Should very large handgun magazines be heavily regulated

[biku324]

No; I'm saying that the law (statutes) changes - that happens based on the will of the people, either directly (initiative & referendum) or through their elected representatives. SCOTUS decides if the statutes are within the limits of the Constitution.

It's been the same since 1789.

 

[smithra_66]

No; I'm saying that the law (statutes) changes - that happens based on the will of the people, either directly (initiative & referendum) or through their elected representatives. SCOTUS decides if the statutes are within the limits of the Constitution.

It's been the same since 1789.

Yeah, so let's not do the job of the anti gun nuts for them!

WE are right. WE are based on the constitution. WE need to keep explaining our positions logically, not fall into some silly, emotional nonsense as some sort of "olive branch" in the hopes that the anti-constitutionalists will be nice to us and give us credit for it.

 

[biku324]

You can feel like you're right and still lose in legislatures, Congress, and the courts. The old AWB survived a number of legal challenges at SCOTUS, as have many state and local gun restrictions over the centuries.

I'm still convinced this issue is a loser for gunowners and the status quo, which is now really good.

 

[smithra_66]

You can feel like you're right and still lose in legislatures, Congress, and the courts. The old AWB survived a number of legal challenges at SCOTUS, as have many state and local gun restrictions over the centuries.

I'm still convinced this issue is a loser for gunowners and the status quo, which is now really good.

You like the status quo, yet you propose going back to failed policies from the 1990s as a way to preserve that "status quo" in the form of appeasement.

Okay guy. Whatever you say.

 

[dockmurgw]

Question, do others read long posts like this, or do most of you skip over them like I do?

I read the long ones, only skip the belligerent ones. If I skip them, then I don't reply in kind and get suspended.

 

[Mistered]

While the OP offers one way a ban might be helpful to Law Enforcement:

They'd be easier to catch, though, because of extra 'trails' for illegal purchases, smuggling, snitches, buy/busts found in the commerce to get illegal articles or through simple possession;

How about the well proven aspect of the exacerbation of ancillary crime that ultimately follows the restriction or banning of ANYTHING?

For example - if hi cap mags are banned how about the probably 30+% (or more) of people who simply will NOT even know the law is passed. This is typical for any new laws or bans on things. Are these people suddenly 'criminals' for not knowing the law? And please don't give me the "ignorance of the law" BS - you can't be ignorant of something you did not know existed.

Also consider the 'black market' aspect that follows anything that is banned. Look at what happened during prohibition. Smuggling, 'bathtub booze' made (that not only injured and killed people) AND look at the organized crime that stemmed from it as well.

Take the recent CA law of background checks for ammo. This supposably spawned a network of smuggling that was carried out by truckers who were all ready coming and going in and out of the state.

Last but not least is the 2016 band on private gun sales between people in my own state of Oregon. What a crock of Krap it has become and the 'word on the street' is a LOT of FTF sales are still taking place - between those who know the law exists and those who do not as well.

So while a restriction or ban might result in something advantageous to Law Enforcement it's possible the number of new crimes and problems resulting from it may become GREATER than if the ban or restriction never took place.

 

[biku324]

You like the status quo, yet you propose going back to failed policies from the 1990s as a way to preserve that "status quo" in the form of appeasement.

Okay guy. Whatever you say.

No, I proposed nothing at all. I simply believe that defending extra-capacity mags will not help maintain the status quo and also that defending what lots of folks know about only from their actual usage in mass murder is somewhat likely to cause new restrictions that go well beyond the mags.

I believe one should pick one's battles with care.

 

[johngalt]

When the universal background checks come up, the guys pushing it point out "You already agreed to background checks". And we did. We compromised and gave them NICS. We forfeited the principle.

The same is true of magazine bans. If we compromise and agree to allow bans of 'extra large' capacity magazines, we will have forfeited the principle and lost.

We will be left with nothing but quibbling over numbers.

 

[biku324]

The people who agreed to background checks were in Congress, and their legislation was based on overwhelming support from the general public.

 

[GaryS]

My 5906 came with 15 round magazines from the factory. Yet those magazines are banned in MA if they weren't made before an arbitrary date. Are they "extra capacity" magazines or are they "standard capacity" magazines for that gun?

OTOH, my 6906 came from the factory with 12 round magazines. If buy an adapter and use the 15 round 5906 magazines in the 6906 are those now magically "extra capacity?"

There is no Constitutional basis for enacting a law restricting magazine capacity. The only legislative rationale is cheap political capital for politicians looking to prove that they are "doing something" about crime while not actually doing anything about crime.

If I stick a 30 round magazine into my AR15, I don't suddenly become a homicidal maniac. If I am already a homicidal maniac, the 30 round magazine just makes me a more efficient one.

The firearm is not the weapon, the brain is the weapon, the firearm is just one potential tool that the brain can use as a weapon.

Nonsense and more nonsense. Eventually state legislatures, Congress, then the courts will decide on this issue, extra-capacity magazines, which is how our Constitutional system is designed to work.

 

[biku324]

There's no point in going around in circles - the OP was about the very large capacity (40 round) handgun mag in the pistol used to kill two NYPD officers.

 

[ladder13]

Question, do others read long posts like this, or do most of you skip over them like I do?

My posts are mostly short and to the point, as I don't have command of the language nor the debating ability of others.

Somehow, I just muddle through life.

Certain posters interest me more than others, so I read their written words.

 

[smithra_66]

There's no point in going around in circles - the OP was about the very large capacity (40 round) handgun mag in the pistol used to kill two NYPD officers.

And of all the shootings of cops in the past 50 years, I'd bet less than 1% have been done with "non standard" magazines.

This is nothing more than a "feel good" law that sounds good to people who think with emotion rather than logic.

You can try to negotiate with irrational people if you'd like. I'm not going to.

 

[biku324]

The biggest mass killing in US history, 60 dead and hundreds wounded, at Las Vegas, was accomplished with 3 AR-15s that had 60-100 mags. The Giffords mass killing, 6 dead and 12 wounded, was with a Glock and 30+ round mags. I'm quite surprised this hasn't already caused a legislative backlash. If it never does, it never does.

 

[ladder13]

Interestingly, Officer Mora's widow went after the broken justice system, including the DA, not the gun or the drum magazine.
She got standing ovations from the cops, and religious leaders in attendance.

She may still, but hasn't yet used this tragedy to call for gun control.

 

[zeke]

The biggest mass killing in US history, 60 dead and hundreds wounded, at Las Vegas, was accomplished with 3 AR-15s that had 60-100 mags. The Giffords mass killing, 6 dead and 12 wounded, was with a Glock and 30+ round mags. I'm quite surprised this hasn't already caused a legislative backlash. If it never does, it never does.

I may be old and of failing memory, but while there may not have been a backlash against the mags, pretty sure there was against bump fire stocks that enabled the high rate of fire?

 

[biku324]

Yup, and ATF regulated bump stocks out of the market.

 

[Puller]

Today. What about tomorrow?

Just one killing (JFK) led to GCA '68. Heavily armed gangsters in the '20s/'30s led to the (SCOTUS upheld) ban on destructive devices.

I'm convinced it was LBJ behind the JFK killing, the GCA '68 just used it as an excuse.

 

[Waldo]

You can feel like you're right and still lose in legislatures, Congress, and the courts. The old AWB survived a number of legal challenges at SCOTUS, as have many state and local gun restrictions over the centuries.

I'm still convinced this issue is a loser for gunowners and the status quo, which is now really good.

You have several times referred to the status quo being good or some of the positive changes in gun laws in the last few years. I wonder when we were fighting for these positive laws, were you sitting back saying not to fight and pick your battles?
A few pages back, I asked you if there were any natural or God given rights that you did not think were subject to law makers whims or a vote of the majority? I am still curios about that.

 

[biku324]

1. I wasn't engaged in getting any of the good laws we enjoy now in any way.
2. Sure. None involve unlimited access to firearms.

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

To vindicate the three primary rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." - William Blackstone, 1765

It's worth noting, though, that another English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, a contemporary of Locke, Blackstone, Hobbes and others, thought the whole notion of 'natural rights' was "...nonsense on stilts."