The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 24, 2011, 10:32 PM   #76
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian48
I've heard from several LOEs in my state. This law is not enforceable. Unless the mag specifically says "For Law Enforcement purposes only" (Glock used to do that), there is really no way to tell whether the mag was manufactured before or after the original ban.
The proposed Connecticut law solves that problem (from the LEO point of view). There is no "grandfathered if manufactured before" date. ALL magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds will be illegal. Period.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 25, 2011, 08:46 AM   #77
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,966
I agree with Aguila Blanca on this one. The fact that there's no grandfathering clause, or limit as to manufacture or acquisition of the magazine in question, makes it fairly simple to enforce.

1) More than 90 days has passed since the effective date of the law.
2) Defendant is in possession of a magazine.
3) Said magazine holds more than 10 rounds.
4) Defendant does not fit into 1 of the 4 listed exceptions.
5) Therefore, Defendant is a felon.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 4, 2011, 03:03 PM   #78
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 488
This is the latest from the NRA

The Joint Committee on Judiciary held a hearing on Senate Bill 1094 and Senate Bill 1210 on March 23, and has until April 15 to take action on these bills. SB 1094 would ban firearm magazines that accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, while SB 1210 is a self-defense reform bill. Please continue to contact members of this committee and urge them to support SB 1210 and oppose SB 1094.

Lets hope for the best.
Viper99 is offline  
Old April 4, 2011, 03:23 PM   #79
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,068
I think your screwed. In NJ we've had a magazine limit for ages, and the NRA hasn't done crap to fight that one.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is online now  
Old April 5, 2011, 08:38 AM   #80
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 488
I think your screwed. In NJ we've had a magazine limit for ages, and the NRA hasn't d

Just yesterday I received a big 9" by 12" envelope from the NRA that said right on the envelope, my name, followed by "What every gun owner should know" in big red lettering.

Thanks NRA for telling all my neighbors that I have weapons. Some times you think that common sense should prevail.

Inside it had petitions to our local politicians that we have to fill out and mail. I will absolutely do that but why put that message outside the envelope?
Viper99 is offline  
Old April 5, 2011, 08:43 AM   #81
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,068
Come on man! If they didn't put it in big freaking letters you might chuck it as junk mail or not pay enough attention!
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is online now  
Old April 5, 2011, 08:53 AM   #82
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 488
Come on man! If they didn't put it in big freaking letters you might chuck it as junk

Nah, I never throw anything out from the NRA without reading it. It contains petitions addressed to different politicians that has to be fill out and mailed. I am doing that this morning and then giving some money to the NRA for their defense fund.
Viper99 is offline  
Old April 5, 2011, 08:59 AM   #83
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,644
We know what happens when you limit the magazine to ten rounds. We already tried this. What happens is:

1. People buy pistols in bigger calibers (10mm, .45) since they can't have bigger magazines

OR

2. People buy very small compact pistols in the smaller calibers.

I wonder if the Glock 26 would have even been made if it wasn't for the 1994 ban? However, it is worth pointing this out to people who support magazine bans since both are pretty well documented - even by the antis themselves (see VPC's Pocket Rockets scarefest)
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 5, 2011, 09:01 AM   #84
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 488
To the moderators:

Thanks for moving this thread. It was on the wrong forum. Will be more selective next time.

Regards
Viper99 is offline  
Old April 8, 2011, 04:43 AM   #85
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 761
When the Clinton ban went into effect in the 90's, the trend was to move back, back to 1911 style, big bore, and slim, single stack clips in the smaller calibers. Of course, revolvers are another option, and a good one at that.
shurshot is offline  
Old April 11, 2011, 09:01 AM   #86
jasonleevandyke
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2011
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 11
My advice to you is this: move. One of the reasons I left Michigan to go live in Texas was because of their gun laws.

My second bit of advice for you is to upgrade. Purchase a weapon designed to hold fewer rounds. After the Clinton magazine ban, 45 caliber weapons became far more popular. I suspect that will be the case in your state. One concept I like is the Guncrafter Industries 50 GI modification for the Glock 20 and Glock 21. That would be my answer to a ban of this nature. I would say: "Ok, because you have limited the number of rounds I can carry, I am going to purchase a firearm that shoots something larger and with more destructive potential than what I have now."
jasonleevandyke is offline  
Old April 11, 2011, 09:08 AM   #87
LinuxHack3r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Posts: 282
I guess the biggest thing that I am missing here is how a state determines what constitutes a felony?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
LinuxHack3r is offline  
Old April 11, 2011, 09:12 AM   #88
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by LinuxHack3r
I guess the biggest thing that I am missing here is how a state determines what constitutes a felony?
By enacting legislation declaring it to be such. If the legislature enacts a law that says, "XYZ is a felony," it's a felony.

Now, how the legislature determines that something should be a felony, that's a totally different question.

Does that answer your question?
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 11, 2011, 02:57 PM   #89
LinuxHack3r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Posts: 282
Well, no. I have always understood that a felony was federal law. How can a state determine federal law? I guess perhaps the actual issue here is that a felony does not actually equal violation of a federal law!

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
LinuxHack3r is offline  
Old April 11, 2011, 03:08 PM   #90
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,966
No, felony does not mean "violation of federal law." For many years, I thought the same thing. Felony vs. Misdemeanor is simply a measure of the severity of the crime and punishment. For example, murder is a felony. It's also typically prosecuted as a violation of state law. The dividing line is 1 year. If it's punishable by 1 year or more of incarceration, it's a felony. If the maximum penalty is less than 1 year of incarceration, it's a misdemeanor.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 15, 2011, 02:18 PM   #91
lawnboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
That's why I always carry a single stack gun

Just kidding. I do carry a single stack gun, but only because I like it and it's easy to conceal.

Also, I think the constant tweaking of gun laws in seemingly minor areas like magazine capacity is simply to get the uninformed or uncaring voter used to accepting gun restrictions. Then someday they can ban them all.

Does anyone think the local anti-gun crowd is any happier to see someone carrying a P225 or a 1911 than if they were to carry a Glock 17 or a Glock 21? I don't. But I think they take what they can get in the hopes they'll eventually get what they want.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum

"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields
lawnboy is offline  
Old April 16, 2011, 02:05 PM   #92
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Carry (6) Colt 1911A1's with 8 round magazines and one chambered. That is 9 rounds per gun and 54 rounds total. Boogerman with 32 rounds of 9MM doesn't stand a chance even if you don't hit him. With all those bullets flying past his head the breeze will give him pneumonia.

Problem with moving out of state is the bad guys win. Somebody has to stay home, stand up and be counted. Somebody has to fight for what is right. We have the same problem here in Wisconsin where concealed carry is against the law and open carry people are continually reported, harassed and sometimes arrested by ignorant law enforcement officers who make up the law as they go along because they don't know the law. Some know the law but don't care, they hope if they hassle legal carriers often enough it will discourage them. Never give up the fight, never.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old April 16, 2011, 04:16 PM   #93
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,225
I saw it reported somewhere that the proposed CT law did not make it out of committee. The deadline for reporting it out was April 15, and it didn't make the cut.

One article I read said there were more than 200 people who showed up AT THE HEARING to testify against it. Good job, Connecticut Yankees.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old April 16, 2011, 05:33 PM   #94
mnero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2011
Location: east coast
Posts: 244
It is one of those foolish 'feel good' measures, taken by short sighted men. Would my .22 lever action henry be considered a high capacity weapon? it can hold up to 21 .22 shorts
__________________
"I'm what ya call a 'conscientious objector'; you know a coward". Bender "futurama"
mnero is offline  
Old April 16, 2011, 05:59 PM   #95
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,966
Yes, it's silly legislation, but it specifically exempted .22 caliber tube feeding devices.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 17, 2011, 12:39 PM   #96
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,553
Felony is not a federal definition. As far as the NRA envelope - I got one to - but the neighbors probably know I have a gun by watching me put the rifle case and gun bag in the car on weekends and t - shirts that say GSSF or Range Office, etc.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer 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 11:21 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 0.11939 seconds with 7 queries