Should very large handgun magazines be heavily regulated

[Ugly Hombre]

The problem is the gun laws that are on the books now are not applied- we need to apply them hard and equally to all citizens. E.G. the laws that charge dope addicts that lie on federal forms to get guns, and people who throw guns in dumpsters where kids can get them, felons caught with guns, and so on etc, etc et al.

Increased bail not no bail. And no get out of jail free baloney

Those kind of laws should be enforced hard. After you start doing that- then maybe we can discuss new laws.

Until then you are just blowing smoke, and everyone knows it.

 

[SJC3081]

He was willing to kill two police officers but somehow a stiffer penalty for a fifty round mag would have prevented the shooting.

 

[rickflst]

Criminals are criminals and do not obey laws. I resounding NO to any restrictions for any capacity magazine. We are in a fight now to get the 2A where it should be and do not need any further regulations that only law abiding citizens would obey.

 

[johngalt]

How about we ban...

Printers that hold > 10 sheets of paper
Cars that hold > 10 gallons of fuel
Cups > 10 oz.
Cases of beer > 10 bottles.

...and so on.

Magazine bans are no less absurd.

 

[steelslaver]

If drinkers were reasonable we could pass a law that you could only get alcohol in those airplane sized bottles so there would be no alcoholism or drunk driving. Call your congressmen

 

[smithra_66]

The tragic murder of two NYC Officers who responded to a domestic disturbance call over the weekend brought very large handgun magazines into the public eye. In this case, it was a 50 round magazine for a Glock pistol.

Personally, I never gave bump stocks too much thought, either before or after they were used in the Las Vegas mass murder a few years back.

On the other hand, to me, a 50 round magazine for a handgun seems wrong.

Assuming for the sake of argument that regulation of very large capacity handgun magazines would pass muster under the Second Amendment, and ignoring the difficulty in defining a very large magazine, I would be in favor of strict regulation of these devices. Perhaps extending felon-in-possession to include very large capacity handgun magazines.

What say the forum?

[P.S., since a 50 round magazine for a handgun is at least somewhat unusual, my guess is that the Supreme Court and the vast majority of lower courts would not overturn a law banning or restricting such devices, but let's please not debate that issue here.]

What kind of logic are you using where you think:

1. "banning" something means criminals can't get it
2. magazine capacity is directly related to one's propensity toward criminal behavior. If i'm not a criminal with a 20 round mag, why would I be a criminal with a 50 round mag?

Your post sounds like it came directly from Handgun Control Inc.

 

[smithra_66]

Guideline sentencing range for simple felon-in-possession is 10 to 78 months in prison. If possessing a loaded very large capacity handgun magazine on the street or in the passenger compartment of a car was a mandatory 10 year sentence, my guess is that the criminal element would take notice.

The real point of my post is that although I believe the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary people to carry firearms outside the home for self defense, I feel there is something about a 50 (or even a 40) round handgun magazine that makes it different.

What number do you prefer? Why did you pick 50 or 40? Nice, round numbers divisible by 10?

How about a prime number? What logic are you using to pick these arbitrary decrees?

 

[smithra_66]

I'm always taken aback when I hear Vietnam-era veterans taking up the 'slippery slope' argument.

So now we have two police officers murdered by a mutant without need to reload for 40 rounds. Anyone recall Gabby Giffords being shot by another mutant who had a Glock with 2 33-round mags? You know the shooting - he killed 6 people as well, including a 9 year-old girl. He fired 31 bullets and was stopped by victims when he dropped his second 33 round mag while reloading.

Outside the circle of firearms enthusiasts who are mistrustful of the Federal government, I doubt you'll find more than a handful of citizens who support bottomless magazines for ANY weapons. This issue, legal extremely high capacity magazines, is a loser for firearms owners over the long term.

LOGIC is never a loser. Please start using some.

 

[quikdraw67]

So...as someone who actually owned a gun prior to the GCA '68, I need to say that right now we are in a golden age of firearms ownership. Concealed carry licensing is widely available, in some places without any permit required. You can buy firearms on the internet and pick them up locally; you can buy ammunition and reloading tools/components online with no restriction (except a in very few places) and on and on. That was most assuredly was NOT true for the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why the paranoia? Firearms access has expanded, not contracted, and even with last year's bump in murder rates, we still enjoy murder rates far less than those of the 70s, 80s, and early-to-mid 90s.
I'm unwilling to screw all of this up over 40, 50, to 100 round magazines.

You don't get it, do you?

 

[smithra_66]

There - that response is precisely how we lose firearms rights.

Think about this...are there really not 270 million people in this country today who would vote tomorrow to outlaw high cap mags? Three-quarters is the standard for amending the Constitution.

Two-thirds vote in Congress, then affirmed by 38 state legislatures.

We lose firearms rights by thinking "some" infringement is okay.

Appeasement of people who hate you and want to take your rights away is silly.

You know as well as I do that making 50 round magazines "illegal" will have absolutely ZERO effect on anything. Hell, in some states, they are already "illegal."

This will never end. You sound like you've been around for a long time. I'm not sure how that escapes you? The left will never say "Okay, we have enough gun restrictions, we're good."

 

[petepeterson]

We lose firearms rights by thinking "some" infringement is okay.

Appeasement of people who hate you and want to take your rights away is silly.

You know as well as I do that making 50 round magazines "illegal" will have absolutely ZERO effect on anything. Hell, in some states, they are already "illegal."

This will never end. You sound like you've been around for a long time. I'm not sure how that escapes you? The left will never say "Okay, we have enough gun restrictions, we're good."

When one sides' goal is to "progress", and the other is merely to "conserve," It's no wonder why our rights disappear.

 

[cw4ski]

Retired US ARMY guy here. Just some minor points here:

1. We expect criminals to obey laws because they are criminals.
2. Most gun laws are designed to punish the law abiding.
3. Making something more illegal has never affected the criminal that relies on the plea bargain to get the reduced sentence.
4. As a Police Officer the last 20+ years I have noticed that convicted felons tend to be prohibited from also possessing ammo. HINT: Each round of ammo can be charged as a separate offense. See link below.

Maybe we should be looking at the ways to separate the suspect from the victim pool? I find prison to be quite efficient at this. My best customer only got 45 years but because it was a 30 + 15 he has to serve all of the 30 to begin the 15 (South Carolina has some good laws). Just checked; he is eligible for release 04-14-2045. Sure would like to be there to greet him on release day as I am only 64 now.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf

 

[ladder13]

Still waiting for someone to tell me what the anti's have contributed/promoted for the side of the 2A people.

 

[smithra_66]

Still waiting for someone to tell me what the anti's have contributed/promoted for the side of the 2A people.

You'll be waiting for a long, long, long time.

 

[ladder13]

You'll be waiting for a long, long, long time.

By that time they'll be colonizing Pluto.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Why 18 ? The original double stack service pistol was 13 rounds . Heck , the 1911 won two world wars with 7 rd magizine .

And what's with those 30 rd AR mags ? Gene Stoner designed them with 20 round mags .

When the LE fad changed from 9mm to .40 for a cpl decades , typical capacities dropped from 15- 17 to 12- 14 . Upon the Fad changing again , should LE capacities been limited to 12 ? Heck back at the initial transition to wondernines , should they have been limited to six ? After all , that was a huge increase over. What everyone had needed for previous 100 plus years .

 

[quikdraw67]

Take a look at what San Jose CA is proposing for gun owners.

It will do exactly NOTHING to reduce gun crimes.

Typical feel good liberal legislation to say "hey look! we did something! we were thinking about the children!"

Mag capacity restrictions are exactly the same thing.

I myself are not a fan of aftermarket drums and such. I know a lot have reliability issues. I can say the one drum I had that worked 100% of the time was a ChiCom AK wind up 75rd drum. I sold it becuase it was heavy, and a good way to waste ammo, even when it was cheap.

But that's not the point. I'm not a fan, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean that YOU shouldn't be able to own it.

That is the classic difference between a conservative and a liberal.

 

[K Frame Keith]

Uncle Joe says he's only in favor of reasonable gun control, including semi auto and large capacity magazine bans. But he says we should all get a double shotgun for self defense. Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Problem solved. ROFL.

 

[K Frame Keith]

Guideline sentencing range for simple felon-in-possession is 10 to 78 months in prison. If possessing a loaded very large capacity handgun magazine on the street or in the passenger compartment of a car was a mandatory 10 year sentence, my guess is that the criminal element would take notice.

The real point of my post is that although I believe the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary people to carry firearms outside the home for self defense, I feel there is something about a 50 (or even a 40) round handgun magazine that makes it different.

Very respectfully, what makes it different? Look at this from the antis point of view. All guns are evil, no discussion, no compromise. They want to ban guns. Period. If they could, they would.
The 40 round Glock magazine is just the flavor of the day, last month it was AR rifles. Next month it will be something else: silencers, .50 BMG ammo; remember when Glocks were a threat because they didn't show up on x-rays?
NYS already has a 7 round magazine limit for handguns. Surprise! A career criminal violated the law. IMHO what we have here is a social problem; the lack of criminal punishment for felons. If the assailant in NYC last week was arrested carrying, but not using his 40 round Glock, he most probably would have been booked but released without bail. No much in the way of deterrence from his point of view. The solution? Criminals should go to prison for lengthily sentences for all gun crimes.

In conclusion, I don't own a high capacity Glock magazine, a bump stock, a pistol brace AR, a suppressor or many of the other marvelous inventions out there. However, I see no rational need to prohibit my law abiding fellow citizens from possessing them.

 

[quikdraw67]

Very respectfully, what makes it different? Look at this from the antis point of view. All guns are evil, no discussion, no compromise. They want to ban guns. Period. If they could, they would.
The 40 round Glock magazine is just the flavor of the day, last month it was AR rifles. Next month it will be something else: silencers, .50 BMG ammo; remember when Glocks were a threat because they didn't show up on x-rays?
NYS already has a 7 round magazine limit for handguns. Surprise! A career criminal violated the law. IMHO what we have here is a social problem; the lack of criminal punishment for felons. If the assailant in NYC last week was arrested carrying, but not using his 40 round Glock, he most probably would have been booked but released without bail. No much in the way of deterrence from his point of view. The solution? Criminals should go to prison for lengthily sentences for all gun crimes.

In conclusion, I don't own a high capacity Glock magazine, a bump stock, a pistol brace AR, a suppressor or many of the other marvelous inventions out there. However, I see no rational need to prohibit my law abiding fellow citizens from possessing them.

You see no need because you are a rational, thinking person.

Glad to see you're on the free side of the Delaware River.