Lautenberg response to my email

[sig2009 3]

Usual response from an email I sent him regarding the 10 round mags.

 

 

"Thank you for contacting me about high capacity ammunition magazines. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

 

From 1994 to 2004, high capacity ammunition magazines—those capable of carrying more than 10 rounds—were illegal as part of the federal assault weapons ban. Since the ban expired in 2004, these magazines have been legal to manufacture and sell. The “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act” (S. 32) would prohibit the manufacture and sale of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. This legislation would not apply to any magazine lawfully possessed before its enactment. It would also make an exception for active and retired law enforcement officers. This bill is designed to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring the means to kill and wound large numbers of people quickly.

 

The “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act” is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Thank you again for contacting me."

 

FRL: mts

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

[mikeyboyeee 66]

MORON!

[vladtepes 1,060]

I am by no means saying this makes it ok.. but hey.. at least you get to keep the ones you have.. lol

[kenw 293]

It would also make an exception for active and retired law enforcement officers.

Why?? Are there no dangerous retired law enforcement officers?

 

This bill is designed to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring the means to kill and wound large numbers of people quickly.

Banning passenger aircraft would do the same thing.

 

When will people have enough of this idiot's blather?

[YankeeFan 49]

Reads like a standard, computer-generated response....

[Krdshrk 3,878]

Hooray for canned responses!

[Rifleman1 32]

• Wouldn't the permitting processes currently in place prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining guns legally?
• Have you seen how fast I can reload with the second, third and fourth 10 round magazines?
• So we should stock up on 15 round magazines just in case?
• Guess I'll have to keep all my receipts!

You're right, Mikeyeeboyee.... MORON.

 

:ph34r:

 

 

[dajonga 397]

That answers one of my questions. As a new gun owner, I have no memory of the first ban, so I was wondering if I would have to surrender the 15 rounders that I already legally own.

[kenw 293]

• Wouldn't the permitting processes currently in place prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining guns legally?
• Have you seen how fast I can reload with the second, third and fourth 10 round magazines?
• So we should stock up on 15 round magazines just in case?
• Guess I'll have to keep all my receipts!

From their perspective, that's the precise argument to ban any and all firearms with a capacity exceeding ONE ROUND. If the 10 round ban goes through, and there's another incident, the next round of restrictions will be for even lower capacities, then banning magazine capable guns in favor of revolvers, and then eventually single shots only. Then the bad guys will just have to carry multiple guns, and when a shooting happens with that, well, you get the picture.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

That answers one of my questions. As a new gun owner, I have no memory of the first ban, so I was wondering if I would have to surrender the 15 rounders that I already legally own.

 

If the bills pass at the Federal level, it would appear that you wouldn't. But if the bill at the State level passes, well, this is NJ......

[dajonga 397]

kenw>>> Actually, the bad guys will have 17 round glocks or Uzi's. We will have flintlock pistols.

[Matt 0]

This bill is designed to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring the means to kill and wound large numbers of people quickly.

 

Well then we should probably pass laws to limit cars to 5 mph as well, those could definitely be used to kill large numbers of people quickly.

[PeteF 1,044]

Usual response from an email I sent him regarding the 10 round mags.

 

 

"Thank you for contacting me about high capacity ammunition magazines. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

 

From 1994 to 2004, high capacity ammunition magazines—those capable of carrying more than 10 rounds—were illegal as part of the federal assault weapons ban. Since the ban expired in 2004, these magazines have been legal to manufacture and sell. The “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act” (S. 32) would prohibit the manufacture and sale of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. This legislation would not apply to any magazine lawfully possessed before its enactment. It would also make an exception for active and retired law enforcement officers. This bill is designed to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring the means to kill and wound large numbers of people quickly.

 

The “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act” is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Thank you again for contacting me."

 

FRL: mts

Sincerely,

 

 

To paraphrase:

 

I didn't read your email so I will send you the generic form letter response.

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

[YankeeFan 49]

Dear Senator Lautenmummy:

 

If your gun control laws reduce the number gun crimes, then may I suggest a law that makes it harder for sober people to buy cars, so we can reduce the number of DUIs on the road. Because we all just want to live in a safer New Jersey. Thank you.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

YankeeFan

 

:icon_mrgreen:

[BigHayden 77]

Actually, if you read the bill, you would be "allowed" by our masters to keep magazines over 10 rounds, but the burden of proof would be on us to show we owned them legally before the ban took effect (smacks of a NJ gun law, doesn't it?). Since they aren't serialized (and how many of us keep receipts?), how are we supposed to prove that? Plus, there is no mechanism for willing them to an heir, so once you die, your magazines become contraband and your loved ones are insta-felons.

 

We can never let them frame the argument as "how many do you need?" as we will lose this argument every time. It's better to actually rephrase the question as three separate questions:

 

How many rounds in a magazine is too many for a criminal?

How many rounds in a magazine is too many for a police officer?

How many rounds in a magazine is too many for a law abiding citizen?

 

Force them into admitting that they think you're more like a criminal than a cop in terms of trust, then you have a basis for arguing some logic and facts. (I know, that may be lost in an argument with an anti, but it's not always about convincing them, it's about convincing the fence-sitting public observing the argument.)

[Malsua 1,422]

 

 

Force them into admitting that they think you're more like a criminal than a cop in terms of trust, then you have a basis for arguing some logic and facts.

 

 

They will just use blanket statement and claim that cops are more trained than you are rather than claim you are a criminal. It doesn't matter what your qualifications even though we know that most cops just meet the minimum requirements.

[e80hydro 120]

I wouldn't waste my time writing to him.

[tony357 386]

I hope you all have reciepts for those high cap mags.. bs.. if they are banned how do you prove that you owned them before..

 

He just gave you a tabaco enema..

[BCeagle 12]

I hope you all have reciepts for those high cap mags.. bs.. if they are banned how do you prove that you owned them before..

 

He just gave you a tabaco enema..

 

 

Isnt the American way for them to prove you didnt own them before. This state sucks.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I hope you all have reciepts for those high cap mags.. bs.. if they are banned how do you prove that you owned them before..

 

He just gave you a tabaco enema..

 

 

if you need receipts for any of those numerous magazines I personally sold you out of my enormous collection.. just let me know.. I will be more than happy to pen up a couple for you..

[Dan 177]

From their perspective, that's the precise argument to ban any and all firearms with a capacity exceeding ONE ROUND. If the 10 round ban goes through, and there's another incident, the next round of restrictions will be for even lower capacities, then banning magazine capable guns in favor of revolvers, and then eventually single shots only. Then the bad guys will just have to carry multiple guns, and when a shooting happens with that, well, you get the picture.

 

"Gun Regulation" is going to be the new anti-gun buzzword. They will stop using "control" as it is more sinister when referring to what has finally been granted an individual right.

 

IMO this is our number #1 landmine post Heller and McDonald. Since the anti-gun rights activists can't take away arms completely, they will fight to regulate them into oblivion. They will spew forth "reasonable and common sense regulation" rhetoric, without any basis , with the goal of leaving us with single shot firearms. This year 10 round mag limits. A few more years maybe 5, then another couple of years semi-auto completely. You catch the drift...

 

It is all about the regulation line drawn in the sand. Where it gets drawn is the next battle gun owners face. Little by little, inch by inch.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

"Gun Regulation" is going to be the new anti-gun buzzword. They will stop using "control" as it is more sinister when referring to what has finally been granted an individual right.

 

IMO this is our number #1 landmine post Heller and McDonald. Since the anti-gun rights activists can't take away arms completely, they will fight to regulate them into oblivion. They will spew forth "reasonable and common sense regulation" rhetoric, without any basis , with the goal of leaving us with single shot firearms. This year 10 round mag limits. A few more years maybe 5, then another couple of years semi-auto completely. You catch the drift...

 

It is all about the regulation line drawn in the sand. Where it gets drawn is the next battle gun owners face. Little by little, inch by inch.

 

Actually the *buzzword* is, and will continue to be, *gun safety*.

 

And *regulation* comes with *gun safety*, because like Bryan Miller says, he can't think of any legitimate reason anybody would need to use more than 10rounds, and it's just common sense.

[kenw 293]

Hey guys, don't use the term "high cap mags". High capacity mags are already illegal in Fortress New Jersey.

 

For the purposes of this debate, I recommend "reduced capacity magazines" or "standard capacity magazines". All we need is a pull quote from something posted in NJ that says something like "So, if the law gets passed, what am I supposed to do with the high cap mags I have now?" It implies that we are currently breaking the law, and will make it easier to push even further reductions if the argument can be made that a substantial part of the community is already ignoring the current law.

 

Let's be just a little aware that we're not the only ones reading this stuff.

[NJCK 5]

Talk about a useless dinosaur out of touch with his constituents and reality!