The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2013, 11:04 AM   #1
southjk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2012
Location: Memphis
Posts: 423
Magazine limit

I think I know the answer but have not seen it specifically addressed in the discussions on the magazine limit. Does the presidents new proposal of a 10 round limit apply to rifle magazines only or all magazines for pistols and rifles?
southjk is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 11:10 AM   #2
Spydr1299
Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 24
Was wondering the same thing myself, but I'm sure it goes for all since I haven't see it specified.
Spydr1299 is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 11:16 AM   #3
SoCalNoMore
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2013
Posts: 12
If it is taken from the 1994 as the say it will model, then yes. All detachable feeding devices will be limited to 10.
SoCalNoMore is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 09:38 AM   #4
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,788
Recall that the '94 ban grandfathered existing mags over 10 rounds. I don't know what this new proposed ban does.
Skans is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 09:45 AM   #5
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
H.R.138 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Any magazine is limited to 10 rounds. Possession is grandfathered, but transfers are prohibited. If you have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you will not only get to keep it, you will have to keep it.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 09:55 AM   #6
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,744
Won't happen.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 10:40 AM   #7
StewNTexas
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2009
Location: Ingleside, TX
Posts: 7
Yes, but don't forget. The bad guys are being told that they can't have more than 10 rounds either.
StewNTexas is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 11:15 AM   #8
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Don't forget when they talk about reinstating the ban somehow the word "strengthened" keeps getting tossed in there as well.

It's sort of like "closing loopholes in NICS checks. The NICS checks were for retail sales of firearms, not private sales, now they want to add private sales and call them loop holes in the original law.

Don't confuse this with "straw sales" buying the gun for someone else who is a prohibited possessor.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 11:45 AM   #9
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,477
Quote:
Possession is grandfathered, but transfers are prohibited. If you have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you will not only get to keep it, you will have to keep it.
...for now. Keep in mind that this is only a proposal. Negotiations will occur.

A federal blanket ban on transfers may run afoul of the ex post facto clause in Article I of the Constitution and/or the takings clause in the 5A, not to mention the Heller SCOTUS decision. There is a chance that this provision may prompt the federal courts to immediately block enforcement of the whole law, a possibility that may prompt even some strong supporters of the legislation to amend this provision away so the baby won't be thrown out with the bathwater.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:24 PM   #10
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
Keep in mind that this is only a proposal. Negotiations will occur.
I would hope that no negotiation would occur to eliminate the transfer prohibition. Eliminating the transfer prohibition would only increase the prospects of the bill being passed. The more horrible the bill is, the less likely it will be passed - and a transfer prohibition resulting in eventual confiscation or forfeiture is very nasty. And the more horrible the bill, the more likely it would not survive a judicial challenge.

A ban on transfers would not be an ex post facto law. It would not criminalize something done in the past, but a future action of transferring a magazine.

I am not particularly confident that a transfer ban would violate the takings clause, partly because magazines would not be taken for "public use." The eventual confiscation of banned magazines might be viewed as a forfeiture of a public nuisance, which requires no compensation.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:34 PM   #11
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 622
From H.R. 138:

‘‘A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufac14
tured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall
15 be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that
16 the device was manufactured after such date of enactment,
17 and such other identification as the Attorney General may
18 by regulation prescribe.’’.

I guess any magazine manufactured after such a date without a serial number will be assumed to be legally made prior to the enactment date?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:41 PM   #12
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
A simple stamp stating it met some requirment, even a simple symbol would suffice to satisfy a requirement. Serialization is only necessary when things are to be tracked like the weapons themselves.

First they say all the new ones have to be marked, then the old ones as well. Then they say they all need to be recorded so that latter they can come get them.

P.S. This is from Senator Al Franken of Minnesota;
Quote:
In a carefully worded statement, Franken said he's "always supported the Second Amendment rights of Minnesotans to own firearms for collection, protection, and sport. But I also think we need to find a balance between those rights and the safety of our children and our communities."
Find the words collection, or sport anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, try.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223

Last edited by lcpiper; January 18, 2013 at 01:15 PM.
lcpiper 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 07:47 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 0.08226 seconds with 7 queries