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

[Powderman]

Patriot86, I pose a simple question to you...

How would a magazine ban have kept the Congresswoman from being shot?

How would it have kept anyone else from being shot?

This was a terroristic, criminal act. To restrict the magazines that carry cartridges is the utmost in plain stupidity.

Punish the CRIMINALS--NOT the inanimate objects.

[tmorone]

My name is Tom -----, and it is my understanding that you're my congressional representative. I believe it's important to take a moment to write you an email regarding Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's attempt to introduce the 'Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices Act' to congress. As an active duty military member, our freedoms defined in the bill of rights are especially important. They seem to have a different taste now that I've sacrificed parts of my own life to defend them. This bill takes away specific parts of my second amendment. As I'm sure you know, there are a significant amount of military members living in your district due to the close proximity of MacDill AFB, home of US Central Command, US Special Operations Command, and the 6th Air Mobility Wing. The vast majority of individuals I work with are actively involved in shooting sports. Common firearms we shoot are military 'style' weapons with magazines that hold over ten rounds. Taking away those would affect us on a daily basis in the realm of both sporting and self defense. I'm sure you know that everyone isn’t a criminal, and this bill would be doing to deter a criminal, it would however criminalize good people. Had NCIS been properly notified, and had the young man in Arizona recently not lied on his background check paper he'd have been disqualified for firearms purchase. The weapon he used was a Glock model 19. My personal legal concealed weapon of choice is a G19. It's the weapon I trust my life to, and trust to protect the life of my family. In the hands of a person, it is nothing more than a tool for self defense. No more dangerous than a knife is in the hands of someone willing to do another harm. Ma'am, I beg you; I implore you to do the right thing, and if this bill crosses you the only choice to strictly oppose it.

Thank you for your time,
---------

[Mike Irwin]

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


Ask yourself honestly...

Who needs a magnum?

Who needs a gun with a barrel shorter than 6 inches?

Who needs a semi-automatic?


Surrender by increments is a damned dangerous way to approach preservation of your rights.

The British and Canadians tried that, and look where it got them.

[Single Six]

So does anyone care to speculate on when the prices of factory hi-cap mags will be going through the stratosphere, as they did in the '90s? The big gun show at the state fair grounds in Raleigh is this weekend...does anyone think the ripple effect will have started by the time I get there, and a $30.00 magazine will already be $90.00?

[Mike Irwin]

There will be some profiteering, there's no doubt about that, in large part driven by lemmings who rush out to stock up.

But...

Realistically, I think most people recognize that such bills have little to no hope of going anywhere, so any bump in prices will likely be momentary.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since the average defensive shooting has only two shots on the average. I propose the Remington Derringer pattern be the only allowed handgun in the United States. Since if you can get the 410/45 LC version with the newly designed ammo for the Judge (to be banned), and that ammo forgoes the need to aim and is an instant stopper - the majority of self-defense cases will be handled. Look at what one shot did to the watermelon.

Or - these bills will go nowhere. They will be used as fund raising tools by both sides of the gun debate. The Congress still will be tied up with health care, etc. and partisan bickering for their own self promotion.

McCarthy lost her husband and son was injured - she will do this until she retires. Same with Sarah Brady - she was driven by what happened to her husband. Predictable. Normal politics predicts these bills will go nowhere. If you want to move to the mountains - ok.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Patriot86

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

Ask yourself honestly, who really needs a defensive handgun AT ALL?

Certainly most people NEVER will.

By far, the vast majority of violence is between criminals, drug dealers, addicts and dealers....

Most of us will NEVER, if we had TWO lifetimes, need any gun at all.

Let's just get it over with and ban them all now, eh?





Hey, all you "slippery slope" and "incrementalism" guys.... where are you on all the threads where I mention slippery slope and I'm told over and over again that there's no such thing?

[teeroux]

If something is proposed limiting rights and it is in the least bit around a member of congress being shot doesn't that constitute a conflict of interest?

It can be argued that they are proposing a bill out of personal interest and not the interest of the country as a whole. Out of all the shootings that have happend since the lapse of the the AWB there was almost no suggestion of support for the reinstatment until a member of congress is in the line of fire.

Its not proper representation if it is centered around this event.

[a.lol.cat]

Originally Posted by Patriot86

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

Kel-Tec Sub-2000's use glock magazines, yet they are a carbine/rifle. SO, can I buy 30rd Sub-2000 rifle magazines that just happen to work in a glock? Or how about a Draco or AR pistol? it may use rifle magazines, but it's a pistol? HK 9mm magazines work in HK94's and it's many clones and also in original HK SP89 "hand guns" and again many clones of it.

How are they gonna enforce the no transfer rule with regards to the above and most likely many more similar situations?

This sets up a bad set of circumstances where you could sell a standard 30rd AR mag and be charged with a crime cause they could say it would fit in a handgun, an AR-15 pistol, and is thus illegal.

[Single Six]

Mike and Glenn: Thanks, I needed to hear that...but no planned move to the mountains for me.

[stargazer65]

If that bill passed, does "prohibition of transfer of pre-enactment magazines" mean that my wife could never sell her XD9?

[tet4]

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

Well, I'm guessing this bill exempts LEO agencies. Why? Why do cops need 30 round magazines? Do any agencies issue these (I'm betting they do)? Why?

Why can't we as law abiding citizens have what LEOs have? They are civilians also, ones that we hire to protect us (well, investigate crime). Why do they need them when we obviously don't?

If we ban 30 round magazines, they will just carry more magazines, or a few extra guns.

THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE CAPACITY OF THE WEAPON - IT'S THE PSYCHOPATH THAT WIELDED IT!!!!!!!

This is like the NRA board member who insisted that no one needs a rifle that can carry more than 5 rounds.

[egor20]

Hmmmmm Can someone say Grandstanding



Public Advocate de Blasio calls for NYPD Glock boycott

By BOB FREDERICKS and CHUCK BENNETT

Last Updated: 9:19 AM, January 14, 2011

Posted: 3:14 AM, January 14, 2011

Law-enforcement agencies, including the NYPD, should boycott gun manufacturers who produce high-capacity magazines like the one used to shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, a top city official said yesterday.

"If Glock will not stop selling these magazines to consumers, then the New York City Police Department should start buying the firearms they need from a different company," Public Advocate Bill de Blasio said.

"The New York Post editorial board has rightly argued that the Glock-manufactured 30-round magazines, like the one used by clearly disturbed Jared Loughner, present an unacceptable risk to human life, and at the same time no justifiable civilian purpose."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/a...#ixzz1B1vwYaYo


I love this comment:

"He added that Joe Gaudette, chief of Bridgeport's 410-officer police department, would not make any future firearms purchases from companies that make the extended magazines, including two Connecticut-based manufacturers, Sturm Ruger and Colt."

Looks like Bridgeport is going back to revolvers

[Tom Servo]

Realistically, I think most people recognize that such bills have little to no hope of going anywhere, so any bump in prices will likely be momentary.

That's what I'd hoped in December of 2008, but the shortages and price-gouging went on for months. As recently as summer of 2010, I had people calling me at all hours asking when the "ammo ban" was going into effect.

Urban legends spring up on the internet, and people don't think to google them for validity. Not everyone is on the internet, and many folks hear irresponsible rumors around the water-cooler at work, which they take for truth. Weird stuff has a way of spreading like wildfire in the gun culture.

I hope this isn't as bad, but I fully expect to hear mild panic about the "magazine ban" for months to come.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Grandstanding - every politician does that. Since we don't do politics, I'll not give examples but have some realism to understand that the political animal of any party says absolute horse crap to excite the lower levels of the populace.

Evidence is irrelevant for most politicians.

If as a representative of the RKBA, you rant and personally attack folks who disagree with you - you contribute nothing. It might be fun on the internet but you convince no one. In the face of these events - you have to make cogent, rational arguments for your position.

[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]

Originally Posted by a.lol.cat

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]

Originally Posted by Powderman

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]

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.