Magazine Ban in the works.

[Shellback]

New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said Tuesday that they have introduced companion bills to ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/22/lautenberg-mccarthy-propose-high-capacity-clip-ban/)

His bill has attracted 16 Democratic co-sponsors, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who is planning to roll out a ban on military-style, so-called assault weapons on Thursday.

[DocGKR]

I have no problems with banning high capacity magazines (ie. a magazine or feeding device holding more cartridges than the firearm was designed to carry, such as a 20 rd P226 mag or a 100 rd Betamag), but am bitterly opposed to any restrictions on standard capacity magazines (ie. 15 rd. M&P40 mags, 17 rd. G17 mags, 20 rd. AR10/SR25 mags, 20-30 rd AR15 mags, etc...). Magazines with a neutered, artificially reduced capacity are abominable, repugnant, loathsome, contrivances that do not function adequately and put lives at risk.

[Le Français]

I have no problems with banning high capacity magazines (ie. a magazine or feeding device holding more cartridges than the firearm was designed to carry, such as a 20 rd P226 mag or a 100 rd Betamag)...

Why?

[WDW]

I have no problems with banning high capacity magazines (ie. a magazine or feeding device holding more cartridges than the firearm was designed to carry, such as a 20 rd P226 mag or a 100 rd Betamag), but am bitterly opposed to any restrictions on standard capacity magazines (ie. 15 rd. M&P40 mags, 17 rd. G17 mags, 20 rd. AR10/SR25 mags, 20-30 rd AR15 mags, etc...). Magazines with a neutered, artificially reduced capacity are abominable, repugnant, loathsome, contrivances that do not function adequately and put lives at risk.

You know, someone with money & a good lawyer might could file suit on the grounds that forcing a weapon to utilize a mag for which it was not designed is an infringement. I don't know? Seems with all the SC decisions lately, we might could get somewhere with that.

[Drang]

I have no problems with banning high capacity magazines (ie. a magazine or feeding device holding more cartridges than the firearm was designed to carry, such as a 20 rd P226 mag or a 100 rd Betamag), but am bitterly opposed to any restrictions on standard capacity magazines (ie. 15 rd. M&P40 mags, 17 rd. G17 mags, 20 rd. AR10/SR25 mags, 20-30 rd AR15 mags, etc...). Magazines with a neutered, artificially reduced capacity are abominable, repugnant, loathsome, contrivances that do not function adequately and put lives at risk.

Idiotic, pointless bans n cosmetic features are abominable, repugnant, loathsome.

My 1911 was designed with a 7 round magazine in mind, does that mean I shouldn't use 8 or 10 round magazines? 20 round magazines were originally issued for the M16, but for the duration of my own 20 year Army career, 30 rounders were standard; why shouldn't I be able to use such? And, other than the cost and the weight, who cares i I pick up a Betamag or two?

Sounds like Lautenberg is filing the Senate companion bill to Carolyn "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy's HR138 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr138). GovTrack (where that link goes) gives HR138 a 1% chance of passing the house, and a 0% chance of being enacted.
(If you're interested, I have a full list of gun bills in the House as of 01/16 at Gun Bills in the House of Representatives of the United States (http://thecluemeter.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-bills-in-house-of-representatives.html).)

[Spr1]

Remember every compromise from our side is pocketed without reciprocation while they move forward toward their goal of complete disarmament.

[Joe Mamma]

I have no problems with banning high capacity magazines (ie. a magazine or feeding device holding more cartridges than the firearm was designed to carry, such as a 20 rd P226 mag or a 100 rd Betamag), but am bitterly opposed to any restrictions on standard capacity magazines (ie. 15 rd. M&P40 mags, 17 rd. G17 mags, 20 rd. AR10/SR25 mags, 20-30 rd AR15 mags, etc...). Magazines with a neutered, artificially reduced capacity are abominable, repugnant, loathsome, contrivances that do not function adequately and put lives at risk.

You do realize that banning those high capacity magazines which you don't care about is a first step? It's how New York is now at 7 rounds max.

I'm against banning of anything gun related. I say it's time to make a strong unified stand against these proposed laws, and not give up 1 inch. But that's just me.

Joe Mamma

[Slavex]

mag bans of any kind are just plain stupid.

[RoyGBiv]

Did y'all watch the NY Assembly exchange with Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin?
In this thread here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?6676-NY-Has-Tentative-Deal-on-Gun-Control&p=113130&viewfull=1#post113130
[worth watching the whole thing if you haven't already...]

Paraphrased... 14:40
"Why did we decide to reduce from 10 to 7, why not 5, or 2 or 1?"
"Because Governor Cuomo recommended it and we thought it was reasonable"

[DocGKR]

I don't care one way or another about banning true "high capacity" magazines because so many of them don't work reliably...

On the other hand, as I noted, I am bitterly opposed to the illogical banning of true standard capacity magazines. While the original AR15 was originally designed around a 20 rd mag, all later models were designed around a 30 rd mag--now the standard capacity feeding device for the AR15. If later models are designed around a 60 or 100 rd mag, I am all for it.

-------------

Assemblyman McLaughlin did a good job.

[F-Trooper05]

16 co-sponsors isn't many. All it takes for a member to become a co-sponsor is for a junior staffer to send an email to Lautenberg's office (literally). This isn't a big deal IMHO.

[Odin Bravo One]

You do realize that banning those high capacity magazines which you don't care about is a first step? It's how New York is now at 7 rounds max.

Joe Mamma

Read carefully what Doc wrote. Words have meanings.

There is a difference between a "High Capacity" magazine and a "Standard Capacity" magazine.

Example, the "Standard Capacity" magazine for my G17 is...........17 rounds. There is nothing "High Capacity" about it.

[Drang]

Read carefully what Doc wrote. Words have meanings.

There is a difference between a "High Capacity" magazine and a "Standard Capacity" magazine.

Example, the "Standard Capacity" magazine for my G17 is...........17 rounds. There is nothing "High Capacity" about it.
To you.

[Spr1]

I don't care one way or another about banning true "high capacity" magazines because so many of them don't work reliably...

On the other hand, as I noted, I am bitterly opposed to the illogical banning of true standard capacity magazines. While the original AR15 was originally designed around a 20 rd mag, all later models were designed around a 30 rd mag--now the standard capacity feeding device for the AR15. If later models are designed around a 60 or 100 rd mag, I am all for it.

-------------

Assemblyman McLaughlin did a good job.

Agree on McLaughlin.

Disagree on capacity. Any time we start going down the path of discussing capacity we fall into the trap of the "reasonableness" discussion. When it comes to my liberty and security, there is only one opinion about what I need that I care about. Mine.

[Tamara]

I'm pretty certain that no legislative session goes by without McCarthy filing a mag ban bill. It's the hobby horse she rode into congress, waving her dead husband's bloody shirt.

[orionz06]

I'm pretty certain that no legislative session goes by without McCarthy filing a mag ban bill. It's the hobby horse she rode into congress, waving her dead husband's bloody shirt.

Let's just all be reasonable now....

[Joe Mamma]

Read carefully what Doc wrote. Words have meanings.

There is a difference between a "High Capacity" magazine and a "Standard Capacity" magazine.

Example, the "Standard Capacity" magazine for my G17 is...........17 rounds. There is nothing "High Capacity" about it.

Ha ha, I know exactly what Doc wrote, and understand it. You should probably read what I wrote more carefully.

Banning a 100 rd beta mags for an AR or 75 rd drum mags for an AK is just a start to further mag restrictions. I know that's become a cliche, but it's also true.

Think about that for a minute.

There are already enough gun laws. Saying that some additional laws are OK does nothing to help gun owners (from a political, legislative or physical safety perspective). It only hurts gun owners. I'm not saying that you or DocGKR care or should care. I'm just stating what I believe is true.

Joe Mamma

[JV_]

I know that's become a cliche, but it's also true.Like going from 10 to 7, in NY?

[BWT]

To you.

He means above factory form factor. The gun is called the Glock 17 because it holds 17 rounds which was a huge deal in the 80s, IIRC. So yes, that is standard, for everyone. Having weird internal conflicts about what a magazine capacity feels like standard, high or low. Doesn't mean it's not standard capacity. I think two shots are low capacity, but in the context of a double barrel shotgun it's standard capacity. Just an example. High capacity demonizes standard capacity and is another subtle way of implying that owning those types of magazines as extreme.

It is another attempt to try to point at gun owners as extremists and divide gun owners. I don't like the words high capacity magazine at a deep level because I know the intentions 9 times out of 10 are to make it look excessive to own. Not describe a feature as a selling point.

I think Doc shares this sentiment is all. And thinks beta mags are a hokey novelty that might endanger someone if they depended on it for survival.

While you (and truthfully so does Doc, IMHO.) think any type of restrictions are bad.

I think we have a just failure in communication to one another... And I went full Dr. Phil on that one, hahaha. :p

[JV_]

The gun is called the Glock 17 because it holds 17 roundsI don't think this is true. It's Gaston's 17th patent, and is named accordingly, it's not because of the round count.

[SteveK]

I don't think this is true. It's Gaston's 17th patent, and is named accordingly, it's not because of the round count.

You are correct sir.

[BWT]

I don't think this is true. It's Gaston's 17th patent, and is named accordingly, it's not because of the round count.

I recalled incorrectly then. I had heard that before, but looks like I was wrong.

[BWT]

http://safety-tactical-com1.webs.com/

And that is an AOW. Actually... Probably just an unregistered SBR.

[Tamara]

Actually... Probably just an unregistered SBR.

Yup. And dumber than an acre of fungus, to boot.

[CMG]

Did y'all watch the NY Assembly exchange with Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin?
In this thread here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?6676-NY-Has-Tentative-Deal-on-Gun-Control&p=113130&viewfull=1#post113130
[worth watching the whole thing if you haven't already...]

Paraphrased... 14:40
"Why did we decide to reduce from 10 to 7, why not 5, or 2 or 1?"
"Because Governor Cuomo recommended it and we thought it was reasonable"

Some of the internet scuttlebutt that I have read was that the 7 round limit was proposed because the Kimber manufacturing plant is in Yonkers, NY.

[Shellback]

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, signaled on Tuesday that despite earlier indications to the contrary, he may allow a vote on a possible ban on assault weapons. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/harry-reid-assault-weapons-ban_n_2529341.html)


"It may not be everything everyone wants. But I hope it has stuff that is really important," Reid told reporters.

The fight is far from over and I expect to see lots more bills up for vote in the near future.

[Tamara]

Some of the internet scuttlebutt that I have read was that the 7 round limit was proposed because the Kimber manufacturing plant is in Yonkers, NY.

This would not shock me.

[RoyGBiv]

And for a comic interlude...

Apparently even Hitler is having trouble getting PMags


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEHMZZdSjCg

[SeriousStudent]

BWHahaha!!!!!

Thanks, Roy, that was awesome! They so nailed that one. ;)

[jon volk]

I had grown tired of those Hitler parodies but that had me laughing pretty hard.

[Tamara]

I had grown tired of those Hitler parodies but that had me laughing pretty hard.

Word. That was some finely-crafted insider humor. :cool:

[Shellback]

WAKE UP!!! (http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/LeRay-Man-Faces-Weapons-Possessions-Charges-185853881.html)

A town of LeRay man was accused Sunday of possessing high-capacity magazines for an assault rifle.
Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies say 32 year old Nathan Haddad allegedly had five 30-round magazines for an AR-15 rifle in his possession.
Police say the magazines were found during a vehicle check on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay.
Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court.

[Kyle Reese]

WAKE UP!!! (http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/LeRay-Man-Faces-Weapons-Possessions-Charges-185853881.html)

Will the David Gregory defense work for Mr.Haddad?

[Shellback]

Will the David Gregory defense work for Mr.Haddad?

Nah... Haddad is a disabled veteran and is being bent over with 5 felonies. That's how New York police treat their citizens and veterans.

[Shellback]

This is the character of Nathan Haddad (http://www.drum.army.mil/mountaineer/Article.aspx?ID=6283).

Please read it.

[Kyle Reese]

This is the character of Nathan Haddad (http://www.drum.army.mil/mountaineer/Article.aspx?ID=6283).

Please read it.

Won't matter to the DA or a jury of his peers in NY.

[Shellback]

Here's his legal fund donation page (http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc). A few more articles on the guy and his accomplishments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8674071.stm

http://www.drum.army.mil/mountaineer/Article.aspx?ID=6170

http://www.army.mil/article/37896/Three_3_85_Soldiers_to_compete_at_inaugural_Warrio r_Games/

http://wtc.armylive.dodlive.mil/warriorgames/nathan-haddad/

[Suvorov]

This is the character of Nathan Haddad (http://www.drum.army.mil/mountaineer/Article.aspx?ID=6283).

Please read it.

Good Work Cuomo! Your brand new SAFE law's first big bust! You really got a real bad man. The world is now safer! :rolleyes: :mad:

This is the kind of person who is going to be the victim of the laws, not the criminal. Hopefully the arrest will highlight that fact.

[TGS]

Good Work Cuomo! Your brand new SAFE law's first big bust! You really got a real bad man. The world is now safer!

This is the kind of person who is going to be the victim of the laws, not the criminal. Hopefully the arrest will highlight that fact.

What does it have to do with Cuomo's SAFE law?

30 round mags were illegal in NY long before Cuomo's SAFE law.

What I'm wondering is what the reason was for the search of his vehicle, which the article doesn't state. Anyone know?

[David Armstrong]

Good Work Cuomo! Your brand new SAFE law's first big bust! You really got a real bad man. The world is now safer! :rolleyes: :mad:

This is the kind of person who is going to be the victim of the laws, not the criminal. Hopefully the arrest will highlight that fact.
The 30 round magazines have been illegal in NY for years, IIRC. If so, to me the question becomes why was Haddad carrying them in his vehicle if he knew there was a law prohibiting it?

[TGS]

The 30 round magazines have been illegal in NY for years, IIRC. If so, to me the question becomes why was Haddad carrying them in his vehicle if he knew there was a law prohibiting it?

I was debating bringing this up, because I'm an asshole and would have sounded callous. But....yeah....."tough shit" comes to mind. Whether mag limits are stupid or not, he was driving around with objects that he knew were clearly in violation of the law. Not really anyone's fault but his own, so I'm not really seeing this as the "WAKE UP!" warning or anything.

In other news, a man was ticketed for breaking the speed limit.

[Shellback]

What I'm wondering is what the reason was for the search of his vehicle, which the article doesn't state. Anyone know?
I haven't seen that info anywhere and I've read quite a few articles. It doesn't mention why on his legal defense fund site either.

The 30 round magazines have been illegal in NY for years, IIRC. If so, to me the question becomes why was Haddad carrying them in his vehicle if he knew there was a law prohibiting it?
He thought he'd purchased "pre-ban" magazines according to what I've read on his site.

[Shellback]

I was debating bringing this up, because I'm an asshole and would have sounded callous. But....yeah....."tough shit" comes to mind. Whether mag limits are stupid or not, he was driving around with objects that he knew were clearly in violation of the law. Not really anyone's fault but his own, so I'm not really seeing this as the "WAKE UP!" warning or anything.

In other news, a man was ticketed for breaking the speed limit.

Your assumption that he knew they were illegal is just that, an assumption, that is contradicted by what he has posted on his website. He's stated that when he purchased them he believed them to be "pre-ban" magazines and thus legal to possess.

The reason I posted "WAKE UP!" is this will soon be happening to the rest of the chattel who dare to possess standard capacity magazines for their handguns or have more than 7 rounds in their 10 round mags. When is the time to wake up? When these assholes are kicking in your door to confiscate your weapons cause they're "just following orders"?

[TGS]

Your assumption that he knew they were illegal is just that, an assumption, that is contradicted by what he has posted on his website. He's stated that when he purchased them he believed them to be "pre-ban" magazines and thus legal to possess.

Ignorance is not an excuse to the law. It was incumbent upon him to know, and mag limits/laws aren't exactly an obscure, little known law that an otherwise good citizen is going to mistakenly fall trap to (which I could definitely sympathize with).


The reason I posted "WAKE UP!" is this will soon be happening to the rest of the chattel who dare to possess standard capacity magazines for their handguns or have more than 7 rounds in their 10 round mags. When is the time to wake up? When these assholes are kicking in your door to confiscate your weapons cause they're "just following orders"?

Well, I guess everyone has their own line in the sand. Me personally, if NJ passes their atrocious laws on the table, I'm probably not running down to the PD to hand in whatever I have that would then be illegal, as I personally might think the law is unjust. But, that is a far cry from people kicking in my door to confiscate it....and if it's illegal, you can be assured that you won't find it by kicking in my door, either! Civil disobedience demands discretion and smarts, not stupidity of just hoping you won't be caught.

In any case, whether the law is stupid or ramrodded through with little chance to act, the fact remains that it is a law voted upon by their legislature and has yet to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts holding judicial review over our laws. Since we are a nation of laws and not men, and derive our stability from such, the law is to be followed. If you decide not to......don't be surprised when you get thrown in jail.

[Tamara]

Ignorance is not an excuse to the law.

What's that? "Ignorance is no excuse for a law"? :p

Seriously, the philosophy of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" dates from an era when honest people could be presumed to know the law in their bones, without recourse to complicated study guides and twenty feet of bookshelf: "Gosh, I didn't know that slitting that sleeping guy's throat was a crime!" or "Who knew that taking bread from that woman without paying for it was against the law?" wouldn't wash.

It's different today: Can an honest man reasonably be expected to deduce from no other resource than his own conscience that an eleven round magazine is illegal and a ten round magazine is kosher, unless the eleven round magazine was made before some arbitrary date on the calendar and marked in a government-approved fashion?

If you want people to respect the law, you've gotta start by passing respectable laws.

[TGS]

What's that? "Ignorance is no excuse for a law"? :p

Seriously, the philosophy of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" dates from an era when honest people could be presumed to know the law in their bones, without recourse to complicated study guides and twenty feet of bookshelf: "Gosh, I didn't know that slitting that sleeping guy's throat was a crime!" or "Who knew that taking bread from that woman without paying for it was against the law?" wouldn't wash.

It's different today: Can an honest man reasonably be expected to deduce from no other resource than his own conscience that an eleven round magazine is illegal and a ten round magazine is kosher, unless the eleven round magazine was made before some arbitrary date on the calendar and marked in a government-approved fashion?

If you want people to respect the law, you've gotta start by passing respectable laws.

I generally agree with what you stepping in, but that's why I wrote:


mag limits/laws aren't exactly an obscure, little known law that an otherwise good citizen is going to mistakenly fall trap to

Especially with all the hubub right now about the RKBA and mag limits in particular. It'd be awesome if he was let off the hook, but I'm not really feeling sorry for him or thinking there's some huge injustice occurring.

[Tamara]

Especially with all the hubub right now about the RKBA and mag limits in particular. It'd be awesome if he was let off the hook, but I'm not really feeling sorry for him or thinking there's some huge injustice occurring.

Okay, but where do we draw the line at what's an injustice and what's not? At what point do we feel like we're saying "Dude should have known better than to sit in the front of the bus; I mean there were signs and everything."?

An unjust law can't be challenged unless somebody has standing.

[Suvorov]

What does it have to do with Cuomo's SAFE law?

30 round mags were illegal in NY long before Cuomo's SAFE law.

What I'm wondering is what the reason was for the search of his vehicle, which the article doesn't state. Anyone know?

My understanding is that in NY before the SAFE law, 30 round magazines were legal as long as they were manufactured prior to the ban? Correct me if I'm wrong. Given the fact that I have scores of such things, I find it safe to assume others do as well.

[jon volk]

30 rounders must be sold out if state in one year.

[Suvorov]

30 rounders must be sold out if state in one year.

So then current possession of them is not illegal? :confused:

[Tamara]

So then current possession of them is not illegal? :confused:

I think it's that all 30-rounders must go, even pre-'94 ones, by the deadline. Until then, there's still such a thing as a "pre-ban" mag.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, nor am I a resident of New York state, a pair of conditions for which I hit my knees in thanks every night. :p

[Suvorov]

I think it's that all 30-rounders must go, even pre-'94 ones, by the deadline. Until then, there's still such a thing as a "pre-ban" mag.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, nor am I a resident of New York state, a pair of conditions for which I hit my knees in thanks every night. :p

That is my understanding of it as well. So then that all begs the question, why was this guy arrested for 30 round mags? :confused:

[Shellback]

That is my understanding of it as well. So then that all begs the question, why was this guy arrested for 30 round mags? :confused:

Maybe they didn't have some date stamp on them? Either way it's BS and if people don't wake up this'll be coming to a town near you. Put me on the jury.

[RoyGBiv]

That is my understanding of it as well. So then that all begs the question, why was this guy arrested for 30 round mags? :confused:

From his brothers legal defense fund page (in case you'd like to contribute)
http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc


On Sunday January 6th he was arrested for possession of five, 30 round empty magazines that he believed were pre-ban magazines when he purchased them.
Based on the words I underlined, I'd guess the mags were not, actually, pre-ban.?
Still searching for confirmation.

[Tamara]

Maybe they didn't have some date stamp on them?


Either way it's BS and if people don't wake up this'll be coming to a town near you. Put me on the jury.

Mag bans are looking doubtful at the fed level, and our newly-elected Democratic senator just said he's not voting for a federal AWB...

...but he's open to the idea of universal background checks, a pointless and unenforceable placebo that will only lead to the creation of paperwork felons and serve as a "piling-on" charge on federal cases.

[Shellback]

Mag bans are looking doubtful at the fed level, and our newly-elected Democratic senator just said he's not voting for a federal AWB...

I'm sure you'll see quite a few more states follow suit.

What I read is he's facing 5 felonies, which if convicted, will make it illegal for him to then own a gun... F that.

[Tamara]

I'm sure you'll see quite a few more states follow suit.

Generally only states that had crappy gun laws already. NY, NJ, MA, CA, DE, CT, are going to do it again, only harder.

Meanwhile, in America, NC is looking to pass confidentiality laws for CCW permit holders and allow toting in places that serve alcohol; IN and TX look likely to follow WY's lead with a "Firearms Freedom Act"; several other states have passed or are likely to pass expansions of CCW rights in this legislative session (church carry in AR, campuses in KS)...

Back in the '90s, Californians on the intenet gun forums liked to say "Oh, look out! Our gun laws are coming to you!" and back in the mid '90s it was true. But starting about fifteen years ago, with waves of loosening CCW laws, we have increasingly turned into Two Americas. The only gun laws that have passed out here in "flyover country" in over a decade are pro-gun laws.

California's gun laws are not coming to Indiana, unless they get passed on a national level. Our Democrat legislators don't even bother proposing anti gun laws in the statehouse anymore, hardly, and I can't remember the last time an anti gun law came within a realistic chance of passing in any state in which I've lived in the past fifteen years.

[Suvorov]

Maybe they didn't have some date stamp on them? Either way it's BS and if people don't wake up this'll be coming to a town near you. Put me on the jury.

Yeah, who knows? The problem is that your standard pre-ban 30 rounder is pretty much indistinguishable from a post-sunset 30 rounder unless they have a date stamp. PMags are obvious, but I doubt your average cop looking to bust someone for guns knows the difference between a Pmag and a Thermold, not to mention an Adventure Line magazine from a C-Products. In Kalifornia the burden is on the .gov to prove that your magazine was obtained illegally, don't know about NY laws but in Kalifornia it would be legal to replace a legally owned preban magazine body with bent up feed lips with a magazine body with a manufacture date of 12/2012 thus making even date codes on magazines immaterial in determining legality of a mag.

I realize I'm preaching to the choir here but it amazes me that the same people to cry and cry about the overcrowding of our prisons are willing to put a man in jail for possession of nothing more than a spring and some sheet metal.

[Tamara]

In Kalifornia the burden is on the .gov to prove that your magazine was obtained illegally, don't know about NY laws but in Kalifornia it would be legal to replace a legally owned preban magazine body with bent up feed lips with a magazine body with a manufacture date of 12/2012 thus making even date codes on magazines immaterial in determining legality of a mag.

The CA mag ban laws never made a lick of sense to me. (I know! Big shock!)

If I'm understanding them right, you can only own axes you owned before the ban, but you can buy new axe heads and new axe handles to repair them. "This shiny new axe? Had it for years."

[Suvorov]

The CA mag ban laws never made a lick of sense to me. (I know! Big shock!)

If I'm understanding them right, you can only own axes you owned before the ban, but you can buy new axe heads and new axe handles to repair them. "This shiny new axe? Had it for years."

Bingo!

And a whole lot of people here seem to have owned magazines for guns they didn't own prior to the ban. Good thinking and planning eh?

Of course this has been identified by the State Overloards/Masters and there is a bill to be introduced that will ban parts kits as well.

[Shellback]

It's people who have the "tough shit!" attitude and these unconstitutional laws that will lead to the deaths of police officers and others. When people have their freedoms stripped from them and feel like they have absolutely no recourse they feel trapped and backed into a corner. Freedom loving people who get backed into a corner tend to come out swinging.

I'm not advocating violence, especially against police officers, but there are people who will go to any length to avoid going to prison for possession of a standard capacity magazine that they feel is their right. If doesn't matter if it's "against the law" when the law is viewed by many to be unconstitutional. People are fed up and when you're looking at 35 years in prison for possessing 5 illegal magazines don't be surprised when people start fighting for their freedom.

For some people the "line in the sand" has already been crossed. An interesting blog on the subject matter here (http://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-suggestion-to-oathkeepers/). FYI - The blogger is a former SpecOps guy.

[Shellback]

Tough shit to this guy (http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2013/01/jersey_city_police_say_man_had.html) in NJ too.

The assault rifle had a bayonet mount and its barrel was threaded to accept a muzzle flash suppresser, making it illegal in New Jersey, Deputy Police Chief Peter Nalbach said.

Pantaleon was also charged with unlawfully transporting a large-capacity ammunition magazine when three, 30-round magazines were found at his home Friday, the complaint says. Police did not say what led them to Pantaleon's residence.

[RoyGBiv]

For some people the "line in the sand" has already been crossed. An interesting blog on the subject matter here (http://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-suggestion-to-oathkeepers/). FYI - The blogger is a former SpecOps guy.


If you try to concoct a reason for a search, I will kill you in defense of my family and property and liberty. If I knew I had 5 mags in the trunk, worth 7 years each, I would not have let you open the trunk without a fight, period. That’s 35 years. That’s THE REST OF MY FUCKING LIFE. Why not kill you and take the fight to the enemy for as long as possible?

That hits pretty hard. Serious food for thought.

[RoyGBiv]

SKIP IT

[Haraise]

That hits pretty hard. Serious food for thought.

Me too.

The point at which moving to not have justifiable reason to kill law enforcement agents is upon some people.

Unfortunately, the progression of tyranny is only impeded by either sound morals or the blood of the ruling class. There's not enough of the former or latter, and it shows.

[David Armstrong]

from Irish:
I'm not advocating violence, especially against police officers, but there are people who will go to any length to avoid going to prison for possession of a standard capacity magazine that they feel is their right. If doesn't matter if it's "against the law" when the law is viewed by many to be unconstitutional.
Yes, it does matter. Some folks seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they think should be followed and ignore parts they don't like. Pretty much by definition a law is not unconstitutional until the judiciary has ruled that way. This nonsense that each person should get to decide how to act based on their individual opinion if a law is constitutional or not is just nonsense and really amounts to nothing more than an open invitation to lawlessness and anarchy.


from TGS:
Ignorance is not an excuse to the law. It was incumbent upon him to know, and mag limits/laws aren't exactly an obscure, little known law that an otherwise good citizen is going to mistakenly fall trap to (which I could definitely sympathize with).
Exactly. Like it or not, under our system a citizen is expected to both know the law and follow the law, and failure to follow the law can lead to less than pleasant encounters with the government. I'm not real fond of it, but when I traveled to a restricted state, for example, I'd leave the big mags at home and and only carry 10-rounders.

[David Armstrong]

Generally only states that had crappy gun laws already. NY, NJ, MA, CA, DE, CT, are going to do it again, only harder.

Meanwhile, in America, NC is looking to pass confidentiality laws for CCW permit holders and allow toting in places that serve alcohol; IN and TX look likely to follow WY's lead with a "Firearms Freedom Act"; several other states have passed or are likely to pass expansions of CCW rights in this legislative session (church carry in AR, campuses in KS)...

Back in the '90s, Californians on the intenet gun forums liked to say "Oh, look out! Our gun laws are coming to you!" and back in the mid '90s it was true. But starting about fifteen years ago, with waves of loosening CCW laws, we have increasingly turned into Two Americas. The only gun laws that have passed out here in "flyover country" in over a decade are pro-gun laws.

California's gun laws are not coming to Indiana, unless they get passed on a national level. Our Democrat legislators don't even bother proposing anti gun laws in the statehouse anymore, hardly, and I can't remember the last time an anti gun law came within a realistic chance of passing in any state in which I've lived in the past fifteen years.
Good point. As long as we can keep the Feds out of the henhouse and leave it to the states, most of us come out OK. Our Governor recently has supported a strong firearms owners protection bill that got an amenment to our state constitution toughening the standards to use in legal action, and is proposing legislation that would make it illegal for anyone to enforce a number of restrictions on weapons and magazines.

[Shellback]

Yes, it does matter. Some folks seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they think should be followed and ignore parts they don't like. Pretty much by definition a law is not unconstitutional until the judiciary has ruled that way. This nonsense that each person should get to decide how to act based on their individual opinion if a law is constitutional or not is just nonsense and really amounts to nothing more than an open invitation to lawlessness and anarchy.
I don't need a judiciary or lawyer to interpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for me. I've read enough from the gents who wrote it to know what it means. If you want to see lawlessness and anarchy keep having these assholes ban constitutionally protected firearms, magazines, ammunition and imprisoning people for possessing inanimate objects. There is a storm brewing and it may not happen tomorrow but the clouds are on the horizon.


Exactly. Like it or not, under our system a citizen is expected to both know the law and follow the law, and failure to follow the law can lead to less than pleasant encounters with the government. I'm not real fond of it, but when I traveled to a restricted state, for example, I'd leave the big mags at home and and only carry 10-rounders.
When there are literally tens of thousands of laws it's rather impractical to know them all and abide by them. I guarantee you break laws everyday and probably aren't even aware of it.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system." - Ayn Rand

[David Armstrong]

I don't need a judiciary or lawyer to interpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for me.
Then perhaps you should toss your name out for nomination to the federal bench, given your vast knowledge of the law. Or perhaps you could tell me which school you teach the magical law classes at that are so filled with insight that nobody can possibly disagree with your ideas? Or maybe you have published an article that is so wise and clear that anyone who has read it will recognize there is only ONE TRUE WAY to look at the 2nd Amendment? Of course, I'd bet that history itself will show that the Founding Fathers disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amdnment. And that is why we have courts and don't pay much attention under the law to individual interpretations or beliefs regarding the Constitution. I think we should take the Constitution as a whole, not just cherry-pick parts we like and ignore parts we don't like.

When there are literally tens of thousands of laws it's rather impractical to know them all and abide by them. I guarantee you break laws everyday and probably aren't even aware of it.
There are also a number I break every day and I am aware of it. The difference is I don't think the fact that I wasn't aware of the law or that I disagree with the law is an excuse for violating the law.

[Shellback]

Then perhaps you should toss your name out for nomination to the federal bench, given your vast knowledge of the law. Or perhaps you could tell me which school you teach the magical law classes at that are so filled with insight that nobody can possibly disagree with your ideas? Or maybe you have published an article that is so wise and clear that anyone who has read it will recognize there is only ONE TRUE WAY to look at the 2nd Amendment? Of course, I'd bet that history itself will show that the Founding Fathers disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amdnment. And that is why we have courts and don't pay much attention under the law to individual interpretations or beliefs regarding the Constitution. I think we should take the Constitution as a whole, not just cherry-pick parts we like and ignore parts we don't like.

Me and mine gave up more than enough in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994 and so on due to limp wristed pseudo-intellectuals who purport to be stanch supporters of the 2nd Amendment buckling under pressure and I won't back up another inch. Show me where the Founding Fathers disagree with my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

All that being said you can take your puerile sarcasm and shove it.

[JDM]

Remain civil. Please.

[David Armstrong]

Me and mine gave up more than enough in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994 and so on due to limp wristed pseudo-intellectuals who purport to be stanch supporters of the 2nd Amendment
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
I guess the NRA is a bunch of limp wristed pseudo-intellectuals who purport to be staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment??

[Tamara]

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
I guess the NRA is a bunch of limp wristed pseudo-intellectuals who purport to be staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment??

They sure were. Hence the Cincinnati Revolt.

You used the wrong verb tense of "purport" for quoting a 45-year-old magazine article.

EDIT: Incidentally, for those that didn't know, it was the intervention of the now-defunct National Revolver Association that kept handguns from being included in the NFA, which is why the current SBR regs for barrel length and OAL make no sense whatsoever. Originally the NFA was going to cover all concealable weapons...

[Drang]

...
EDIT: Incidentally, for those that didn't know, it was the intervention of the now-defunct National Revolver Association that kept handguns from being included in the NFA, which is why the current SBR regs for barrel length and OAL make no sense whatsoever. Originally the NFA was going to cover all concealable weapons...
I did not know that.

Here's an article: The NRA once supported gun control - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/)
Coming from Salon, of course, it isn't exactly a model of fair and balanced reportage...

Also, note that this:

In the early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today.

Nine states adopted these laws: West Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Oregon, California, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Connecticut. Meanwhile, the American Bar Association had been working to create uniform state laws, and built upon the proposal but made the waiting period two days. Nine more states adopted it: Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

And I question the claim that "some states had {registries of all guns} in colonial times".

But then, I question many of the things in there...

[Tamara]

And I question the claim that "some states had {registries of all guns} in colonial times".

Say rather that "some states had registries making sure that all adult males had guns." And some states made you bring your piece to church every Sunday so that it could be inspected to make sure it was in working order...

You think that Salon.com could get behind a law mandating that every Bostonian male turn up at church on Sunday with his AR and a basic load to prove that he was still eligible to vote? ;)

[Shellback]

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
I guess the NRA is a bunch of limp wristed pseudo-intellectuals who purport to be staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment??

Just looking at what you quoted, absolutely. I believe Tam and Drang hit on a few other key points.

[David Armstrong]

They sure were. Hence the Cincinnati Revolt.
LOL!! Given that most of the NRA folks who were involved in the 1934 deal were long gone by the time of the Cincinnati Revolt, I think that is quite a stretch of reasoning.

You used the wrong verb tense of "purport" for quoting a 45-year-old magazine article.
Only if one wishes to claim that there is some significant change in the subject. Given recent comments by NRA leaders concerning their approval of the 1934 act I think the tense is right on the money.

[David Armstrong]

And I question the claim that "some states had {registries of all guns} in colonial times".
But then, I question many of the things in there...
Contrary to popular belief, there were actually quite a number of laws in colonial times regarding guns. Some required all able-bodied males to own firearms, some prohibited possession or sale of firearms to certain people, some restricted where a gun could be carried, some fined you for not carrying your gun, and so on. Quite a patchwork and one that was fairly fluid.

[TGS]

Can you guys clarify when exactly you're talking about?

There were no "states" during the Colonial period. There were colonies, and commonwealths and so on. States, as in the United States (if that's what you're referring to), obviously came after the Colonial period. So, I'm confused on what time period you bunch are actually referring to.

[David Armstrong]

Fair question, which is why I used the "colonial times" phrasing. I would argue that there have always been laws regulating ownership, sale, use and carry of firearms in the United States both pre- and post revolution.

[justintime]

gun control was certainly an issue back then. That is why we have the 2A. They did not just imagine a government would become illegitimate and try restricting them. Certainly it was more of an issue during the colonies than when we got the articles of confederation and then the constitution, for obvious reasons :P

[Tamara]

LOL!! Given that most of the NRA folks who were involved in the 1934 deal were long gone by the time of the Cincinnati Revolt, I think that is quite a stretch of reasoning.

I think it's more than a little disingenuous to forget that you also cited GCA '68. Regardless, the nature of the organization that supported the laws of '34 and '68 was broadly similar, and quite different to the nature of the organization post-'77.

[David Armstrong]

I think it's more than a little disingenuous to forget that you also cited GCA '68. Regardless, the nature of the organization that supported the laws of '34 and '68 was broadly similar, and quite different to the nature of the organization post-'77.
Without debating the merits of that, are we that different from 1999, when the NRA was supporting mandatory checks for all sales at gunshows? And again, given recent statements, it sure seems that the current NRA leaders are talking about what a good idea the 1934 act was and that we need to keep it.

[Tamara]

Without debating the merits of that, are we that different from 1999, when the NRA was supporting mandatory checks for all sales at gunshows?

As I remember it, Wayne was referring to FFLs. I've slept since '99, though, so I am willing to be proven wrong with a quote in full context.

[Drang]

...And I question the claim that "some states had {registries of all guns} in colonial times".


Contrary to popular belief, there were actually quite a number of laws in colonial times regarding guns. Some required all able-bodied males to own firearms, some prohibited possession or sale of firearms to certain people, some restricted where a gun could be carried, some fined you for not carrying your gun, and so on. Quite a patchwork and one that was fairly fluid.
I was questioning the phraseology in the Salon.com article, which stated that "states had registries of all guns."

Yeah, you were required to be armed as a member of the militia, and most probably only owned one gun, but I really doubt the sheriff came around and took an inventory of all guns, or that your friendly local gunsmith had you fill out a 4473 when you took delivery of your fowling piece...


Can you guys clarify when exactly you're talking about?

There were no "states" during the Colonial period. There were colonies, and commonwealths and so on. States, as in the United States (if that's what you're referring to), obviously came after the Colonial period. So, I'm confused on what time period you bunch are actually referring to.
Again, I said "states" because that's what the libtard* who wrote the Salon.com article used those words. In the colonial era (17th-18th Centuries), everyone belonged to the militia, and was required to arm himself. This practice continued (especially on the frontier) well into the 19th Century. (Kennedy Square in Detroit was known as the Campus Martius as late as the 1960s; "The Field of Mars" was where the militia mustered.)


*Can I say "libtard" here? Got a "warning" on another site recently, as someone might take offense...

[David Armstrong]

As I remember it, Wayne was referring to FFLs. I've slept since '99, though, so I am willing to be proven wrong with a quote in full context.
House Judiciary Committee, 1999: "we think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show, no loopholes for anyone."
Sandy Froman was on Anderson Cooper and verified that the NRA has changed its position since 1999.

[LHS]

House Judiciary Committee, 1999: "we think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show, no loopholes for anyone."
Sandy Froman was on Anderson Cooper and verified that the NRA has changed its position since 1999.

Honestly, I've no issue with mandating background checks at gun shows for every sale, other than it puts us further down the slippery slope of mandating background checks for all private sales. I think the anonymity of private sales is a key component of the 2nd Amendment's deterrent factor against government abuse. But if implemented properly (i.e. it's just a BG check, no 4473 and no information on the seller or weapon involved), then it could be tolerable if used as a bargaining chip to get something we want in return (how about undoing the '86 MG ban?)

[TommyG]

Honestly, I've no issue with mandating background checks at gun shows for every sale, other than it puts us further down the slippery slope of mandating background checks for all private sales. I think the anonymity of private sales is a key component of the 2nd Amendment's deterrent factor against government abuse. But if implemented properly (i.e. it's just a BG check, no 4473 and no information on the seller or weapon involved), then it could be tolerable if used as a bargaining chip to get something we want in return (how about undoing the '86 MG ban?)

I am with you 100%. I would not have a problem with private sale background checks if it was implemented to truly check on the status of the buyer and not track the firearm. If I could call (800) buy-a gun or whatever, key in LHS's information and get a message back that you are not a prohibited person then hang up and deal with you hand to hand with no further paperwork, I would use the system and not have a problem with it.

You are right though, their background check has nothing to do with selling to the wrong person and everything to do with universal registration of firearms. We will never get a common sense proposal from them that actually addresses the problem.

[Shellback]

Los Angeles proposed ordinance to limit mag capacity. (http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20140627/los-angeles-looking-at-large-capacity-gun-magazine-ban-despite-court-opposition)

Los Angeles is looking to follow in the footsteps of two Northern California cities that enacted bans on possessing large-capacity ammunition clips that have stood up to Second Amendment challenges so far.

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office revised a proposed ordinance to mirror large-capacity magazine bans in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have withstood Second Amendment challenges in two Northern California District courts, Deputy City Attorney Brian Sottile said.

The Sunnyvale case is being appealed.

The revised Los Angeles proposal would make possessing large-capacity magazines a misdemeanor one year after the ordinance’s adoption and give owners of the clips 60 days to surrender them, with several exceptions for law enforcement, museum collections and for magazines that hold 10 or less rounds of ammunition for firearms purchased before Jan. 1, 2000...

[GardoneVT]

Los Angeles proposed ordinance to limit mag capacity. (http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20140627/los-angeles-looking-at-large-capacity-gun-magazine-ban-despite-court-opposition)

Its my understanding currently that any LEO in the state can seize 10+ round magazines on sight anyway as a "nuisance".

[Shellback]

Its my understanding currently that any LEO in the state can seize 10+ round magazines on sight anyway as a "nuisance".

Keep'em concealed ;) Do you know of an existing statute that would permit them to do this? Never heard of a magazine as a nuisance.

ETA - SB 396 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_396_cfa_20130524_185243_sen_floor.html)

4. Provides that, except as specified, any large-capacity
magazine is a nuisance and is subject to an injunction
against its possession, manufacture or sale, and is subject
to confiscation and summary destruction.

Calguns thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=937028) with all the details.