Should very large handgun magazines be heavily regulated

[biku324]

Just one question. In your experience, if large capacity magazines were illegal, would these "nice" people obey that law?

I bet they would ignore it just like all the rest of them. I also bet that most of these "nice" people you have ran into with large capacity mags have already had experiences with the criminal justice system and are prohibited from even possessing a single shot, yet they have modified guns with large capacity mags.
HMMMM
They will no more obey a large capacity ban than any other law and the chance of them being locked up for 30 more days because they are are caught with one while doing something is near zilch

No, they would/will not obey new laws. 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; they'll also get warehoused at the graybar longer from using illegal firearms or mags in conjuction with crimes. Mutants who just like to kill will find their ability to get these enhanced ability to kill in volume impeded to a degree.

What there really would be is a reduction of the numbers of very high capacity (potentially) illegal mags for legal weapons in all hands, and that means fewer bullets and less blood per criminal incident. You may say that less gangbanger/drug trafficker/street retailer/drive-by shooter blood is not a big deal, and that's hard to argue. But less blood from innocent neighbors, passers-by, people in the wrong place at the wrong time, and all kinds of others who now die as collateral damage from high volumes of poorly aimed fire is really a BFD to me. I suspect that is true for Joe & Jane Average. They vote, and legislators listen.

Legislators will do what they will do, but good folks digging in their heels over really high cap mags is a great way to get labeled as unreasonable and extreme. It's a short step from there to being ignored, then end up dealing with lots of regulations/laws that would not/should not have happened if the argument was differently handled.

None of this is my decision, so I'm not getting exercised about it. Either way.

 

[BC38]

The argument will be and has been made that ALL hi-cap mags are too dangerous for regular folks to own.

Aren't you retired LE? If so, there always seems to be exemptions for LE, even retired LE, so a mag ban, likely, wouldn't affect you, just the rest of us.

If this surprises you then you haven't been paying attention.
There are wolves in sheep's clothing amongst us...

 

[BC38]

Oh yeah, the "be 'reasonable' and accept more 'reasonable' restrictions - lest you be painted as 'extreme' and have something worse imposed on you" argument.
How has that worked out for our fight for our 2nd Amendment rights so far?

 

[Beemerguy53]

I'm just sick of it. I'm as pro gun, pro second amendment as anyone. But there's just too much garbage happening in this country. Its not the fault of the guns, but the fact that we seem so willing to use them to solve all of our various problems we can't seem to deal with just makes me wonder. What is wrong with our society? Taking things away wouldn't solve a thing. But I do often wonder, why would anyone want (take your pick)?

There are people who exploit the First Amendment, and the law, to spread lies and propaganda and whacked-out conspiracy theories...to manufacture pornography...to preach hatred and bigotry...and they have the right, under our Constitution, to do that.

There are people who exploit the Second Amendment, and the law, to make or acquire guns or accessories that appeal only to criminals, and which are used only in furtherance of criminal activity. I hold them in the same esteem as the lowlifes in the first paragraph above.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

4 Charged After Police Seize Ghost Gun Materials During Drug Bust In North Baltimore – CBS Baltimore

 

[Beemerguy53]

...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.

Forget about magazines...I wouldn't bet a dime on the Second Amendment surviving a referendum. Heaven help us if the movement to rewrite the Constitution ever really gains traction.

 

[Beemerguy53]

The problem with "reasonable" and "common sense" gun control laws is who gets to determine what reasonable and common sense are.

Bingo! And we gun owners consistently do things that work against our own self-interest, and prompt even people who might be sympathetic to us to accuse us of being unreasonable, and lacking common sense.

Why Michigan Protesters Were Allowed to Bring Guns in State Capitol

 

[zeke]

Every time someone brings up the hi cap mag argument making gun owners look bad, or what possible purpose they serve, like to remind them of these.

1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia
Battle of Blair Mountain - Wikipedia
Protests, riots that gripped America in 2020 | Fox News

Being the polite person i am, left out the video of Denny being beaten senseless while the police completly abandoned sections of a city to be burned, looted and terrorized.

As an AMERICAN, i have the right to self defense in instances of social breakdowns. Be they riots, the aftermaths of natural disasters or whatever. This also applies to living in areas with limited law enforcement capabilities, which when you consider what the response time is, is everywhere. In some instances, ready access to a firearm with large capacity magazine is easily preferable, without thinking about grabbing extra mags.

 

[steelslaver]

No, they would/will not obey new laws. 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; they'll also get warehoused at the graybar longer from using illegal firearms or mags in conjuction with crimes. Mutants who just like to kill will find their ability to get these enhanced ability to kill in volume impeded to a degree.

What there really would be is a reduction of the numbers of very high capacity (potentially) illegal mags for legal weapons in all hands, and that means fewer bullets and less blood per criminal incident. You may say that less gangbanger/drug trafficker/street retailer/drive-by shooter blood is not a big deal, and that's hard to argue. But less blood from innocent neighbors, passers-by, people in the wrong place at the wrong time, and all kinds of others who now die as collateral damage from high volumes of poorly aimed fire is really a BFD to me. I suspect that is true for Joe & Jane Average. They vote, and legislators listen.

.

Sorry, but not much of what you say would be made easier if high caps were illegal is happening now. Few of the longer sentences for use of a firearm used in a crime already promised to the law abiding when previous gun laws were implemented have become reality. Oh those are used as a bargaining chip in plea bargains. Horse pucky. The average sentence for armed robbery in the US is 111 months and that is the sentence not now long they are actually locked up. Plus the joke is 43% of robbers had previous convictions.

Plus as far as ability to kill with these high cap mags is in reality probably less not more I bet most gang bangers don't burn off even 50 rounds of the specific brand of ammo they use in the mag to check for function. So I will also bet that failure to feed occur at a way high rate by these guys than those with say 20 round mags.

Do I have any use for a 40 or 50 round mag? No

Has being reasonable deterred crime? Lets look at the history and the passage of a "reasonable" gun law.

In 1962 5 years prior to GCA of 1968 the national homicide rate was 4.6 per 100,000 it rose steadily until 1980 peaking at 10.2, but never fell below 8 till 1996 and last 20 years it has hovered right around 5 . How much gun control has done to stop murder . Looks like nothing from my seat.

Another solid fact is that the murder rate in large cites is sky high. Out here in the hither lands that is not true. The large city states fewer guns per capita, but they do have more police, more gun laws and a higher failure rate of either curbing crime

 

[twodog max]

In a very simple word
NO
The crime problem is one of society and all its problems caused by attitude and installed in people in the last 100 years or so.

 

[BAM-BAM]

The mayor of NY was on MSNBC this AM..... if I heard correctly the gunman that shot the two officers over the weekend had either 40 or 44 rounds left as he tried to leave the scene .................

The shooter had a felony history going back to 2010 or earlier in multiple cities

Three officers were responding to the domestic call..... **** storms waiting to happen..... so send in a Social Worker!!!!

The 22 year old officer shot the shooter twice and he died in the last 12 hours from those wounds.

The Shooter also had a AR under his bed

NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the Country

As a felon the shooter was prohibited from having any firearms..........


So ya ...... let's add another law for felons to break and that only honest gun owners will follow!

 

[Donn]

Said it before in these pages, it's frightening how many of our numbers would fall in line with whatever edicts the powers that be thrust on the gun community, then scold the rest of us for not complying. After all, they'd say, "It's for our own good. You don't really need a fill-in-the-blank."

 

[steelslaver]

I got the part about if law abiding gun owners would be reasonable

Another thing I get is that anti gunners have not been reasonable and never will until private ownership of guns is illegal.

 

[petepeterson]

There have been great arguments here on both sides, but with respect, I think some people are missing the point that we can't protect our rights when we alienate or anger or offend the people who make and interpret the laws, or make it hard for our supporters to go to bat for us.

I'm willing to sign up for one more gun law that makes it illegal for anyone to own a magazine that holds more rounds than the original design intended. In return, no additional firearms laws could be introduced- ever. The introduction of any bill relating to restrictions of firearms would result in 30 yrs imprisonment for the offender.

Would your Lords agree to those terms? Absolutely.
Would it last more than a month? What has history shown you?

 

[ladder13]

Let me know when anti gunners and their sympathizers have ever given an inch, I'll wait.

 

[Greyman50]

Man, has the light come on for me regarding some folks on this forum…….

 

[Tom S.]

Man, has the light come on for me regarding some folks on this forum…….

Very true! People who believe two shot shot guns, three shot "hunting" rifles and limited capacity pistols are OK and anything else is bad are sadly ignorant. Anti gunners have always, and will always want all guns outlawed - PERIOD!

Any concessions to them is unwarranted, unnecessary and unforgivable.

 

[johngalt]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on television...but I believe the Supreme Court has pointed out from time to time that no rights under the Constitution are limitless, that there are restrictions that can be put in place.

When would it be reasonable..

To prohibit prayer?
Force quartering of troops in one's house?
Seize property without compensation?
Deny the accused the right to face their accuser in a public trial?
Compel testimony against oneself?
Inflict cruel and unusual punishment?

The presumption behind 'reasonable restrictions' is the old saying 'you're rights end at the tip of my nose'. In other words, you can't interfere in some else exercising their rights. Flip side of that is for a restriction to be reasonable, you have to show that without that restriction, someone else's rights would be infringed upon.

I buy a magazine, be it 10 rounds, 100, or 1000 (or for that manner, any piece of property). I take it home. Where is the tip of your nose in all this? With which of your rights am I interfering? That's correct - none. So what would make that restriction reasonable? It doesn't.

 

[johngalt]

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

...if asked to vote on banning magazines over 30 for long guns and 18 for pistols, I'd vote to ban...

Doesn't surprise me a bit...

 

[dockmurgw]

Said it before in these pages, it's frightening how many of our numbers would fall in line with whatever edicts the powers that be thrust on the gun community, then scold the rest of us for not complying. After all, they'd say, "It's for our own good. You don't really need a fill-in-the-blank."

I only see two, one being the OP, and even the OP is unsure and only offered this for discussion. Rather than be frightened by that, understand that they represent a MAJORITY of gun owners...this forum does not represent a majority of gun owners. And for saying this, many here will jump to the conclusion that I support magazine restrictions and that I'm a FUD...and I clearly don't.

 

[gregintenn]

It baffles me that people suggest that new laws will prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law. Laws protect the lawbreaker, not the citizen. Without laws we would be able to address lawbreakers at our discretion rather than the punishment being limited by prosecutor and statute.

Precisely!



We don't have a gun or magazine problem; we have a criminal problem.


It is foolish to believe that regulating inanimate objects will change human behavior.


Until criminal behavior is dealt with in a quick and severe fashion, this problem will continue to fester.


Politicians are more than willing to exploit this problem in order to gain more control over you, rather than do anything to correct the actual problem.