If mags are banned

[Shawnmoore81 623]

If high capacity mags are banned will the ones sold before the ban be legal to sell and a good investment while they are legal?

[lunker 274]

Let the hoarding begin!

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Also will that wipe the 15 round mag law off the books? If they took away that law 30 round mags would be legal here if they didn't have a serial number.

 

And yes I plan on hording some away.

[BigHayden 77]

The problem with these stupid bans is, "How are we supposed to prove that we had the mags before the ban?". Of course, that's not the banners' problem, it's ours.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

They want the mags made after the ban to have serial numbers

[BigHayden 77]

Also will that wipe the 15 round mag law off the books?

 

Nope. 15 round law would still stand in NJ.

[mcbethr 42]

Depends.

 

I went to Lou Greenwald's office back when he proposed a magazine restriction bill. His aides told me that I would have to turn my 15 round magazines into the police with no compensation.

 

This is what got me involved in politics and 2A / NJ2AS work. Lou Greenwald made me. I tend to buy 6 magazines for every gun I own and by my estimation I have about 20 of these magazines. These magazines have a substantial dollar value attached to them, and I don't like the idea of having to turn them into the police and replace them with 10 round magazines.

 

Or, the magazines could be grandfathered in federally like they were in the first AWB. Can you imagine the logistics of confiscating every magazine in America?

 

IMHO, this bill has ZERO chance of passing, especially in an election year. Heck, I can go over the 1000 round limit just by purchasing 2 bricks of .22.

 

I think this is going to do wonders for NRA's recruitment.

[1HitCombo 0]

I think it's extremely unlikely that hi-cap mags will be banned. NJ and NY politicians and kick and scream all they want. I can't imagine Dems from other States will want to sign on to this type of legislation. Look what happened to the UN treaty and that was a 'fuzzy' issue at best. How many people really even understood what the treaty would or wouldn't do? A total ban on something is crystal clear and very unpopular.

[jrfly3006 42]

As the bill is presently constituted all old mags are grandfarthered in..can not be transferred or sold..only exemption is govt, military and LEO...website gave bill approx 3% chance of passing

[mcbethr 42]

From what I understand, nobody knows how "10 rounds" became the standard capacity. Maybe it's because we have ten fingers and ten toes? Maybe it's because we count in bases of 10? Nobody really knows. Heck, in NJ it's 15, in Maryland it's 20. In Chicago its 12. In Washington, DC it's 10. In Ohio it's 30. In NYC, it's 5 in a rifle, 10 in a pistol.

 

How did Chicago come up with 12?

 

From what I understand, the reasons the magazines were grandfathered in during the original assault weapons ban was that the framers of the bill thought that magazines were consumable one-use devices. In other words that you bought the magazine with the ammunition already inside of it and once it was used up, you threw it away.

 

This is what happens when you have people who don't know anything about guns ("That shoulder thing that goes up") legislating about guns. Of course, if they did know anything about guns, they wouldn't be trying to limit capacity anyway.

 

Capacity is a chimera. The Columbine shootings were done with 10 round magazines and standard-capacity shotguns. The VA Tech shooter had a 15 round Glock 19 and a 10 round Walther .22.

 

It seems like most extended pistol magazines turn your gun into a jam-o-matic. Heck, the reason that the Tucson Shooter was able to be disarmed was that he inserted another 32 round mag and it jammed. There must be something about the spring tension in pistol magazines that make magazines of over 17 rounds "iffy."

 

I don't see myself ever purchasing a 30 round magazine for my Beretta 92 - I would be too afraid that it would jam if I ever needed it. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't want someone to purchase a 30 round magazine for their AR.

[Turbotezza 1]

 

It seems like most extended pistol magazines turn your gun into a jam-o-matic. Heck, the reason that the Tucson Shooter was able to be disarmed was that he inserted another 32 round mag and it jammed. There must be something about the spring tension in pistol magazines that make magazines of over 17 rounds "iffy."

 

Not true. Usually happens when you buy cheap non-factory mags.

[RubberBullets 65]

From what I understand, nobody knows how "10 rounds" became the standard capacity. Maybe it's because we have ten fingers and ten toes? Maybe it's because we count in bases of 10? Nobody really knows.

 

 

Lautenberg is trying to convert us over to the metric system... Sum' ****

[raz-0 1,259]

From what I understand, the reasons the magazines were grandfathered in during the original assault weapons ban was that the framers of the bill thought that magazines were consumable one-use devices. In other words that you bought the magazine with the ammunition already inside of it and once it was used up, you threw it away.

 

I doubt that is the case. I suspect it has more to do with having to compensate people for property you are effectively taking. Some states will not grandfather bans of various things, but give a lead time in which to sell or dispose of items, thus theoretically not denying you of your personal property or the monetary equivalent thereof. The fedgov sticks closer to the eminent domain type of math because they also limit the ability of an individual to export things.

[Murphy4570 15]

Not true. Usually happens when you buy cheap non-factory mags.

 

I agree.

 

Besides, there have been large capacity pistol cartridge magazines around for almost 100 years now. Remember the MP-18? Or the Model 1914 Luger, which became available with a buttstock and 32 round snail drum magazine, making it a carbine?

 

[johnp 45]

^^^ Bad-a** looking! I'll take two please.

[PDM 91]

From what I understand, nobody knows how "10 rounds" became the standard capacity.

 

I think that this is a question that needs to be asked more often by gun rights advocates. We are so busy arguing against any magazine ban -- either on practical grounds (the ban would have no impact) or constitutional grounds -- that we miss the opportunity to highlight that gun control advocates virtually never have any factual basis for their proposals and absolutely never consider the real costs that their proposals would impose on law abiding citizens. I was at a conference and asked Richard Aborn (past president of Handgun Control Inc (precedecessor to Brady) and current gun control talking head) where the 10 round limit comes from. Why not 12, or 15 or 8? His response was that it "seemed like the right number" being slightly more than the capacity of the largest capacity revolver and a "reasonable" number of rounds for self-defense.

 

If we are honest with ourselves, a 10 round magazine probably is more than enough for virtually any realistic civilian self-defense scenario, particularly with a spare mag or two. The real argument against the 10 round limitation is that a huge, huge number of firearms have already been sold with mags between 10 and 20 rounds and an even larger number of additional magazines have been purchased. There would be a huge cost to a ban, even with a grandfather clause because these items would become non-transferrable. In addition, there is a potential incremental benefit from a self-defense standpoint to having more than 10 rounds, even if 10 rounds could be considered sufficient in most scenarios. Again, if we are honest, the same incremental benefit from a self-defense scenario also results in an incremental danger if larger mags are used by violent criminals.

 

I will probably get slammed for this, but I would be fine with an outright ban on mags greater than 30 rounds, provided that people are compensated for turning them in (or make them NFA items and require those procedures to be followed). Mags between 20 and 30 rounds could be banned with a grandfather provision, and mags of 20 rounds or less would not be affected. Do I think this would have a meaningful impact on violence? No. But at least there is some reasoning behind the proposal, which people can obviously disagree with. The cost to law abiding citizens would also be minimal, and the proposal could be wrapped in a larger firearms bill that could, for example, expand nationwide CCW rights.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I think that this is a question that needs to be asked more often by gun rights advocates. We are so busy arguing against any magazine ban -- either on practical grounds (the ban would have no impact) or constitutional grounds -- that we miss the opportunity to highlight that gun control advocates virtually never have any factual basis for their proposals and absolutely never consider the real costs that their proposals would impose on law abiding citizens. I was at a conference and asked Richard Aborn (past president of Handgun Control Inc (precedecessor to Brady) and current gun control talking head) where the 10 round limit comes from. Why not 12, or 15 or 8? His response was that it "seemed like the right number" being slightly more than the capacity of the largest capacity revolver and a "reasonable" number of rounds for self-defense.

 

If we are honest with ourselves, a 10 round magazine probably is more than enough for virtually any realistic civilian self-defense scenario, particularly with a spare mag or two. The real argument against the 10 round limitation is that a huge, huge number of firearms have already been sold with mags between 10 and 20 rounds and an even larger number of additional magazines have been purchased. There would be a huge cost to a ban, even with a grandfather clause because these items would become non-transferrable. In addition, there is a potential incremental benefit from a self-defense standpoint to having more than 10 rounds, even if 10 rounds could be considered sufficient in most scenarios. Again, if we are honest, the same incremental benefit from a self-defense scenario also results in an incremental danger if larger mags are used by violent criminals.

 

I will probably get slammed for this, but I would be fine with an outright ban on mags greater than 30 rounds, provided that people are compensated for turning them in (or make them NFA items and require those procedures to be followed). Mags between 20 and 30 rounds could be banned with a grandfather provision, and mags of 20 rounds or less would not be affected. Do I think this would have a meaningful impact on violence? No. But at least there is some reasoning behind the proposal, which people can obviously disagree with. The cost to law abiding citizens would also be minimal, and the proposal could be wrapped in a larger firearms bill that could, for example, expand nationwide CCW rights.

 

Assuming you think the 2nd amendment limits the bearing and use of arms for civilian defense only. What if one happens to believe 2a was written to affirm citizens rights to protect themselves against tyrannical gov'ts as well as personal defense? Then I suspect a 10 round mag wouldn't suffice.

[PDM 91]

Assuming you think the 2nd amendment limits the bearing and use of arms for civilian defense only. What if one happens to believe 2a was written to affirm citizens rights to protect themselves against tyrannical gov'ts as well as personal defense? Then I suspect a 10 round mag wouldn't suffice.

 

I don't have to assume anything. I can read the Heller and McDonald decisions, which from a real world practical standpoint tell us what the scope of the 2A is (with many fuzzy areas, obviously). Justice Scalia clearly wrote that not all types of arms are covered by the 2A. What are covered are arms in common use for a lawful purpose, with a particular focus on the core use of self-defense. He also gave lip service to the notion that a purpose of the 2A was to "resist tyranny" but did not explicitly include this in the core purpose of the 2A. Thus, machine guns, bazookas, flamethrowers, grenades, etc. all could clearly be banned, IMO (not commonly lawfully owned and not useful in self-defense) . Semi-automatic "assault rifles"? Given that millions of these are lawfully owned for legitimate purposes -- sporting and self-defense -- it seems clear to me that these types of rifles can't be banned outright. As for the magazines, would a ban on 100 round or 30 round magazines eliminate the lawful ownership of these firearms for lawful purposes? I think not. An AR with a 20 round mag or even a 10 round mag is still perfectly suitable for target competition, hog hunting, and self-defense, and still useful to "resist tyranny". People can debate whether the costs of such a ban would outweigh the benefits, but I believe it would pass constitutional muster if reviewed by the Supreme Court.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I don't have to assume anything. I can read the Heller and McDonald decisions, which from a real world practical standpoint tell us what the scope of the 2A is (with many fuzzy areas, obviously). Justice Scalia clearly wrote that not all types of arms are covered by the 2A. What are covered are arms in common use for a lawful purpose, with a particular focus on the core use of self-defense. He also gave lip service to the notion that a purpose of the 2A was to "resist tyranny" but did not explicitly include this in the core purpose of the 2A. Thus, machine guns, bazookas, flamethrowers, grenades, etc. all could clearly be banned, IMO (not commonly lawfully owned and not useful in self-defense) . Semi-automatic "assault rifles"? Given that millions of these are lawfully owned for legitimate purposes -- sporting and self-defense -- it seems clear to me that these types of rifles can't be banned outright. As for the magazines, would a ban on 100 round or 30 round magazines eliminate the lawful ownership of these firearms for lawful purposes? I think not. An AR with a 20 round mag or even a 10 round mag is still perfectly suitable for target competition, hog hunting, and self-defense, and still useful to "resist tyranny". People can debate whether the costs of such a ban would outweigh the benefits, but I believe it would pass constitutional muster if reviewed by the Supreme Court.

I didn't say "Assuming you think our courts say....". I said "Assuming you think". So that was me assuming, not you. It was more of a hypothetical. You're willing to ban the mags because you think arms are for civilian defense only [maybe hunting too?]. Well what about the person who believes 2A is about resisting tyranny. Where does your 10 round mag leave that person? That was my point. And why stop at mags, why not ban rifles as you can defend yourself with a shotgun? You don't need something that can kill someone from a hundreds of yards away. Slippery slope in my opinion.

 

I don't happen to agree with the SC and I gather you don't either since you used the pejorative term "lip service". I believe the ability to resist tyranny is exactly why 2A was penned. I think many people would agree. Anyone who paid attention in world history class should easily understand why it was penned.

 

Passing muster with the SC doesn't mean much, not the first time they've wiped their arses with the constitution. They would likely be a part of the gov't that would suffer should the citizens decide it's time for a change.

[Turbotezza 1]

Slurp! But costs many tens of thousands of dollars for an all matching set.

 

I agree.

 

Besides, there have been large capacity pistol cartridge magazines around for almost 100 years now. Remember the MP-18? Or the Model 1914 Luger, which became available with a buttstock and 32 round snail drum magazine, making it a carbine?

 

[Underdog 1,593]

Maybe the criminals will trade their hicap mags in for crack.

[Underdog 1,593]

The citizen should be able to have ANYTHING that is personally issued to law enforcement officers. If they have 17 round magazines, then the law-abiding citizen should have them as well. If the citizen cannot defend himself with 15-round magazines, and has to stick with 10, then the police should have a limit of 10, too.

 

And, if a F'd up Hicap ban is put on the people, then there should be the utmost severity for criminals caught with them and/or if they are used in a crime. This is such a ridiculous bit of legislation. A determined gunman could do just as much damage with (6) 10-round magazines as someone that has (2) thirty rounders. No common sense. Just knee-jerk reactions and an agenda. This will just harm the firearms industry and hurt the HONEST gun owner. Maybe they should make a 5-round capacity and start collecting revolver's, too.

 

When will the Sheeple wake up?

[Kaiser7 33]

 

I think this is going to do wonders for NRA's recruitment.

 

Despite being openly critical of the NRA, I'm joining this paycheck.

[mipafox 438]

The citizen should be able to have ANYTHING that is personally issued to law enforcement officers. If they have 17 round magazines, then the law-abiding citizen should have them as well. If the citizen cannot defend himself with 15-round magazines, and has to stick with 10, then the police should have a limit of 10, too.

 

If your neighbor has a .38 and his wife calls 911 because he kicked the cat, there is no doubt that the 12 cops that show up need ARs with 30 round mags. Let's face it, they should have the best military weapons, and in this situation, they might need those 30 round mags in those 12 rifles. This is a potential domestic violence situation with the expected possibility of ownership of a firearm.

 

If 4 armed Latin Kings perform a home invasion while you are home alone with your pre-teen daughter and baby, there is no reason you would need more than a 10 round mag for something like self-defense.

 

Got it now? It's simple math, really.

[Mikeythumbs 1]

I do have a problem with the whole ban on magazine size. There was also a mention of makIng anything 30 and over an Nfa item. Now if I understanding this it would mean any 30 rd or greater mag would require a 200 dollar tax stamp an he whole extra Lisence requirement that is just as good as outlawing them it would mean like a 150% tax on a 30 dilaragazime or am I reading that wrong