What happens when a state limits the rounds to 10

Viper99 · March 21, 2011, 11:21 AM

and you have a pistol that holds more. Obviously I know you have to turn in the magazines but do you have to buy new ones at your cost?

Do large capacity pistols lose value in such state since you can't use them as intended?

I live in Ct and they are trying to limit the magazine rounds to 10. They are voting this coming Wednesday. Have my fingers crossed.

Sorry is this is not the proper forum for this question.

Regards,

tjhands · March 21, 2011, 12:04 PM

The pistol won't lose value.....it's the magazine that dictates capacity, not the gun itself.

And yes, you will naturally have to buy your own reduced-capacity magazines.

Kreyzhorse · March 21, 2011, 12:34 PM

Your pistol won't drop in value. Mags are what control capacity, not the gun itself and mags can be easily replaced.

Additionally, and I'm not sure what CT is planning, but they might just ban new high capacity mags. Exisiting mags may not be effected.

NoSecondBest · March 21, 2011, 12:38 PM

When New York banned anything over 10 rounds all old mags were "grandfathered" i.e.-they were legal to own and use.

peacefulgary · March 21, 2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Obviously I know you have to turn in the magazines

Not true.

You can't carry them in your pistol, but you don't have to turn them in.
You can sell them online or at a gun show or trade them for 10-round mags here on the forum.

**Spats McGee** · March 21, 2011, 12:44 PM

Check the bill to see exactly what the ban will mean. I won't swear to this, but I seem to recall a thread down in Law & Civil Rights on this. My hunch (& it's only a hunch) is that old mags will either be grandfathered in, or there will be some sort of grace period in which to get rid of them. That could mean sending them to a trusted relative or friend, or selling them. Yes, you will have to purchase your own lower-cap magazines. I can't imagine that the state would buy them for you.

If you have not called, emailed or written to you representatives, I suggest doing so.

Edited to add:

Here's the thread in Law & Civil Rights: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442900

And here's the bill being discussed in that thread:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/201...094-R00-SB.htm

DonutGuy · March 21, 2011, 01:22 PM

why can't you carry them in your pistol? I mean, why not just load them so there's 10 rounds?

**Spats McGee** · March 21, 2011, 01:28 PM

Well, assuming that I have linked the correct bill, it's because the bill makes it a felony to possess a large capacity magazine. Here's the language: "Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony." This bill does exempt magazines that have been altered to accept less than 10 rounds, but that's different than just loading it with 10.

hardhat harry · March 21, 2011, 02:01 PM

Two things to do:

1. Support the NRA

2. Vote the bums out.

Rogervzv · March 21, 2011, 02:29 PM

Well, Connecticut is one of the most Leftist states in America, so no big surprise that your 2d amendment rights are under assault. Here in California we are very accustomed to this as you know.

The answer to your question lies in the wording of the proposed CT law. (Another forum member apparently linked to it, but I have not read it.) In CA the law basically made sale, importation, or transfer illegal, so we did not have to give up magazines that we owned prior to the law taking effect. Theoretically the CT law *could* make actual possession illegal. That is not what happened in CA, and according to you, NY. Read the link.

Your local NRA chapter is probably a good source of information about what the Democrats are trying to do to you in your own State in the bill that you are asking about.

Point out that gun manufacturers will find it easy to comply with a 10 round limit since CA, which is a very big gun market, already contains this limitation.

Let us know how it goes there. Does not sound good.

brickeyee · March 21, 2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Obviously I know you have to turn in the magazines but do you have to buy new ones at your cost?

Has any place demanded that existing magazines be turned in or destroyed?

Every place I have heard of only banned the sale of NEW larger mags.

A little thing about taking property without compensation maybe?

Rogervzv · March 21, 2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Has any place demanded that existing magazines be turned in or destroyed?

Every place I have heard of only banned the sale of NEW larger mags.

A little thing about taking property without compensation maybe?

CA's assault weapon law made existing ownership of various weapons outright illegal although they did have the registration/grandfathering loophole.

To survive court challenges it is probably easier for a State to do what California did. Don't know what CT is doing though.

spanishjames · March 21, 2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

8 (b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be
9 guilty of a class D felony.
10 (c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section,
11 lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than
12 ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such
13 magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized
14 local police department or the Department of Public Safety for
15 destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of
16 subsection (b) of this section.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/s/pdf...094-R00-SB.pdf

The OP is correct according to the language in the bill. He would have to surrender his magazines or become a felon. Viper99, you really should contact your representatives and let them know your disapprove. Better yet get some friends to call as well.

Viper99 · March 21, 2011, 04:12 PM

According to what I have read on the nra website, you would have 3 months to turn in the magazine or it becames a class D felony. (whatever that means)

I recently bough an XDm with the 13 round and 19 round magazine. The large capacity was the main selling point to me. If that is taken away I might as well not have it. Unless as some have said here, it is grandfathered.

All my other guns don't have large magazines. Sig P239, Glock G27, Ruger LCP and 2 MkIII. I am currently looking for a 1911 and that won't be a problem either if this law passes. Other guns I had on my wish list are the CZ75B and Beretta FS92. Both are larga capacity.

Lets see what happens. I know there is a strong backing on both sides.

THORN74 · March 21, 2011, 04:19 PM

to the OP....

option 1: if u have any friends or relitives out of state send the mags to them for safe keeping.

option 2: if the can be converted to 10 rounders buy the parts to do so and keep the old hi-cap parts in a box untill the law is repealed or u move

option 3: dis-assemble the mags and leave them in a dis-assembled state (from what i hear this works in cali might work for u too) again untill the law is repealed or u move.

Viper99 · March 21, 2011, 04:20 PM

SpanishJames has it as I have read it. Obviously it can change.

The value of a gun to me is directly related to how you intended to use it. If I have to get 10 rounds mags for my XDm, I might as well sell it and use the G27 which is 9+1.

Would the value of such guns change? I think it would hurt it because a lot of people would just buy other guns instead of a bigger gun with the same capacity.

If it comes to pass, I will obey the law as usual and turn my mags in.

Noreaster · March 21, 2011, 04:22 PM

In Massachusetts the gun is grandfathered, not the mags. Cops have a serial # list to see what high cap guns are legal. I know an Army Ranger that retired and was forced to sell his high cap mags for the pistol that was given to him as a retirement gift. Total disgrace!

Brian48 · March 21, 2011, 04:26 PM

Actually, the mags are grandfathered as well in MA. You just can't get "new" mags that are over 10rds, however you can buy as many "pre-ban" mags as you want. Also, if moving into the state, you are allowed to bring in any gun you currently own, even if it's not MA compliant, however you cannot bring in the mags if they are over 10rds. LOEs are exempt of course.

WVsig · March 21, 2011, 04:54 PM

1911 sales go up....

Noreaster · March 21, 2011, 05:23 PM

MA is messed up. You can have older mags, but if the gun serial # isn't on the list then it's illegal with one of those mags. Also if the firearm is capable of holding more then ten rounds you can be charged for improper storage... Example is not locking up a 10/22 properly in your home, people have been charged under the high storage law even though they don't have any high cap mags. LEOs are exempt but to be able to buy a glock or other banned gun (not just high cap, just banned because of the drop test,) you have to get a letter from your chief stating it's for Dept. use/reasons and also go with the tax exempt form for police purchase. Many, many agencies carry glocks in MA but they are on the banned/cheapo gun list with the AGs office.

cougar gt-e · March 21, 2011, 05:32 PM

So why are bullets #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc more dangerous than numbers 1-10? I just don't get liberal-think.

Dragline45 · March 21, 2011, 05:36 PM

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.

highvel · March 21, 2011, 05:48 PM

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!

Pico · March 21, 2011, 06:21 PM

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

The legislators do not have a clue.

Pico

rigby06 · March 21, 2011, 06:28 PM

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.

March 21, 2011, 12:04 PM	#2
tjhands Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2005 Posts: 1,718	The pistol won't lose value.....it's the magazine that dictates capacity, not the gun itself. And yes, you will naturally have to buy your own reduced-capacity magazines. __________________ "If the sole purpose of handguns is to kill people, then mine are all defective." - Uncle Ted Nugent

March 21, 2011, 12:34 PM	#3
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,463	Your pistol won't drop in value. Mags are what control capacity, not the gun itself and mags can be easily replaced. Additionally, and I'm not sure what CT is planning, but they might just ban new high capacity mags. Exisiting mags may not be effected. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

March 21, 2011, 01:22 PM	#7
DonutGuy Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2010 Posts: 327	why can't you carry them in your pistol? I mean, why not just load them so there's 10 rounds? __________________ McLovin? Yeah. Great name. It is, it just rolls off the tongue. 'Sounds like a sexy hamburger!

March 21, 2011, 02:29 PM	#10
Rogervzv Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2011 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Posts: 1,075	Well, Connecticut is one of the most Leftist states in America, so no big surprise that your 2d amendment rights are under assault. Here in California we are very accustomed to this as you know. The answer to your question lies in the wording of the proposed CT law. (Another forum member apparently linked to it, but I have not read it.) In CA the law basically made sale, importation, or transfer illegal, so we did not have to give up magazines that we owned prior to the law taking effect. Theoretically the CT law could make actual possession illegal. That is not what happened in CA, and according to you, NY. Read the link. Your local NRA chapter is probably a good source of information about what the Democrats are trying to do to you in your own State in the bill that you are asking about. Point out that gun manufacturers will find it easy to comply with a 10 round limit since CA, which is a very big gun market, already contains this limitation. Let us know how it goes there. Does not sound good. __________________ The difference between a citizen and a civilian is that the citizen makes the safety of the body politic his personal responsibility, protecting it with his life. The civilian does not.

March 21, 2011, 04:12 PM	#14
Viper99 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2010 Location: CT Posts: 846	Obviously I know you have to turn in the magazines According to what I have read on the nra website, you would have 3 months to turn in the magazine or it becames a class D felony. (whatever that means) I recently bough an XDm with the 13 round and 19 round magazine. The large capacity was the main selling point to me. If that is taken away I might as well not have it. Unless as some have said here, it is grandfathered. All my other guns don't have large magazines. Sig P239, Glock G27, Ruger LCP and 2 MkIII. I am currently looking for a 1911 and that won't be a problem either if this law passes. Other guns I had on my wish list are the CZ75B and Beretta FS92. Both are larga capacity. Lets see what happens. I know there is a strong backing on both sides.

March 21, 2011, 11:21 AM	#1
Viper99 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2010 Location: CT Posts: 846	What happens when a state limits the rounds to 10 and you have a pistol that holds more. Obviously I know you have to turn in the magazines but do you have to buy new ones at your cost? Do large capacity pistols lose value in such state since you can't use them as intended? I live in Ct and they are trying to limit the magazine rounds to 10. They are voting this coming Wednesday. Have my fingers crossed. Sorry is this is not the proper forum for this question. Regards,

March 21, 2011, 12:38 PM	#4
NoSecondBest Senior Member Join Date: December 7, 2009 Location: Western New York Posts: 2,736	When New York banned anything over 10 rounds all old mags were "grandfathered" i.e.-they were legal to own and use.

March 21, 2011, 12:44 PM	#6
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Check the bill to see exactly what the ban will mean. I won't swear to this, but I seem to recall a thread down in Law & Civil Rights on this. My hunch (& it's only a hunch) is that old mags will either be grandfathered in, or there will be some sort of grace period in which to get rid of them. That could mean sending them to a trusted relative or friend, or selling them. Yes, you will have to purchase your own lower-cap magazines. I can't imagine that the state would buy them for you. If you have not called, emailed or written to you representatives, I suggest doing so. Edited to add: Here's the thread in Law & Civil Rights: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442900 And here's the bill being discussed in that thread: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/201...094-R00-SB.htm

March 21, 2011, 01:28 PM	#8
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Well, assuming that I have linked the correct bill, it's because the bill makes it a felony to possess a large capacity magazine. Here's the language: "Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony." This bill does exempt magazines that have been altered to accept less than 10 rounds, but that's different than just loading it with 10.

March 21, 2011, 02:01 PM	#9
hardhat harry Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2010 Location: I've moved... Posts: 233	Two things to do: 1. Support the NRA 2. Vote the bums out.

March 21, 2011, 04:19 PM	#15
THORN74 Senior Member Join Date: May 30, 2010 Location: Chicago 'Burbs Posts: 543	to the OP.... option 1: if u have any friends or relitives out of state send the mags to them for safe keeping. option 2: if the can be converted to 10 rounders buy the parts to do so and keep the old hi-cap parts in a box untill the law is repealed or u move option 3: dis-assemble the mags and leave them in a dis-assembled state (from what i hear this works in cali might work for u too) again untill the law is repealed or u move. __________________ Sig P226 .40s&w/9mm -- Kimber Pro CDP .45ACP -- Radom P64 9X18mm Makarov -- Dan Wesson RZ-45 Heritage .45ACP -- Ruger SR22 .22LR -- M&P9c 9mm Springfield Armory Inc. M1A Scout 7.62X51mm NATO -- Kar 98AZ (1917 Erfurt) 8mm Mauser -- Marlin Model 60 Glenfield .22LR -- Marlin 795 .22LR -- Marlin 915y .22LR -- AR15 5.56x45mm NATO -- Springfield Armory M1 Garand 30-06

March 21, 2011, 04:20 PM	#16
Viper99 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2010 Location: CT Posts: 846	The pistol won't lose value.....it's the magazine that dictates capacity, not the gun SpanishJames has it as I have read it. Obviously it can change. The value of a gun to me is directly related to how you intended to use it. If I have to get 10 rounds mags for my XDm, I might as well sell it and use the G27 which is 9+1. Would the value of such guns change? I think it would hurt it because a lot of people would just buy other guns instead of a bigger gun with the same capacity. If it comes to pass, I will obey the law as usual and turn my mags in.

March 21, 2011, 04:22 PM	#17
Noreaster Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 1,449	In Massachusetts the gun is grandfathered, not the mags. Cops have a serial # list to see what high cap guns are legal. I know an Army Ranger that retired and was forced to sell his high cap mags for the pistol that was given to him as a retirement gift. Total disgrace!

March 21, 2011, 04:26 PM	#18
Brian48 Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2001 Location: Boston, People's Republic of MA Posts: 1,615	Actually, the mags are grandfathered as well in MA. You just can't get "new" mags that are over 10rds, however you can buy as many "pre-ban" mags as you want. Also, if moving into the state, you are allowed to bring in any gun you currently own, even if it's not MA compliant, however you cannot bring in the mags if they are over 10rds. LOEs are exempt of course. __________________ Proud to have served.

March 21, 2011, 04:54 PM	#19
WVsig Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 2010 Location: NC Posts: 5,309	1911 sales go up.... __________________ -The right to be left alone is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by free people.-Louis Brandeis -Its a tool box... I don't care you put the tools in for the job that's all... -Sam from Ronin -It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

March 21, 2011, 05:23 PM	#20
Noreaster Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 1,449	MA is messed up. You can have older mags, but if the gun serial # isn't on the list then it's illegal with one of those mags. Also if the firearm is capable of holding more then ten rounds you can be charged for improper storage... Example is not locking up a 10/22 properly in your home, people have been charged under the high storage law even though they don't have any high cap mags. LEOs are exempt but to be able to buy a glock or other banned gun (not just high cap, just banned because of the drop test,) you have to get a letter from your chief stating it's for Dept. use/reasons and also go with the tax exempt form for police purchase. Many, many agencies carry glocks in MA but they are on the banned/cheapo gun list with the AGs office.

March 21, 2011, 05:32 PM	#21
cougar gt-e Senior Member Join Date: July 25, 2009 Posts: 1,003	So why are bullets #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc more dangerous than numbers 1-10? I just don't get liberal-think.

March 21, 2011, 05:36 PM	#22
Dragline45 Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2010 Posts: 3,513	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.

March 21, 2011, 05:48 PM	#23
highvel Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2010 Location: Powhatan VA Posts: 633	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! __________________ Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.--Mark Twain "I have opinions of my own 'strong opinions' but I don't always agree with them."--George Bush

March 21, 2011, 06:21 PM	#24
Pico Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2002 Location: Ga Posts: 515	Stupid So a mentally imbalanced person will comply and use the proper legal magazine..... The legislators do not have a clue. Pico

March 21, 2011, 06:28 PM	#25
rigby06 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Location: Richmond VA Posts: 370	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search