McCarthy's Magazine Ban Bill

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Here's a link to Carrie McCarthy's Bill banning so called high capacity magazines and devices.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46829434/Mccarthy-Magazine-Bill

 

But don't worry, she really does respect the 2A......

[JohnKimble 4]

Limit my mags, fine, but let me carry concealed for god's sakes!

[vladtepes 1,060]

thank god.. once this goes into effect it will end all gun crime.. yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111

[vladtepes 1,060]

Limit my mags, fine, but let me carry concealed for god's sakes!

 

 

no no...

[Dan 177]

Limit my mags, fine, but let me carry concealed for god's sakes!

 

No way. Give an inch , they take a mile. Keep fighting for our rights, all of them. Once you give in in and give up a right, it may as well be gone forever.

[tankcommander 4]

If the stupid hags husband or some one else on the damn train had been allowed to carry the women wouldn't be in Congress.

[PistolWhip 13]

I guess next we'll be enacting laws to slow down how fast you can change your lower capacity magazines....

 

Who wants to bet the conversation that led to this idea sounded something like this:

"Oh my, a politician was shot and a judge was killed, now we really have a gun violence problem in this country. When it was just black kids and other regular people it didn't matter so much, but now that they're shooting us we have to come up with some laws. There's no sense in enhancing punishment for violence, that would hinder our poor misguided career criminals rehabilitation. Instead lets just write a bunch of crap down on a piece of paper, criminalize the rest of our civilians and pretend we earn our 7 figure salaries while the rest of the suckers.... oh, I mean citizens lose their jobs, houses, health care, families and lives. I mean really, what other priorities do we have in this country to attend to? I mean there's nothing else going on..."

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Limit my mags, fine, but let me carry concealed for god's sakes!

 

To write something like that, is the equivalent of saying that you can already carry in NJ, you just need a justifiable reason, and that's only common sense.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Just reread the bill, and noticed this;

 

Starting on live 7

 

(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition

7 feeding device’

8 ‘‘ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed

9 strip, or similar device that has a capacity of,

10 or that can be readily restored or converted to

11 accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

12 but

13‘‘does not include an attached tubular

14 device designed to accept, and capable of oper-

15 ating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammuni-

16 tion.’’.

 

Sounds to me that this is not limited to semi autos?

 

Any thoughts?

[BRN169 6]

I guess next we'll be enacting laws to slow down how fast you can change your lower capacity magazines....

 

Who wants to bet the conversation that led to this idea sounded something like this:

"Oh my, a politician was shot and a judge was killed, now we really have a gun violence problem in this country. When it was just black kids and other regular people it didn't matter so much, but now that they're shooting us we have to come up with some laws. There's no sense in enhancing punishment for violence, that would hinder our poor misguided career criminals rehabilitation. Instead lets just write a bunch of crap down on a piece of paper, criminalize the rest of our civilians and pretend we earn our 7 figure salaries while the rest of the suckers.... oh, I mean citizens lose their jobs, houses, health care, families and lives. I mean really, what other priorities do we have in this country to attend to? I mean there's nothing else going on..."

 

I still contend this assbag was probably using cheap aftermarket non-drop free 33 rnd mags and had he been using even 10 rnd drop free mags no one would have been able to touch him until they shot him or he ran out of ammo...

 

Actually I think the conversation went more like this...

 

Carolyn: Shams, Hi its Carolyn, the wait is over, someone just popped that Arizona NRA shrill Gabby Giffords in the head. Quickly, get my magazine bill ready for submittal and book me on all the CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, NBC and CBS shows before the blood dries. Hurry!

 

BTW Shams Tarek is her press secretary...

[The_Matrix 105]

Limit my mags, fine, but let me carry concealed for god's sakes!

 

You give an inch, they will want a football field. No way in Hell.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

This woman got elected on the blood of her husband like 15 years ago and she's still there. Seems like she does well when people get shot.

Where's that clip on CNN or MSNBC where the announcer asks her what a barrel shroud is and she has no idea?

[BigHayden 77]

Just reread the bill, and noticed this;

 

Starting on live 7

 

(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition

7 feeding device’

8 ‘‘ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed

9 strip, or similar device that has a capacity of,

10 or that can be readily restored or converted to

11 accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

12 but

13‘‘does not include an attached tubular

14 device designed to accept, and capable of oper-

15 ating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammuni-

16 tion.’’.

 

Sounds to me that this is not limited to semi autos?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Sounds like it would exempt .22 tube fed rifles. Funny, some of those are considered "assault weapons" in NJ...

 

It really aggravates me when these idiots write these bills and then exempt law enforcement. Why? If "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" are so dangerous and cause otherwise normal people to go crazy and go on murderous rampages, why exempt law enforcement? (Rhetorical questions, guys. Not really looking for an explanation of the unexplainable)

 

Even her little explanation letter is chock full of bull-plop. First, she acknowledges that we have the right to keep and bear arms, but then she goes on to say it can be restricted. She justifies this by trotting out the tired old yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a "practical limit" on free speech. This is the worst comparison I've ever read. It's actually perfectly legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if, in fact, there actually is a fire. You will not be charged with a crime for doing so. Also, when you enter the theater, you still retain the capacity to yell "Fire!" and can only be punished for using your voice to incite panic. This means you can be punished for abusing your 1st amendment right. McCarthy's bill infringes on your 2nd amendment right before you have a chance to abuse it.

 

Then she claims, being the firearms expert she is, that the only reason (not one reason, not "a" reason, but the absolute only reason) these magazines exist is to "be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible". She says there is no reason for these to be available to the "general public". Now, couple those two claims with the fact that she wants to exempt law enforcement and one can logically conclude that Congresswoman McCarthy wants to make it possible for the police to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. (Another rhetorical question: Can this be construed as a terroristic threat against the American public?)

 

And the icing on the cake has to be this gem: "It is a sad fact of reality that we will never be able to prevent every instance of gun violence. We also will not be able to keep these large capacity magazines out of the hands of every criminal who would use them." She admits, in black and white, that her bill will not prevent anyone from getting shot, nor will this do anything to keep hi-caps out of the hands of criminals, which is, ostensibly, the entire purpose of the bill.

 

Tomorrow, I am going to print a copy of Congresscritter McCarthy's summary letter and write a rebuttal letter to send to my Congressional moron (Andrews, D-1) urging him NOT to support this legislation (though I might already be too late.. he might already be a co-sponsor). I'll be curious to see if he even bothers to respond. I'll keep you guys posted.

[sig2009 3]

Sounds like it would exempt .22 tube fed rifles. Funny, some of those are considered "assault weapons" in NJ...

 

It really aggravates me when these idiots write these bills and then exempt law enforcement. Why? If "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" are so dangerous and cause otherwise normal people to go crazy and go on murderous rampages, why exempt law enforcement? (Rhetorical questions, guys. Not really looking for an explanation of the unexplainable)

 

Even her little explanation letter is chock full of bull-plop. First, she acknowledges that we have the right to keep and bear arms, but then she goes on to say it can be restricted. She justifies this by trotting out the tired old yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a "practical limit" on free speech. This is the worst comparison I've ever read. It's actually perfectly legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if, in fact, there actually is a fire. You will not be charged with a crime for doing so. Also, when you enter the theater, you still retain the capacity to yell "Fire!" and can only be punished for using your voice to incite panic. This means you can be punished for abusing your 1st amendment right. McCarthy's bill infringes on your 2nd amendment right before you have a chance to abuse it.

 

Then she claims, being the firearms expert she is, that the only reason (not one reason, not "a" reason, but the absolute only reason) these magazines exist is to "be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible". She says there is no reason for these to be available to the "general public". Now, couple those two claims with the fact that she wants to exempt law enforcement and one can logically conclude that Congresswoman McCarthy wants to make it possible for the police to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. (Another rhetorical question: Can this be construed as a terroristic threat against the American public?)

 

And the icing on the cake has to be this gem: "It is a sad fact of reality that we will never be able to prevent every instance of gun violence. We also will not be able to keep these large capacity magazines out of the hands of every criminal who would use them." She admits, in black and white, that her bill will not prevent anyone from getting shot, nor will this do anything to keep hi-caps out of the hands of criminals, which is, ostensibly, the entire purpose of the bill.

 

Tomorrow, I am going to print a copy of Congresscritter McCarthy's summary letter and write a rebuttal letter to send to my Congressional moron (Andrews, D-1) urging him NOT to support this legislation (though I might already be too late.. he might already be a co-sponsor). I'll be curious to see if he even bothers to respond. I'll keep you guys posted.

 

that is incorrect about 22 cal rifles. My next door neighbor moved here from NY and transfered his guns to NJ by the local FFL. They did not return his 22 rifle to him until the tube fed mag was pinned to only hold 15 rounds.

[sig2009 3]

This woman got elected on the blood of her husband like 15 years ago and she's still there. Seems like she does well when people get shot.

Where's that clip on CNN or MSNBC where the announcer asks her what a barrel shroud is and she has no idea?

 

McCarthy does nothing. She only proposes legislation that has something to do with gun laws.

[BigHayden 77]

that is incorrect about 22 cal rifles. My next door neighbor moved here from NY and transfered his guns to NJ by the local FFL. They did not return his 22 rifle to him until the tube fed mag was pinned to only hold 15 rounds.

 

Uh, what part about the .22 rifles is incorrect?

[mikeyboyeee 66]

Just reread the bill, and noticed this;

 

Starting on live 7

 

(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition

7 feeding device’

8 ‘‘ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed

9 strip, or similar device that has a capacity of,

10 or that can be readily restored or converted to

11 accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

12 but

13‘‘does not include an attached tubular

14 device designed to accept, and capable of oper-

15 ating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammuni-

16 tion.’’.

 

Sounds to me that this is not limited to semi autos?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Yeah, my thoughts it will never get out of the House!

A non issue for us. NO WAY this is even talked about in 6 weeks.

[Old School 611]

Limit my mags, fine, but let me carry concealed for god's sakes!

 

You will be sleeping with camels with that attitude. Meaning you are allowing the camel's nose under the tent.

[Old School 611]

If the stupid hags husband or some one else on the damn train had been allowed to carry the women wouldn't be in Congress.

 

 

+1 Useless drone that she is!

[GAPP 11]

Most republicans (and even many democrats) will tell you gun control is all but a dead issue in congress. So lets all hope for the greater good that this bill goes nowhere.

[JohnKimble 4]

The reality is that no gun legislation will see the light of day.

Let them introduce all the bills they want.

[BRN169 6]

The reality is that no gun legislation will see the light of day.

Let them introduce all the bills they want.

 

Agreed but it is good for them to get some face time every now and then if for no other reason but to remind those more apathetic than us what they are capable of when they have power... It is truly a miracle we survived the two years with the majorities they had in the house and senate without seeing any anti-gun bills even come to a vote. I credit Harry Reid with this. Granted they did plenty of damage in other areas but you have to admit had they the political will they could have stuck it to us good over the last two years...

[PistolWhip 13]

Distractions can sometimes be your friend. Lets also not forget the good ole' one gun a month law. I'm certainly going to do my best to not only bolster the economy, but stay within the laws by doing exactly that, buy one gun a month. Funny thing is, before that law, I bought maybe one gun a year, but now since they really want me to buy one a month and most of the guns I buy are made right here in America, I can kill two birds with one very fast and very loud stone.