Democratic Senators Add Gun Control to Cybersecurity Bill

Senators Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Barbara Boxer (CA), Jack Reed (RI), Bob Menendez (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Schumer (NY) and Dianne Feinstein (CA) submitted an amendment to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 which would limit real-world gun rights. The language intends to make ownership or transfer of magazines (and other ammunition-feeding devices capable of holding ten or more bullets) illegal.

Amendments to the Cybersecurity Act are expected to be debated and the bill voted upon next week and most expect the bill to pass following the endorsement of the White House late last week.

The ECA has a related action alert for consumers to contact their representatives, here.

Source: The Hill

Photo credit: Examiner

*GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Hevach says:

    It's also done with ulterior motives. It's a proven way to kill a bill, either because you want it dead or just want to blame the majority party for voting against it. Alternately, its also used to get the minority party to abandon support for a bill so the majority can hog credit. And if the other party calls your bluff, you've got them on the hook for voting in something they campaign against.

  2. 0
    Papa Midnight says:

    Often, Congressional and/or Senatorial representatives will add-on what are called riders to legislation. Usually, it has nothing to do with the legislation.

    It is often used in one of a few ways, but typical usages are to pass something non-controversial, gain funding for projects, or to kill a bill cold in it's tracks.

    They typically have absolutely nothing to do with the original legislation what-so-ever. But sometimes, as evidenced here-in, they're used to insert controversial elements into legislation that would have no chance of being heard or passed under any other circumstances (i.e.: Senator Hutchinson's attempt to cut off the FCC at the pass on Net Neutrality – not that it was really necessary).

  3. 0
    DorthLous says:

    As annoying as it is, it really does mean what it is… In the US (or Canada, mind you, especially with our new Prime Minister), bill components sometime (often) have little to do with one another or the bill's name. The process is called, among other name, pig ear. Not much more to add, sorry.

  4. 0
    Lisa Pham says:

    Well, I do live in Australia, so yeah, the US laws are VERY different to ours here. 

    If I knew the answer to my question, then I wouldn't have asked. But I guess I'm not going to get a civil/useful answer here. :(

  5. 0
    MaskedPixelante says:

    It's kind of sad that THIS is where they draw the line. Spying on people's internet connection is a-OK, but take away their guns and they will not stand for it.

  6. 0
    Lcpuche says:

    Gentlemen, these are our politicians at work.

    We should brush up this mess a bit, because the ignorance from these people is simply astounding.

  7. 0
    Lisa Pham says:

    Can someone please help me out here?

    I'm confused with this…. (limit real-world gun rights) What has Gun Laws got to do with CyberSecurity?

    I'm serious, I don't understand how the two marry up.

Leave a Reply