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after this Act's enactment to be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such enactment.

H.R. 137The Fix Gun Checks Act H.R. 139The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act