Solution to possible magazine ban ...

[mc5aw]

There's a magazine ban on the horizon, right? Here's the way to get around it ... manufacturers stop calling their products "magazines", and start calling them "periodicals". The ban comes down prohibiting the sale of certain magazines, and it's irrelevant because everyone will already be buying periodicals. No harm done. The best part? The government can't retroactively ban sales of periodicals because that would be a violation of freedom of the press, and the publishing industry wouldn't have it.

You heard it here first ...

[Terry C]

Won't matter, everyone will still call them clips . . .

[41collector]

The media has taken to calling them magazine clips. Have heard that on several "news" reports.

[mc5aw]

I always thought a magazine clip was a well written article or coupon you cut out ...

[GatorFarmer]

If you inscribe religious iconography on a magazine does that make it protected as either art or as freedom of expression?

[chief38]

I just hope the Anti's DON'T ever see the video of Jerry Miculek speed loading his 7 shot revolver's!!!!

[diamonback68]

Originally Posted by mc5aw

I always thought a magazine clip was a well written article or coupon you cut out ...

That's what I thought too.

[Gunslinger808]

Belt fed FTW!

[WuzzFuzz]

Hmmm...With a little ole American know how....why not "belt fed"?

That wouldn't be a magazine, a clip, or a magaclip......Still only shoots one time for each time of a trigger pull.

Might be a bit awkward to carry around a tin with a belt load, but still.....

As GatorFarmer notes, and to carry it a bit further. If the ammo is first blessed, would "Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition", also qualify for separation of Church and State?

WuzzFuzz

[carpriver]

I think we should call them transport for like minded bullets. Or mass storage unit.

[WuzzFuzz]

If a former President can use semantics to describe the word "IS", and escape impeachment. Then why can't gun owners use semantics also? Is it a Clip that is banned? Is it a Magazine that is banned? Is it a Magazine-Clip that is banned?

If the bad guys can get off on a technicality, then will gun owners also be able to be able to use a technicality by the wording of the law?

A long these same lines, I've read so much about "Assault" weapons, or "Assault Type" of weapons. But I really have not heard or read a definitive description of what "IS". I have read when that word first came about... a WWII German gun..(Don't ask me to name it here and now though) Will each and every gun that supposedly meets the criteria have to be specifically named in the ban????? Or will a blanket..."All black guns"...ect..ect....be sufficient?

If the law does not specifically spell out what "IS" banned, by words meaning, ... a item for holding additional bullets, ... then IMO, it will be difficult to say it is a banned item.??????????


Lots of questions still...Lots of hoops...and lots of loop holes to jump through.


WuzzFuzz

[David LaPell]

I think here in New York we better start calling them "endangered".

[jkc]

Originally Posted by chief38

I just hope the Anti's DON'T ever see the video of Jerry Miculek speed loading his 7 shot revolver's!!!!

I hope they do see it --- some of the more rational among them might see the futility of their hare-brained antipathy to " high capacity bullet magazine clips..." "You may call me a dreamer..."

[805moparkid]

i just had a terrible though... MOON CLIPS... would those be affected?

[Jetpilot007]

Strength in numbers....Sign up with the NRA....TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

[Bullzaye]

I realize you guys are mostly joking around with this, but for anyone else...when these pieces of legislation are written, they always refer to magazines, but they also include belts, drums and other "ammunition-feeding devices" in the list of banned or affected items.

You can call it a diamond-studded tiara if you wish, but if it's an ammunition-feeding device...it'll still be affected.

Tim

[hd28cw]

or they could be called "journal vol. 30"

[DigiRebel]

I've read so much about "Assault" weapons, or "Assault Type" of weapons. But I really have not heard or read a definitive description of what "IS".

I believe in the 1932 ban the name assault weapon was assigned to any weapon with selective fire capabilities.

Now it means anything that looks sort of like a military weapon. Which of course means if you put your AR15 in a basic wood stock (no thumbhole!) then its probably fine.

I've decided that I will get a copy of the President's suit and a rubber Obama mask. Then I'll be a President Style Assault Person, and go to DC and make a few laws. Because you know, if you look similar you must be the same right?

[Bullzaye]

Originally Posted by DigiRebel

I believe in the 1932 ban the name assault weapon was assigned to any weapon with selective fire capabilities.

I'm not going to look up the actual wording of the 1932 GCA right this moment, but I believe you're incorrect when you state this. If I recall correctly, the term assault rifle was first used by the Germans in WWII, and I believe it was the STG44, or Sturmgewehr (assault rifle), 12 years after the GCA. I'm not sure when the first use of the term assault weapon occurred, but I believe it's generally a contrived term used by the anti-gunners to further their agenda.

As to the original question as to the true definition of an assault rifle...it would be a selective fire rifle or carbine (though I suppose that a weapon that was incapable of anything other than FA fire would also qualify) firing a medium-power cartridge. While I don't believe there's a minimum capacity of magazine to truly be considered an assault rifle, since they employ FA fire, a relatively large magazine is a must.

As to the definition of the so-called "assault weapons" that could be included in any future ban, that would be dependent on the language of the ban. If they choose to term it as such, assault weapon could include pump-action .22s. As an example, if memory serves, a tube-fed pump action .22 with a magazine that holds 12 rounds or more, is classified by Washington D.C. law as a machine gun!

Tim

[2152hq]

In the NY law, which is a re-write of the original'94 NYS A/W law,
tube feed .22cal rf rifles (non-detachable tube) is exempt. I don't see any change in that in the new law (yet)
Tube feed shotguns in the 94 NYS law were limited to 5 shot mag capacity so as not to be an A/W.

Drum feed, belts, links, ect are considered a large capacity magazine system if more than 10rd capacity.

Drum mags for the semi auto Thompson (Kahr mfg?) sold in NY were a meger 10rd cap. Now those will still be legal to have,,but you can only load them with 7 rds or be in violation of KingKomo.
Any new mags sold from now on will have to be 7rd capacity.

A really short link of 7rds would be legal if you happen to have something that it fits in.
If you do, undoubtedly it'll have to be registered now,,maybe they'll change they're minds next year and decide to collect them all... Make it safe for the children...

Snap an 8th round to the chain and off to the Big House for you.

[mkk41]

Look on the very , very slim brite side.

At least ya can still pack a S&W revolver or Colt 1911 (or 2).

I certainly wouldn't feel disarmed with those.