What happens when a state limits the rounds to 10

The crazy thing is my license to carry in MA also allows me to own large capacity firearms, BUT I cannot buy new large capacity mags in MA only those that were grandfathered in. I am going to try to find out if I can order large capacity mags from a site like Midwayusa since I legally can posses large capacity firearms.
 
I would guess that the Lefties believe that a "nut job" would not consider using anything but a high cap mag, and thereby not commit a crime if he/she can not own one.
Just adds more questions as to government intelligence and the severe lack of same!
 
Stupid

So a mentally imbalanced person will comply and use the proper legal magazine.....

The legislators do not have a clue.

Pico
 
Magazine capacity of 10 round will not prevent someone from getting shot, it will force a shooter to carry more than a single magazine. so I do not understand the logic behind the restriction. :confused:
 
The OP is correct according to the language in the bill.
Click to expand...

Is it a bill or a law?

It is not likely to withstand a legal challenge on taking property without compensation, and oe is likely to be filed rather quickly.

And yes, registration is on e way around the taking rules.

They did not take it, now did they?
 
This may or may not be relevant, but when Canada forced us pistol owners to 10 round magazines, we either dismantled and stored away our larger capacity mags, or else drilled a hole in the bottom and inserted a bolt or screw to prevent the follower from accepting more than 10 rounds. There was no grandfathering of magazines that I know of (only pistols themselves), but you could also send away your magazines for pinning to 10 rounds, at your own expense of course :(
 
Let's revolt. Gang: let's go on down to the liquor store strapped with 3 snubby 5-rounders a piece. That'll show 'em. :D

Just playin'. I'm in NC where we can carry whatever.
 
Join the NRA. Call, email, &/or write your state rep & senator to voice your strong objection to this nonsense.

If the bill becomes law, disassemble the mags or modify them as others suggested.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances become a blind sheep and just turn them in.

I believe it was Edmund Burke who said, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to stand idly by" (don't trust my memory on this one but it is close)
Now Burke made the statement as an explanation for Hitler & the Holocaust, but this idiocy is getting close.........
 
I feel for you guys, I really do. :(

We lobbied like crazy when the feds tabled the 10 round limit registration for handguns. Unfortunately our efforts were like a "candle in the wind" to the political expediency of the liberal government at the time.

What I mean is that the liberal party at the time thought they could win more votes by making the population believe they were addressing crime by introducing new firearm restrictions, 10 round pistol magazine capacity limit among them. It worked because they won the next election after too.

It had nothing to do with whether such a restriction in mag capacity among legal registered gun owners actually meant anything. Keep in mind this restriction was introduced decades after handguns had to be registered, and the owner have a license earned by taking courses and passing tests.

Good luck. I mean it.
 
I'm pretty certain there's a thread about this in the Legal discussion area.

First, they are NOT voting on this bill Wednesday, they are having the public hearing on it before the committee. Don't know when it might actually be released for a vote. If there's enough solid testimony against it at the public hearing, it may never get to a vote.

Second, the proposed law does NOT grandfather existing magazines. As has been quoted, the proposed law would require that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds either be removed from the state, or turned in within 90 days of the effective date of the law.

AFAIK, no other state has made existing, legally-owned large normal capacity magazines illegal. If the law is passed, I would expect that some enterprising resident of Connecticut (or their gun rights group, I think they have one) will challenge it in court. IANAL but I can think of a couple of ways the proposed law seems to be constitutionally flawed.
 
here's the theory on the 10 rounders, when that bozo in Tucson shot Rep. Giffords and others he had a Glock with a high capacity mag, he was tackled when his 30 rounder ran out and he tried to re-load (I think that's the story).....anyway, if he had only 10 rounds = fewer victims. Libs think that way but a good shooter can swap mags in the blink of an eye so the 10 round limit is really just a starting point. sad but true
 
Maryland

>>8 (b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be
9 guilty of a class D felony.

My guess is they will end up with 100,000+ class D felons, considering nearly every handgun manufactured today has a magazine capacity over 10 rounds. My guess is that many of these new classified "perps" will be older gentleman who don't have a clue that the law was passed.

Here in Maryland we can own any capacity mag but can't purchase OR TRANSFER one with a capacity over 20 rounds.

Criminals of course do what ever the h3ll they want, because they're criminals! If you're going to jail, you're going to jail; what difference does it make?

~Sail
 
Living in the DEEP South- I have dwelt in an Ivory Tower- I read that some guy in NJ was jailed because he moved and didn't tell the police. I can't believe some of the stuff I read.
Move to Dixie. You and your guns will be loved. :D:D:D
Or, get a bunch of fellow gun owners and start a class action lawsuit against your Constitutional Rights that no Government is supposed to deny. Your have the Second Amendment, 9th and 10th, the Uniform militia laws requiring folks to own a suitable firearm- I can't understand why more isnn't done. :cool:
 
When they limit mags to 10 rounds, do they allow for a chambered round making it 10+1 or do they actually thinking 9+1?
Regards
 
I wish we could educate people about firearms.

If a Glock 17 was number '17' because it was designed to hold 17 rounds, then 17 is the standard capacity for that firearm. 10 rounds is diminished capacity [like most politicians? ;)]. A 30 round magazine is definitely high-capacity for the Glock 17, but I am preaching to the choir.

Maybe if we made it into an analogy? If a Toyota Prius is designed to hold 11.9 gallons of fuel and a few crash, causing fires that kill some people, will we require all Prius owners [and Toyota] to reduce the fuel capacity to a 8gallon tank to save lives, and then call the original 11.9 gallon tank 'high capacity'? Or, can we all agree that in this 'Prius' example, an 11.9 gallon tank is standard capacity and high capacity would be something like adding a 15 or 20 gallon tank?

Tell all of those ignorant people who want to mess with us about a 10 round limit that we will accept it, as long as they accept a voluntary 44% reduction in the size of their fuel tanks AND they have to pay for the cost of the switch at their own expense, or it is a felony.

I still don't want to accept it the 10 round limit, but I'm in California, so I'm hosed. I do have 2 grandfathered magazines that I bought the month before the ban went into effect, but I have 4 other pistols I would like to have them for. Oh well.

I guess I have to practice so my aim is better.

As to the OP comment about getting the Glock now that he can't have the extra rounds in his Xd, I would ask 'why'?

Do you seriously like the Glock design/fit/features/accuracy/reliablity that much more than the Xd? Or are you like me, in that you wouldn't want the Xd because it would always bring memories of how many rounds you USED to be able to shoot through it, but now can't? I'm just curious.
 
This may or may not be relevant, but when Canada forced us pistol owners to 10 round magazines, we either dismantled and stored away our larger capacity mags, or else drilled a hole in the bottom and inserted a bolt or screw to prevent the follower from accepting more than 10 rounds. There was no grandfathering of magazines that I know of (only pistols themselves), but you could also send away your magazines for pinning to 10 rounds, at your own expense of course
Click to expand...

Looks like along with no right to keep and bear arms (the second amendment to the US Constitution) you have no rights to property being taken without compensation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top