The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 21, 2011, 06:33 PM   #26
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
The OP is correct according to the language in the bill.
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?
brickeyee is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 07:58 PM   #27
Gerry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 382
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
Gerry is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 08:08 PM   #28
John Eastwood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2011
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 128
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.

Just playin'. I'm in NC where we can carry whatever.
__________________
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves
John Eastwood is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 08:18 PM   #29
Cowboy_mo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 907
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.........
Cowboy_mo is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:11 PM   #30
Gerry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 382
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.
Gerry is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:31 PM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,501
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:51 PM   #32
stoney64
Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2010
Posts: 94
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
stoney64 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 12:22 AM   #33
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
If they're wanting the hi-cap pistol mags, then we should all buy hi-cap Rifle mags...
Edward429451 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 06:06 AM   #34
sailskidrive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 726
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
sailskidrive is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 10:24 AM   #35
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward429451
If they're wanting the hi-cap pistol mags, then we should all buy hi-cap Rifle mags...
The proposed Connecticut law is not only for handgun magazines. It covers ALL magazines.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 11:48 AM   #36
bighead46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2010
Posts: 140
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.
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.
bighead46 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 12:01 PM   #37
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 525
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
Viper99 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 02:16 PM   #38
jmstr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2001
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 832
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.
jmstr is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 02:26 PM   #39
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
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
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.
brickeyee is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 02:31 PM   #40
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 525
jmstr,

Maybe the best would be to "limit their of to 1 term" by voting them out of office.
Viper99 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 06:04 PM   #41
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
From what I can understand, you can still own the hi-cap mag. You just can't use it, sell it, give it away or loan it to anyone! There is nothing that says you can't drive to an other state and sell it or use it. (I would not have both the hi-cap mag AND the pistol with you at the same time)
If they pass the law, get the 10 round mag and put the old hi-cap in the gun safe.
dlb435 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 06:18 PM   #42
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlb435
From what I can understand, you can still own the hi-cap mag. You just can't use it, sell it, give it away or loan it to anyone! There is nothing that says you can't drive to an other state and sell it or use it. (I would not have both the hi-cap mag AND the pistol with you at the same time)
If they pass the law, get the 10 round mag and put the old hi-cap in the gun safe.
Your understanding of THIS proposed law is fundamentally flawed. If this law passes, possession of large capacity magazines will be illegal in Connecticut. Period. The proposed law specifically says that you will have 90 days to either remove them from the state, or turn them in to the police.

How can you possibly infer from that that keeping them in the gun safe would be legal?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 06:26 PM   #43
jmstr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2001
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 832
Quote:
Your understanding of THIS proposed law is fundamentally flawed. If this law passes, possession of large capacity magazines will be illegal in Connecticut. Period. The proposed law specifically says that you will have 90 days to either remove them from the state, or turn them in to the police.

How can you possibly infer from that that keeping them in the gun safe would be legal?
Ditto. You can infer that it is legal to own the magazine and possess it for 89 days in order to get rid of it outside of the state borders, but to have it on the 91st day, in a safe or on your person, is a felony, from the law quoted. This is NOT a california law, were I can own my hi-cap mags for my Baby Eagle as I've had the mags for 1 month longer than the ban [I planned ahead!]. Heck, I can even use mine at the range. I could probably use them for home defense, but that would open me up to attack by the DA or the lawyer of the family of the POS who threatened my family.

The previous post about storing it in a safe makes as much sense as saying that I could store a selectable-fire, pistol-grip equipped, detachable 30+ round AK/M16/FN-FAL variant with a 14" barrel in my safe and not be committing a felony [I'm in california, btw]. Heck, I may as well have a mini-gatling gun in there, as far as my state is concerned. If no one ever opens the safe I might get away with it. If anyone ever saw it I could be arrested and lose everything.

An extra 3-5 rounds in my pistols isn't worth the risk of loss of gun rights, home, spouse, job, money lost and meeting 'bubba' in prison [start banjo music!]. I'd rather work on my tactical reloading and my shot placement skills.

Or keep two loaded guns by the bed and use them both for 20 legal rounds!
jmstr is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 10:02 PM   #44
Eagle Eye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
So why are bullets #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc more dangerous than numbers 1-10? I just don't get liberal-think.

Those are only important bullets if you are being attacked by more than 10 perps!
Eagle Eye is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 10:08 PM   #45
Eagle Eye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
Additional thoughts: 10 round limit? What next? Maybe the ignorant liberals will limit gun owners to single shot, single action, .10 caliber. Gee whiz.....then they can say they still honor the 2nd Amendment. What a bunch of idiots.....vote them out!
Eagle Eye is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 11:33 PM   #46
Eagleks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 574
About 20 plus yrs ago, ONE CITY here outlawed anything but 10 shot mags and put in a waiting period when buying a gun.

The State fixed the issue for us, they made a law that there was no limit on what mags could hold, no wait periods in the purchase of a gun, AND .... that any laws made by any cities or counties to the contrary were void.

Some "sellers" still think that law is valid and won't send nor sell mags to anyone living there over 10 rounds, even though the law has been dead for 20 yrs. If it's not "illegal" , you can't prove it to anyone because if it's not in the law, it's legal. So, it's a bit like... show me the law that says it's illegal ..... an no one can, because it's legal.
Eagleks is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 11:43 PM   #47
OJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, USA
Posts: 1,570
Am I the only one to remember limiting magazines to 10 rounds didn't come from the anti-gunners - It was Bill Ruger's idea when he had a lapse of brain activity and blurted that bit of total nonsense out one day .

BUT - it was the one item in the 1994 "Assault weapons Ban" that backfired - because it revived world wide interest in the 1911 !!! As a result, nearly every gun manufacturer in the world now is busting butt to see who can make the one that will sell the best.

IT SUDDENLY BECAME CLEAR IF YOUR MAGAZINE CAPACITY WAS LIMITED TO 10 ROUNDS OR LESS, IT MIGHT AS WELL BE WITH 45ACP

Nice to see anything like that backfires on the gun control nuts - with any luck at all, enough will remember that restriction just resuscitated more gun production of a different breed..
__________________
OJ -
SEMPER FI -
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY
NRA ENDOWMENT LIFE MEMBER

Last edited by OJ; March 23, 2011 at 11:26 AM.
OJ is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 11:59 PM   #48
Maleman
Member
 
Join Date: September 3, 2000
Location: Stamford Ct.
Posts: 52
Hi Viper99. I'm in Ct. too. The first thing that should be considered is that this may not ever pass. When I first read of this about two weeks ago I was highly ticked that they would expect me to turn in my legally purchased and legally owned property without compensation. Turning them in for free and buying new ones isn't going to happen. We would have 90 days to sell them on the net, which shouldn't be too hard. I have Browning and Glock 19 mags. Yes, even one of those evil 31 round jobs. We'll just have to hang in there a while and see how this plays out.
Maleman is offline  
Old March 23, 2011, 12:39 AM   #49
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
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.
Or, you can put them in a "safe" place in case you decide, at some future date, to leave Connecticut.
gyvel is offline  
Old March 23, 2011, 06:09 AM   #50
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by gyvel
Or, you can put them in a "safe" place in case you decide, at some future date, to leave Connecticut.
Yes ... as long as that safe place is outside of Connecticut.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14958 seconds with 7 queries