Saturday, February 7, 2015

Congressional Democrats Introduce Ban on Magazines over 10 Rounds in Capacity

Guns dot com

Ranking Democrats on Capitol Hill, along with gun control advocates from the Newtown Alliance, pledged to renew a federal prohibition on magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

The legislation, to be introduced this week to both chambers Congress, aims to once again ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of so-called large capacity magazines.

“There is no place in our communities for ammunition magazines designed for military-style shootouts, which have been used inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Aurora, in Fort Hood, and in Tucson – and it is well-past time for Congress to listen to the American people and put this high-capacity magazine ban back in place,” said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, sponsor of the legislation, in an official statement.

The proposed measure would reinstate a portion of the decade-long Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. That ban’s legacy has been upheld as a success by lawmakers who championed it while most criminologists point out that its effect on crime was negligible.

The bill, officially termed the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, uses expansive language to deem almost all conventional magazines that can accept more than 10 cartridges illegal. This would include not only traditional box magazines, but also any, “belt, drum, helical feeding device, or similar…” than can be converted or made to accept more than the allowed round limit. A host of exceptions for the military, law enforcement, and nuclear power plant security guards among others are included. The only type of firearm excluded from the ban would be .22LR caliber rifles with tubular magazines.

Feeding devices made before the ban is implemented would be grandfathered and those made after the law takes effect would be marked and dated.

60 comments:

  1. So they want to reinstate a law that was in place for ten years and was allowed to sunset because there was no data showing it had had any positive effect. What is it they call it when you try the same thing over expecting a different result?
    And to add insult to injury, they want to spend taxpayer dollars to buy back the evil magazines, at less than market value of course. Because trust me, it this thing were to pass, owners of the magazines would be able to make a profit on them. I recall during the first evil magazine ban, I was at a gun show and a 12 round magazine for a pistol I owned at the time was going for $120.
    And of course, how will law enforcement know the difference between the legal and illegal magazines? This is going to be interesting and fun to watch. At the very least, it will help what is now a majority of voters who support gun rights to make informed decisions on who to vote for in the 2016 elections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The decision to allow the law to lapse had nothing top do with any fact that the law was found ineffective, but simply because it had a sunset provision, a BIG difference.

      Delete
    2. The decision to allow the law to lapse had nothing top do with any fact that the law was found ineffective, but simply because it had a sunset provision, a BIG difference.

      And a major reason that the American people's hated enemies failed to extend the ban was that they so utterly and completely failed to demonstrate any favorable effect attributable to it.

      Delete
    3. How can America's enemies extend, or not a ban made law by the American Congress?

      Delete
    4. How can America's enemies extend, or not a ban made law by the American Congress?

      By being members of the American Congress.

      Delete
    5. I see, your paranoid, conspiracy theory thinking means any member of Congress that disagrees with you, is an enemy of America. That only proves you have no clue what it means to be an American. You should move to a country that supports your tyrannical, dictator like thinking.

      Delete
    6. "I recall during the first evil magazine ban"

      Banning something not even covered by the 2nd A is evil? Shows just how big a gun loon you are.

      Delete
    7. Sammy, I don't recall mentioning the constitutionality of the law. I did say it had no real effect on what it was trying to accomplish, so trying something over again isn't very smart. They can't even argue as to its regions effectiveness.

      Delete
    8. I said something about it. Your "evil" description is gun loon garbage.

      Delete
    9. Here's where my high-cap magazine comment was supposed to go.

      "Enemies of America" are all those who looked at what Adam Lanza did with high cap magazines and decided he'd have killed fewer kiddies if he'd had to change magazines 15 times instead of just 5.

      Delete
    10. "Enemies of America" are all those who looked at what Adam Lanza did with high cap magazines and decided he'd have killed fewer kiddies if he'd had to change magazines 15 times instead of just 5.

      Nah--that decision does not by itself make them enemies of the American people. The enmity doesn't start until they start advocating limits on the people's access to life and liberty preserving firepower.

      Delete
    11. "Your "evil" description is gun loon garbage. "

      My "evil" description is a bit of tongue in cheek humor since its amusing that a magazine somehow becomes more or less evil depending on how many rounds it holds. And of course, in New York they decided eight round magazines were evil.
      And even the courts called BS on that one.

      Delete
    12. Your "evil" description is gun loon garbage.

      You're just being silly, Sammy. When SSG talked about the "evil magazine ban," he was clearly making a sarcastic reference to a ban of "evil" magazines (bold emphasis mine):

      And to add insult to injury, they want to spend taxpayer dollars to buy back the evil magazines, at less than market value of course. Because trust me, it this thing were to pass, owners of the magazines would be able to make a profit on them. I recall during the first evil magazine ban . . .

      I, on the other hand, will come right out and say that banning magazines of any size is definitely evil (not to mention stupid, and utterly doomed to fail), but I don't know if SSG shares that position.

      Delete
    13. NO SS is being silly and he just admitted it. If you gun loons want to make a joke out of life and death, that makes it clear why you could care less about innocent gun shot deaths and injuries. Thanks for showing us that.

      Delete
    14. We're talking about high capacity magazines and Kurt twisted it as usual:

      "life and liberty preserving firepower"

      Now, we all saw what Lanza did with his life-preserving high cap mags. I wonder how many lives have been saved with them. How many DGUs have been committed with the 11th round or greater? There's an idea going around that if you can't hit your target with the first ten rounds, somethings wrong with your aim.

      Delete
    15. There's an idea going around that if you can't hit your target with the first ten rounds, somethings wrong with your aim.

      And is there an idea going around about what to do when hitting the target once, twice, or three or more times hasn't stopped him from trying to kill you? Is there an idea going around about what to do when there are multiple assailants?

      Delete
    16. "There's an idea going around that if you can't hit your target with the first ten rounds, somethings wrong with your aim."

      Applying that logic evenly would seem to be an argument for not exempting law enforcement or even the military from magazine limit regulations.
      If the magazines are useful for them, they are just as useful for civilians.

      Delete
    17. One kid from one of the school shootings wrote a book about the incident and said he got out alive because the shooter had to stop and reload, so he ran. That's enough for me to support low capacity magazines.

      Delete
    18. Can you please name the book and the school shooting you're referring to? I'd be interested in reading that....

      Delete
    19. That's enough for me to support low capacity magazines.

      I find no fault with your support for low capacity magazines. I certainly believe people should have the right to use magazines as small as they like. But I'll never, ever give up my 30-round and larger magazines, and I'll make any effort to force me to as lethally dangerous as I can.

      Delete
    20. Yeah, Kurt, multiple assailants. And all those attackers on PCP who don't stop after being shot "once, twice, or three or more times."

      You do live in a scary fantasy world. No wonder you like guns so much.

      Delete
    21. Yeah, Kurt, multiple assailants. And all those attackers on PCP who don't stop after being shot "once, twice, or three or more times."

      Happens all the time (well, except for the PCP part, but that's your notion, not mine.

      You do live in a scary fantasy world.

      If you think that one hit from a handgun can be counted on to instantly stop a determined assailant, it would appear to be you who is stuck in a fantasy world.

      Delete
    22. http://kdvr.com/2014/10/24/6-reported-hurt-in-shooting-at-seattle-area-high-school/
      "Austin said he ducked under a table. When the shooting stopped, he said he looked out and saw the shooter was trying to reload.

      I thought you knew these issues? There are more examples, Google it.

      “When that happened, I just ran in the opposite direction, and I was out of there as fast as I could,” he said.

      Delete
    23. I'm proud of you Sandra, you actually looked something up. Unfortunately, it seems that I cant even find any report that says exactly how many shots were fired. The highest I could find was this,

      "He then pulled out a .40-caliber Beretta handgun and fired at least eight shots, shooting several students in a "calm, methodical way"."

      http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/fryberg-jaylen.htm

      So if it was a high capacity magazine, the mag change was likely due to a malfunction. An eight round magazine is legal nationwide with the exception of New York.
      Have you seen anything that gives a more exact number? Anyone else see anything on this? Were you incorrect about the book? Just wondering.....

      Delete
    24. "I'm proud of you Sandra, you actually looked something up" FU SS!
      Then admit you are wrong and be a mensch. Instead you demand more. I suggest you do your own reading and stop insinuating I'm a liar.

      Delete
    25. Kurt, If it "Happens all the time" how come we haven't seen any first hand reports from our commenters. In fact, there have been no first hand reports of ANY kind of a DGU on this blog, ever. How do you reconcile that little fact with your bizarre happens-all-the-time nonsense?

      Delete
    26. Kurt, If it "Happens all the time" how come we haven't seen any first hand reports from our commenters.

      Reading comprehension, Mikeb--try it some time. What I said "happens all the time" is people being attacked by multiple assailants, and assaults continuing after the assailant has absorbed one or more shots.

      Delete
    27. Maybe you're the one with reading comprehension problems. I repeat, if it happens all the time, how come we haven't heard any first-hand reports from anyone on this blog?

      Delete
    28. I repeat, if it happens all the time, how come we haven't heard any first-hand reports from anyone on this blog?

      You want a "first-hand report"? How many people do you think regularly comment here? It's probably not quite as many as Fred/Sandra/Sammy/Peter/Shelly would like folks to believe, you know. There' is a rather major difference between "happens all the time," and "happens to everybody."

      Do you want to hear about a guy absorbing 17 rounds of .45 ACP (generally considered a potent man-stopper by handgun standards) before he finally stopped trying to kill? That experience prompted this cop to carry 145 rounds every day. Wanna hear about the Miami shootout, in which it took a dozen hits from various calibers to stop Michael Platt's killing spree, prompting the FBI to look for more effective guns and ammunition? How about the North Hollywood shootout, in which it took approximately a gazillion rounds to stop two heavily armored suspects (and criminals wearing body armor is apparently such a big problem now that "gun control" hero Congressman Mike Honda wants to ban some types of body armor)?

      As for multiple assailants, ever hear of the "knockout game"?

      Delete
    29. If's and guesses is all SS has Sandra. I read your link. It specifically said the shooter had to stop to reload. No guessing about a malfunction. Typical for SS.

      Delete
    30. Well SS certainly cannot accept the truth even when you put it before him, then lies to try and make his false claim. Typical for SS. .

      Delete
    31. In other words, Kurt, these are not common occurrences at all. They DO NOT "happen all the time."

      Delete
    32. They DO NOT "happen all the time."

      You do realize that "all the time" is a subjective expression? Incidents of goblins continuing their aggression after absorbing one or more gunshots are certainly common enough that you would be hard-pressed to find one armed self-defense instructor, in or out of law enforcement, who does not train his students to keep firing until the threatening behavior is stopped.

      Besides, the examples I used, where the aggressor had to be shot double digit times, are extreme, and rather rare--but also easier to find, for the very reason that they're much more remarkable than the very common occurrence of two or three hits being required to stop the aggression.

      Delete
    33. Kurt, you're now willing to soften your position to "rather rare." But, are you still incapable of admitting that the subjective expression "all the time" was bullshit?

      Delete
    34. Kurt, you're now willing to soften your position to "rather rare."

      Wrong. Read it again, Mikeb. No "softening." What I said is "rather rare" are incidents of 10 or more gunshot wounds being necessary to stop an assailant's violent behavior. The requirement for two, three, four, or even more is vastly more common--common enough, indeed, to justify saying that it "happens all the time."

      Delete
  2. Lanza was the proof

    Perhaps, but except for the witless, we already knew that "gun-free" zones were death traps.

    Notice this part of the bill?

    . . . including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition . . .

    That indicates to me that it would outlaw using a magazine coupler, or even duct taping two mags together.

    Guess it would also outlaw use of these ridiculous things (except, I suppose, with 2-round magazines), but I don't really consider that much of a loss.

    But think about that--five years in federal prison, for duct taping two mags together. This is the work of evil, degenerate filth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how duct taping two mags together qualifies. I know you guys, you and TS, love to imagine extreme, bizarre interpretations of these law s in order to make them seem even worse than they are.

      Delete
    2. I don't see how duct taping two mags together qualifies.

      How can this (emphasis added) ". . including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner . . . " fail to apply to two magazines (assuming each has a capacity of greater than five rounds) that are, well . . . "joined or coupled together" with duct tape? You don't seem to challenge my assertion that the bill would ban the use of magazine couplers, but what would be the rationale behind banning the practice of clipping two magazines together, while permitting the practice of taping them together?

      Delete
  3. Mike, why did you use the word "ban" when this doesn't meet your definition of the word?

    Feeding devices made before the ban is implemented would be grandfathered and those made after the law takes effect would be marked and dated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the title of the article I quoted. It certainly doesn't meet any definiton I cvan think of. Grandfathering kinda ruins the whole thing.

      Delete
    2. Well, it does meet the definition that everybody else uses, including the sponsor of the legislation.

      Delete
    3. Another meaningless law, right Mike?

      Delete
    4. It's no meaningless to those who got out alive because a killer had to stop shooting to reload.

      Delete
    5. That's total bullshit Sammy. Are you going to run toward a shooter while reloading? Please tell me you would! PLEASE! You had better hope that you have a shooter that is totally inept at operating a gun. You had be better than 5 foot or closer to me if you think your going to stop my reload Sammy, of course if you were that close to me in the first place, no more Sammy.

      This crap about stopping a shooter while reloading has been debunked hundreds of times, mainly by law enforcement officials.

      In fact the really high cap mags jam more often than the standard cap mags. Maybe they should mandating only ultra high cap mags instead. They make the gun unwieldy and unreliable.

      Delete
    6. Again you are to stupid to read Gunny loon. I never said stop the shooter while he reloads, I said some have escaped while a shooter reloaded. That's a fact, but even though you claim to know what you are talking about, you don't know that fact. What a gun loon lying idiot. Why do gun loons have to lie?

      Delete
    7. Sammy, Fred, dogone, Laci all one person fool. Prove that people escaped specifically because of a magazine change. Prove it, show an example. You stated its a fact, show it, show that fact or admit you nothing but a low life liar.

      Delete
    8. "I said some have escaped while a shooter reloaded."

      Not my job to do your homework especially since you claim to know, but obviously don't know and just spout your lies. I'll simply enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself. Educate yourself idiot.

      Delete
    9. So you got nothing. Nothing surprising for a pathological liar named Sammy and the typical anti gun loons.

      I searched for ANY reference to ANY escape for mag changes. None. So if you got it, put it up liar. Do it or keep proving my point, you got nothing but lies Fred, oh er Sammy. Oh who cares, your the same guy anyway.

      Delete
    10. "This crap about stopping a shooter while reloading has been debunked hundreds of times, mainly by law enforcement officials."

      Isn't that exactly what happened to Loughner?

      Delete
    11. Love your egotistical paranoia Gunny. All who disagree with you must be the same person. You obviously don't know how to use search engines, one gun (who was in a shooting) wrote a book about it. Keep denying the truth. If you expect others to do your research for you, you should not be such an ass. People (I) don't go out of their way for assholes.

      Delete
    12. No, he had a jam, possibly because of the extended magazine. We've been over this.

      Delete
    13. You obviously don't know how to use search engines, one gun (who was in a shooting) wrote a book about it.

      Please, Sammy, expand on that. I am utterly fascinated by the notion of a gun so talented that it can write a book.

      Talk about "smart guns"!

      Delete
    14. Yes, we have, and a jam is exactly the same thing as running out of rounds and having to change the magazine. It allows for a momentary pause in the shooting - exactly what we need more of in a spree shooting.

      Delete
    15. Well, except that "momentary pause" is considerably longer...

      Delete
    16. No, not necessarily. That would depend on the reaction of the shooter, no? But, do you accept that they're basically the same as far as allowing people to escape or intervene?

      Delete
    17. No, they are not basically the same, a jam is considerably longer. A mag change is 2-5 seconds. Do you accept that the best intervention someone could do in that short amount of time is to fire back with their own carry firearm? Plus, as I pointed out many, many times... a mag change is not safe period. Many of these spree shooters carry multiple guns, and there is the whole tactical reload thing where a shooter can still fire during a mag change if they had to (a practice which the Newtown shooter employed).

      Delete
    18. Typical lying gun loon Kurt. I typed an n instead of a y.
      Is that all you got? of course it is. Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself?

      Delete
  4. Another waste of the citizenry's money and time brought to you by the crooks in congress.

    ReplyDelete