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.

Sunnyvale's Ban on High Capacity Magazines Upheld in Court

SF Gate

A federal judge on Wednesday allowed Sunnyvale to enforce a voter-approved ban on large-capacity gun magazines, saying it would have little impact on the constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense. The ruling comes two weeks after another judge rejected gun advocates' attempt to block a similar law in San Francisco.

Although millions of Americans own guns with magazines carrying more than 10 cartridges, "it is rare that anyone will need to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense," U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte of San Jose said in his ruling denying an injunction against the Sunnyvale ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect Thursday.

He cited a National Rifle Association report that found Americans who used their firearms to defend themselves fired an average of 2.1-2.2 shots.

Although opponents of the ordinance offered several anecdotes about people who needed high-capacity weapons to protect themselves, Whyte said the "burden on Second Amendment rights ... is relatively light" and was far outweighed by the "compelling government interest in public safety" that the new law promotes.

This was one of those laws our commenters told us was illegal and would not stand.

Federal Judge Rules Against the NRA in San Francisco's Magazine Capacity Limit

TribTown dot com

A judge on Wednesday upheld San Francisco's ban on gun magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, the latest in long series of court rulings grappling with gun rights since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that gun ownership inside the home for self-defense purposes was a fundamental Constitutional right.

The National Rifle Association sought to strike down the ban, arguing that high-capacity magazines were covered by the Supreme Court's ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup disagreed, ruling that the city's law doesn't hinder self-defense and promotes public safety.

San Francisco supervisors enacted the law in November in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newton, Connecticut, in December 2012 that claimed 27 lives. The Sandy Hook gunman was armed with an assault weapon and several magazines each equipped to hold more than 10 bullets each.

Several other cities and states enacted similar bans on magazines equipped to carry more than 10 bullets. Alsup, in refusing the National Rifle Association's demand to stop the San Francisco ban from going into effect on April 7, noted that four other courts across the country upheld similar bans in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Connecticut and New York.

San Francisco Approves Confiscatory Ban on Magazines Holding 10-plus Rounds

Supervisor Malia Cohen is the city official sponsoring the magazine ban.

Guns dot com

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance that places a confiscatory ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo on Oct. 29.

Those who are in possession of the high-capacity magazines or high-capacity ammunition feeding devices will have 90 days to turn them over to police, sell them out-of-state or render them permanently inoperable. Failure to do so will result in misdemeanor charges.

“While not a panacea, this legislation provides law enforcement with more tools to continue to address gun violence and also continues to strengthen our city’s strong stance on gun regulation,” the bill’s sponsor, Supervisor Malia Cohen, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

In 2000, the state legislature placed a ban on the sale, transport, import or purchase of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, but gun owners who purchased 10-plus round magazines before the enactment of the state ban were grandfathered in.

For residents of San Francisco, that no longer holds true unless you qualify for the exemption, i.e. you’re a law enforcement officer, an armored car driver, a museum curator or a Hollywood movie/television producer (these magazines can be “used as props”), according to the law.

I'm not sure if I understand what people who own handguns that come with larger-than-10-round magazines are supposed to do. Can a Glock 17 magazine or a Glock 19 magazine be simply replaced with a 10-round mag? 

Lawrence O'Donnell on Banning High-Capacity Magazines

On TTAG, Robert Farago called O'Donnell "insane" for this.  Here's my comment:

When faced with a compelling argument, you attack. The man is insane. Others you call troll. 

What he said about Loughner is exactly right and it’s one of the best arguments for prohibiting larger-capacity magazines. Lanza is another one. Holmes too.

Some of us have been saying this all along.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

A Case to Ban High Capacity Magazines and Assault Weapons by a Conservative Judge

Larry Alan Burns is the federal district judge in San Diego, who sentenced Jared Loughner.

via Tom Diaz' Facebook Page

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

Sounds pretty simple to me, especially the "with some teeth in it this time."

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Ron Johnson's Opinion of the Constitutional Right to Buy a 100-round Magazine