Proposed Mag Ban: "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act"

G

gc70

New member
Here it is; McCarthy's proposed magazine ban.

In short, it is the magazine section of the 1994 ban, with the following changes:
  • Prohibits the importation of the devices
  • Bans the transfer of devices in existence before the enactment of the bill (allows for continued possession)
 
Thanks for posting that, was an interesting and extremely frustrating read.:barf:

Anyhow, I've got a question for everyone. Being that the incident in AZ targeted a member of congress do you think it will spark more chance of them passing this? Say the usual republican, pro gun people specifically. My biggest fear is they'll skip trying to keep us gun folk happy and just push through a law to 'protect' themselves.

Who knows, maybe I'm overthinking it and common sense will prevail (the real kind of common sense) :rolleyes:
 
My humble opinion is make sure to write your representative NOW. I really feel that many of the pro-gun representatives; republican and democrat, might just pass something like this as a 'feel good measure.' Meanwhile, they can still try and tell you they did not take away any of your rights to bear arms, just the number of bullets in your magazine.

So, even though this will not personally affect me, I still feel it is an infringement upon the rights of others.

I know I'm writing my congressman and two state senators that I do not want to see this, or any other type of knee jerk law passed that will limit anyone's rights to bear arms or limit the number of bullets they can carry in their magazine.

If they want to pass a law allowing all representatives to carry weapons into the capital building...good for them. I just wonder how long it will be before one of them shoot off one of their toes.

Added:
I guess I also have to ask how they would know if you transferred a magazine after the law is passed. I'm not even sure if I can prove I purchased the high-cap magazines I currently have. So, does anyone keep their receipts for magazines?
 
Last edited:
Just to be on the safe side, we should also:
(tongue in cheek)
1) Set a limit as to how sharp a knife should be.
2) All new vehicles should be equipped with a governing system allowing a maximum speed of 20 MPH.
3) Also, all fuel tanks should be limited to 2 quarts of fuel, to minimize their explosive power.
4) Anyone who wishes to take a life, must limit their victims to 1 per year, and must establish a $5,000,000 life insurance policy in the victim's name with their loved ones as the beneficiaries, prior to the act.
5) Electricity should be abolished.
6) As well as, all medications capable of causing an overdose.
7) Fatty foods, Gone.
8) Stress, heart attacks, cancer, strokes, any terminal disease...History.

Did I miss anything?
 
Last edited:
I sent an E mail to Robert Dold urging him to oppose this bill unless the maximum magazine capacity is raised to 20 rounds. This would basically make my SIG P-226 tac op's in .40 S&W worthless as a trade because all 7 mags I have could never be transfered legally.


Edit: I also sent an E mail to my senator just in case it comes up in the Senate.
Mark Kirk is actually a really cool guy, he helped my wife too be with an issue involving her previous employer and healthcare. Needless to say as soon as his office got involved the issue was resolved.
 
Last edited:
Patriot86 said:
I sent an E mail to Robert Dold urging him to oppose this bill unless the maximum magazine capacity is raised to 20 rounds.
Click to expand...

So you wrote your Congressman in favor of a ban that would throw everyone with 20+ mags under the bus ... since it would not affect you? :eek:
 
Ask yourself honestly, who needs a 32 round pistol Magazine? I have seen numerous posts on this site about them and how they are basically just flash. Yes it is another restriction but how many of you have 32 round glock magazines? Like I have said before, I am pro 2A and no legislation would be best but if it had to be at least let it be reasonable.


I only of only 1 pistol offhand that shoots more than 20 rounds as a standard that would be one of those Military grade glocks, dont remember exactly which one.

The SIG P-226 TAC OPS 9MM shoots 20, the Glock 17, almost every sig, H&K, Springfield, CA and the like have capacities ranging from 12-17 rounds.

The real question is how can you make a rational argument for having 32 round pistol magazines? the only defense beyond siting the 2A has been "common use" 32 round mags are far from common use. The issue about the no transfer is also BS, I included that as well as being a no no.


PS only 15+ would effect me.
 
Last edited:
Patriot86, you are kidding right? Please state you are being sarcastic or something. Do you actually understand the Second Amendment. Do you have a basic comprehension of rights and liberty?

Can you tell us of one single instance of firearm legislation that reduced crime?

Who needs anything more powerful than a 308 then for North America. Those can go. Who really needs a rifle or shotgun with a capacity of over three rounds. Those can go. Who really needs to shoot at anything past 300 yards. Those can go. Who really needs this that or the other.

What I need are my Constitutional Rights thank you very much, and what I don't need now or ever is someone spouting off about what I need or don't need. I will make those decisions and hope to be able to do so for quite some time. I don't need a Nanny State.
 
Last edited:
I love my 31 round Scherer mags in .40. I use them when I target shoot with my Glock 32.

I usually shoot 150 rounds per trip, and I'd rather load 5 mags then 10, anyday.
 
Patriot86 said:
I have seen numerous posts on this site about them, yes it is another restriction but how many of you have 32 round glock magazines?
Click to expand...

It is not just a few folks with 20+ pistol mags, it is also everyone with 20+ rifle mags - and there are huge numbers of people with AKs and ARs.
 
Let me make myself Clear GC, I stated clearly in my e mail that rifles should not be effected at all, I realize I did not make that clear above sorry about that. If I was Senator Patriot86 everyone could have 30 round rifle magazines and 20 round pistol magazines all day long with a clear justification under common use, though no restriction at all would be "best".
 
My friend's FN 5.7, holds 30 with the extension. It is actually fairly concealable in a Crossbreed Holster with the extra attachment.
 
Patriot86, you are kidding right? Please state you are being sarcastic or something.
Click to expand...
Guy's allowed his opinion, even if we may not agree.

I'm not worried about this passing. I sent some perfunctory emails to my Congressmen, but the Speaker soundly rejected Representative King's proposed legislation, and I doubt he'll be any kinder to this.

You guys do know McCarthy tries renewing the AWB every session, right? It never gains any traction, and it won't because of the events in Tuscon.
 
Saw an interview once with someone from the Brady Campaign and they made it very clear that their ultimate goal is no civilian gun ownership. However, they went on to say they realize it will be a slow and gradual process, so they take any gun control law as a step toward their ultimate goal.

We need to be very careful when we consider surrendering any of our Constitutional rights with the misguided idea that this will appease the anti-gun lobby and they will then go away – they won’t.
 
Going to write in the morning. also I am against a magazine bad since I use my 20,30 and 40 round magazines for my SKS and 10/22 at the range to plink with.
 
Ask yourself honestly, who needs a 32 round pistol Magazine?
Click to expand...

Have you heard of incrementalism?

Instead of banning firearms in one move, they'll do it in small steps that may seem reasonable to most.
This time it limits magazines to 10 rounds.
Next go around it will limit capacity to 5 rounds.
Eventually it'll go low enough firearms are more trouble than they're worth to keep, and we've lost our rights.

Under our Constitution, it should never be a question of justifying our need for something to the Government. Our rights shouldn't be limited unless there is a Constitutionally justified reason to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top