|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 14, 2021, 04:31 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: March 7, 2019
Location: California
Posts: 60
|
They're trying for the magazine ban again
Democratic lawmakers introduce gun control bill that would ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds
"A group of Democratic lawmakers in the House and the Senate on Wednesday introduced gun control legislation that would ban the sale, manufacturing, transfer, possession or importation of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...nes-ten-rounds
__________________
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. -- Thomas Jefferson |
April 14, 2021, 05:34 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
It was introduced in the House last session, and it never even got assigned to committee.
It's worth keeping an eye on, but they'll probably only get one chance to ramrod something through. HR 8 (the background-check bill) seems to have the most cosponsors, so that's the one that most concerns me.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
April 14, 2021, 06:27 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
They could tack the magazine ban onto the background check bill as an amendment.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
April 14, 2021, 06:29 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,710
|
Quote:
|
|
April 14, 2021, 06:58 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,331
|
Quote:
|
|
May 14, 2021, 08:48 AM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: May 5, 2021
Posts: 15
|
I currently have 17 for my M&P .40 and 23 for my 1911. Although the latter technically hold less. So the question becomes, what about existing firearm magazines and those designed for higher capacity? Other than a magazine redesign. Best of luck to them if they think I'll turn them over.
|
May 14, 2021, 12:22 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
Seriously, if there is no reason one needs something then why the hell are they trying to ban it??? The same logic, applied to just about everything else in the world would be considered ludicrous.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
May 15, 2021, 12:13 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Location: Willamina, OR
Posts: 1,908
|
There's no reason a stapler should hold 250 staples. Change the wording and see how stupid it sounds...
Tony |
May 15, 2021, 05:17 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 15, 2021, 03:21 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
I agree.
|
May 16, 2021, 03:12 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
May 16, 2021, 05:04 PM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
For a lot of it, I think the chances are pretty slim.
Consider for a moment the obvious response, that we tried bans and restrictions for TEN YEARS, and here we are nearly 20 years later, still arguing over whether or not that TEN YEARS of increased regulations had any noticeable effect.... Not did they have a significant effect, which is obvious they did not, but did ten years of restrictions and out right bans on purchase and ownership have an effect of any kind big enough to even see?? No clear answer has been forthcoming from the people studying it, many say there was no effect enough to measure. SO if you try something for a decade, and it does NOTHING you can even notice about the problem you are concerned with, what kind of barking idiot thinks doing it again will be any different??? Apparently the kind of idiot who can get elected to Congress.... When you get enough of those kind of people in Congress at the same time, then you get barking stupid things like the 94 AWB. The rest of the time, there are enough people in Congress with a firm enough grip of reality to prevent that....usually...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
May 16, 2021, 05:41 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
What's likely is an attempt at something more innocent-sounding and sneaky. They've been pushing us to believe 99.94% of the public supports their background check initiative, so that's probably what they'll push.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 16, 2021, 08:45 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
My fear is new regulations on the sale of gun parts or ammo on the internet. It sounds more moderate, but would likely kill a lot of competition in the industry and raise prices a lot. Not to mention the build your own AR from a legally transferred receiver will grow more complicated.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
May 17, 2021, 12:17 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
May 18, 2021, 07:40 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
May 18, 2021, 11:00 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 1,752
|
It was the Law for 10 long years ... They did it once and they keep trying to bring it back and they are not going to stop untill it's the Law again ... they never stop ...they never give up and they never give in .
I wish our side was so dogged and determined . Gary |
May 18, 2021, 02:06 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
I think we are lucky with the SCOTUS we have right now, and IF mag capacity limits or new auto-loader ban laws are passed (unlikely), I think there is almost no chance they'll pass Supreme Court scrutiny.
I am more worried about local new gun restrictions, specially in my state of Colorado.
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. |
May 18, 2021, 04:57 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
May 18, 2021, 10:51 PM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
One can, and should do background checks with no mention of the firearm at all. After all, you are SUPPOSED to be checking the PERSON's background. This COULD be done. One could, even, check every single (legal) person in the country, and put a code on their ID/driver's license/passport/smart ID, or whatever. And, only do it once. NOT every freakin time you buy/transfer a firearm. People don't become prohibited persons overnight, it takes a CONVICTION in court, and that same court could order the old ID surrendered and new one issued. Forgery is still an issue, but that's a CRIME by gosh...Point being such a system would work, would be non-invasive to gun owners, and wouldn't require trips to FFL dealers to have the check run. BUT, that is not what we are being offered and so far everything proposed that is not what the other side is offering (which includes a built in need for registration & tracking the GUN) is totally unacceptable to them. They won't even discuss alternatives to their pipe dreams. Also remember to consider the source when they spout lies about how 98% of Americans favor background checks (or what ever their pet project it). First of you can't get 98% of people to agree on what color the sky is or if the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Second, its not 98% (or whatever percent they claim) of Americans, ever. Its a percentage of the people they ASKED, and then, on top of that, it depends on what question is asked, and what the possible (and allowed) choices are. Every time I hear of poll results, I remember a political cartoon from the early 70s where a (door to door) poll taker asks, "if the election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for? A) Richard Nixon B) Santa Claus C) Easter Bunney Am also reminded of a fellow I knew, who got on some poll list back during the Clinton years. Every 2-3 months they would call him and ask how he felt about the President, and the job he was doing. The fellow was about as political as a rock, didn't care, and so just to be nice, told them he was fine with the Pres and the job he was doing. After a couple years of that, he decided to tell them something different and see what happened. The next time they called, he told them he was very unhappy with the Pres and he was doing a terrible job. They never called him again..... Just because they tell us something is so does not it is actually so...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|
|