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

[tynimiller]

just wrote my representative....prolly won't matter but I can say i did my part.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/us/14guns.html?ref=us

The analysis is pretty clear that that little will change. The folks on MSNBC will charge up their viewers by ranting about all plastic Glocks that are undetectable or the like. It's the equivalent of Fox News starting the War on Christmas to get its folks charged up. Boring.

Yep, some folks get out and their and flap around. Calmer heads prevail.

 

[orangello]

I don't currently feel a need for me to have a 30+ round magazine. I don't see any valid reason for me to tell other people that they can't have whatever size magazine they want. This is foolishness.

 

[8shot357]

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?

9) No smoking anywere, not even in your own house. Especialy out in the woods, bambi might get lung cancer.

 

[BGutzman]

More madness, sheer madness. It would be like saying you can only pray for twenty minutes and only on sunday and only between 1 pm and 2 pm.

How long until they impose an air tax or better yet air limits on how many breaths you can draw in a day.... Madness.. Contrary to the intent and purpose of Freedom.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Ask yourself honestly, who needs a 32 round pistol Magazine?

Ask yourself this, who honestly needs a 10 shot magazine?

Once the door is opened, the arguement that banned 30 round mags also works for banning 10 round mags.

Once you allow them to start imposing limits based on emotion, not fact, you've opened the door to arbitrary decision making.

If you think that Sarah Brady sleeps better at night knowing that your gun is limited to a 10 round mag you are in denial. Sarah Brady will sleep well at night when you no longer are allowed to own your gun.

 

[TXAZ]

I'm guessing I won't get an invitation to Ms. McCarthy's next Christmas party...

Or how about a Draco or AR pistol?

While I sincerely emphasise with Ms. McCarthy's loss, I'm amazed that (virtual) one primary issue candidates continue to be re-elected.

I guess no Ms. McCarthy's special Egg Nog for me Xmas 2011.

 

[TXAZ]

This was a terroristic, criminal act.

With due respect, the Arizona shooting was not an act of terrorism, not fitting most of the (more than 100 official) definition(s) of terrorism. Even the FBI, DoJ, DoD and DHS have different definitions.

Criminal absolutely, "terrorism" no, and it's a much slippery slope, as some definitions would make accidental shootings (by anyone including law enforcement) acts of terrorism. That's a very bad precedent.

 

[Silver Bullet]

MikeG and Krezyhorse beat me to it, but it’s worth repeating ...

Ask yourself honestly, who needs a 32 round pistol Magazine?

You’re kidding, right ? It doesn’t matter whether anybody needs a large cap mags. The points are that we have a right to large cap mags, and that any concession will only be met with demands for more concessions.

Who's talking about appeasement? They no longer hold such sway that we have to give them anything.

A very important observation. Perhaps back in the 60s or 70s compromise was necessary to keep from losing all gun rights, but not these days. We have a much stronger hand.

 

[44 AMP]

Note the main difference....

Between the proposed law and the expired AWB. The AWB only prohibited sale of new made hi-cap magazines to civilians. All the mags made before the law took effect were "grandfathered", and allowed to be sold, traded, and owned exactly as they were before passage of the AWB.

This new version would allow ownership, but not sale or transfer of the banned hi-cap mags. Fine if you already own as many as you might want, but not so good if you don't and might want to get one. Also leaves dealers and manufacturers with huge stocks of magazines that cannot be sold to the public. Not good for business, either. Of course, Rep McCarthy cares nothing for them.

The old AWB also included a requirement that new made hi-cap mags have the mfg date on them. So a LEO could tell the difference between a mag made before the ban (no date) and one after (dated). I see in the draft proposal that new large capacity (> 10 rnds) would be serial #.

So, posession of a non-serial# mag would mean it was made before the (proposed) law passed. While it would be a crime to transfer a grandfathered hicap mag, I can't see how, other than catching you in the act of transferring it, that they could prove you didn't have it before the law went into effect.

Now, posession of a numbered magazine after the law went into effect would be proof of a crime. And what a crime! TEN YEARS in prison for owning a spring loaded metal box larger than what the govt allows!

Seems a little harsh to me.

 

[Tom Servo]

It doesn’t matter whether anybody needs a large cap mags.

Just a quick deviation: I should never have to prove to anyone, least of all the government, why I need to own anything. I should be allowed to acquire all the private property I want, so long as I'm not infringing on anyone's rights in the process.

Now, possession of a numbered magazine after the law went into effect would be proof of a crime. And what a crime! TEN YEARS in prison for owning a spring loaded metal box larger than what the govt allows!

I agree with the utter absurdity of the bill as written. If we want to discuss what a bit of lunacy it is, that's fine. But please relax folks. I can tell you with 100% certainty that this thing isn't going to pass.

 

[gc70]

This new version would allow ownership, but not sale or transfer of the banned hi-cap mags.

This is very insidious.

One obvious issue would be how a person would defend ownership of standard-capacity magazines for a gun purchased after the effective date of a ban. This would have a pronounced effect on young shooters. As an example, after such a ban had been in place for five years, no non-LEO under age 27 could offer an explanation for having a standard-capacity magazine.

Another issue would involve people who own lots of magazines. If you had a Beretta and 20 standard-capacity magazines, it would involve a substantial monetary loss to sell the Beretta and scrap the magazines to buy a Sig.

Finally, out-of-production guns would present a special problem. Who would want to buy an out-of-production gun without magazines and with no ready source for new, legal 10-round magazines?

The old AWB also included a requirement that new made hi-cap mags have the mfg date on them. So a LEO could tell the difference between a mag made before the ban (no date) and one after (dated). I see in the draft proposal that new large capacity (> 10 rnds) would be serial #.

The 1994 AWB also contained a serial number requirement (see top of page 205 of PDF file). I checked some of my ban-period LEO magazines and they do have a serial number (per 27 CFR 478.92(c)(1), a manufacturer could use a single serial number for all magazines it produced).

 

[gc70]

I do not believe the type of ban proposed by McCarthy has any prospect of being passed ... at this time.

I do think it is important for gun owners to fully understand what type of restrictions the anti-gun crowd would like to impose on us. They may not make any headway now, but they will continue to try. McCarthy's proposal is subtly different from similar provisions of the 1994 AWB, but those subtle differences are very bad. In short, the anti-gun crowd is learning.

I also think it is important for potential gun restrictions to be discussed by gun owners. I have been quite surprised by the number of gun owners who still appear willing to sacrifice the interests of other gun owners, as long as they are not personally impacted. I would have thought that if the gun community learned nothing else from the 1994 AWB, it was that we need to stand together.

 

[egor20]

44 AMP
This new version would allow ownership, but not sale or transfer of the banned hi-cap mags. Fine if you already own as many as you might want, but not so good if you don't and might want to get one. Also leaves dealers and manufacturers with huge stocks of magazines that cannot be sold to the public.

OK, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

Wouldn't that be a violation of Interstate Commerce Law, ie: I live in Virginia and perhaps I wish to purchase a 31 round magazine from say, Wildalaska?

"According to 18 USCS § 921 the term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

Would her bill have to include an exemption from 18 USCS § 921?

 

[langenc]

The same folks the think that x rounds are plenty and the same ones that dont belong to the NRA cause they send out too many money letters.

 

[kenno]

I sold all my guns and mags 2 weeks ago

 

[silvercorvette]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot86
I sent an E mail to Robert Dold urging him to oppose this bill unless the maximum magazine capacity is raised to 20 rounds.
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?

It never fails to amaze me how we are our own worst enemies. So it does not matter to you because you won't be effected, but who will be left to help you when they do propose a law that will effect you?

======================================


They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 

[silvercorvette]

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.

You fail to understand that the people that want to take away our guns know they can't do it all at once so they chip away taking a little bit at a time till one morning you will wake up to find they the only legal guns are black powder muzzle loaders

By the way not only do I own a full auto Uzi with 32 round magazines, I also own a full auto Thompson with a 50 round mag, and a full auto M-16 with a 100 round magazine

 

[kenno]

I've been listening carefully to the Commies (OOps Liberals ) and thier anti- 2nd Amendment laws for 48 years.
Think about that, 48 years. Thier tactics have never changed. In the 1960's Liberals pushed for the release of Physcotropic drugs, then push for the federal funding of same. Millions become addicted to those drugs and then funding is cut, some patients are told that they cannot recieve more drugs unless "Thier condition worsens"
The first spontainious school shootings occure in California, the shooters are addicted to prescribed psycotropic drugs.
That was in the 1970s after the Kennedy shooting death had inspired a ban on non-FFL retail gun transfers.
Look at California now, it's a police state, with fewer police, meaning law abidding PPL must now break the law to defend themselves from gangs the police will not persue, the courts will not convict. And what about these gangs that shoot-up entire neighborhoods, are they selling ice-cream? No, drugs!
Just like in Chicago, the most corrupt, crime ridden city in America, drugs, gangs, anti-citizen laws, reduced law enforcement, more crime, more anti-citizen laws. Chaos! POLICE STATE!
I see a pattern.

 

[8shot357]

I'd be ok using 10 round mags, but I carry a 16 round mag with 16 rounds, because I can. But TBS, I don't have any 30+ round mags because I feel I don't really need them, but that's just me.