As I have posted elsewhere the bill has now been presented and has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. The Bill is H.R. 308, I have written my congress-critters but I am not in any of the districts of any of the committee members. I don't believe that they have formally announced the 112th congress Judiciary committee members yet but I do know that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX21) is the chairman. I strongly encourage anyone in Rep. Smith's district to contact him with the ramifications of this bill. If you're not in Rep Smith's district don't forget to write or contact your own representatives. I hope we can get this to die in committee.
Here are some of the ramifications of this bill. I have already had several in mind but I found this list more exhaustive. Feel free to add more that I may have missed. The majority are from SurvivalBlog.com (I am only adding snippets from the article which is on the main page, mods let me know if this is not OK) and have added my own comments in blue italics, check the main survivalblog page for several more good points:
From the main page on SurvivalBlog.com, this appears to be written by Mr Rawles.
* The bill defines large capacity ammunition feeding devices as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition” (snip)
* For Pre-Enactment Devices: Prohibits the transfer or import (but not possession) of large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured before the date of enactment of the bill. This is a huge difference from the 1994 ban, which allowed the transfer of any "pre-ban" magazines or belts, under a grandfather clause.
* As Sebastian at the Snowflakes in H*ll blog pointed out, the ban includes any magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges, even if it is a fixed tubular magazine. (The only exception is for .22 rimfire.) So this effectively bans transfers of even pre-1898 antique Henry, Model 1866, Model 1873, and Model 1892 Winchester rifles (and replicas) with long magazines! Ditto for Colt Lightning rifles and many other pump and lever-action guns. And ditto for Astra Broomhandle Mauser pistols with integral 12 or 20 round magazines. All these guns would be "frozen" from any transfer until the death of their owner, whereupon the guns would become contraband.
* It also includes fixed tubular magazines on shotguns. It is noteworthy that many shotguns with ostensibly "7 round" or "8 round" tubular magazines actually have 12+ round magazines if you use the stubby Mini 12 gauge shells. (And remember, it will be the notorious "shoelace squad" BATFE that will be enforcing the law, so any guesses on how they will define the magazine capacity of your shotgun?) (snip)
* The absurdity of this bill can best be seen when you consider that it will also control the magazines, belts, and links used for registered Class 3 full-auto guns. Who would ever want to buy a $7,000+ registered machinegun if the only magazines and belts available for purchase are limited to 10 round capacity? (The guns themselves could still be transferred with a $200 Federal tax, but the magazines, and belts could only be transferred if they held 10 rounds or less. And to be legal, any belts assembled from links after the bill is enacted would be limited to 10-round length. That is absolutely ludicrous.) This bullet fails to mention that legally owned firearms that natively use mags in >10 rnd capacity's, will only be able to be transferred.... sans magazine. Essentially preventing you from transferring to someone who doesn't already own said magazines. Who will want to own a, most likely, more expensive pre-ban firearm if they can go out and get a cheaper "new" firearm that comes with natively "neutered" magazines and magazine wells that will refuse "standard capacity" magazines? But what about OEM neutered post ban mags with extended followers or inserts limiting capacity. Thats good, UNTIL the BATFE gets them banned, since I don't see how almost any mag wouldn't be "readily convertible" under how the BATFE tests things regardless of how they are neutered.
* The "transfer" portion of this law opens up innumerable opportunities for inadvertent law-breaking. What about a soldier who accidentally brings home an M16 magazine in his TA-50 dufflebag? What about someone who bids on buying the entire contents of a storage space with a lapsed contract? If they bring home a box that includes just one 11+ round magazine, then they will have committed a felony with huge fines and a possible 10 year prison sentence. (snip)
* Most importantly: There is no exception in the law for passing down magazines, belts, or links within a family, as gifts or bequests. Once you die, then your 11+ round magazines will become contraband, and any subsequent possessor could be charged with a felony. Your heirs might as well tuck your magazines in your casket. (snip)
Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committee..
-
blackomega
- New Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:50 am
-
blackomega
- New Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:50 am
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Here is the bills information in case anyone was curious.........
It also includes is a list of co-sponsors. This is from Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.308 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
H.R.308 -- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 308 IH
112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 308
To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 18, 2011
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. CLAY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. ISRAEL, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. NADLER, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. CHU, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. HOLT, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. HIMES, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FARR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
* Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
* This Act may be cited as the `Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
* (a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
*
o `(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
*
o
+ `(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
*
o
+ `(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.
* (b) Prohibitions- Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
* `(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
* `(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
* `(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
* `(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
*
o `(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
*
o `(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such a licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
*
o `(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or
*
o `(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.'.
* (c) Penalties- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
* `( Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
* (d) Identification Markings- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.'.
It also includes is a list of co-sponsors. This is from Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.308 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
H.R.308 -- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 308 IH
112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 308
To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 18, 2011
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. CLAY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. ISRAEL, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. NADLER, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. CHU, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. HOLT, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. HIMES, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FARR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
* Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
* This Act may be cited as the `Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
* (a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
*
o `(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
*
o
+ `(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
*
o
+ `(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.
* (b) Prohibitions- Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
* `(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
* `(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
* `(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
* `(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
*
o `(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
*
o `(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such a licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
*
o `(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or
*
o `(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.'.
* (c) Penalties- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
* `( Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
* (d) Identification Markings- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.'.
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
...and these people are mostly lawyers? You'd think they'd be more precise in their language. Or maybe they believe that anyone that still has a gun after they've had their way with us deserves to be in jail.
For example: "...does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'."
By this, they seem to be referring to the "tubular device", not the firearm, when they give the two required conditions of being "designed to accept" and "capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition"
So, if I can put a .17 HMR bullet in my .22 LR tube, regardless of whether or not I can actually fire those in my .22, I'm committing a felony simply by having it, and not even trying to put .17 HMR ammo in it? You can disregard that the tube wasn't designed for it mind you, because bill specifically says "and", not "or". Simply that the tube is "capable" of operating with something other than .22 caliber rimfire ammo means it does not qualify for this exemption. The fact that it was designed to accept only .22 ammo, and that it wasn't modified wouldn't save you, because the tube must also not be capable of operating with anything other than .22 rimfire ammo. What other ammo can fit down a .22 tube, especially if you take the rod out? The evil, evil, armor piercing 5.7 perhaps?
It would also be nice if they further defined "magazine", because that word is also used to refer to fortified storage facitlities for explosives, and I'm sure any of those can hold more than 10 rounds.
I'm also sick and tired of seeing these sort of bills that specifically include exemptions for government agencies. I know we've come to expect this, but isn't this what the 2nd Amendment is all about?
...and the exemption for retired LEO's? Yeah, we've seen that before too, but why specifically for the possession of high capacity magazines? If they are so evil and only meant for mass murder, what would a retired LEO need such a device for? Do they offer some sort of benefit in defensive situations? Hrmmm, you don't say...
Don't even get me started on belt ammo. If you sell someone 11 links, or have 11 links that are stamped with a serial number and date code indicating they were made after the ban, that's constructive intent...
For example: "...does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'."
By this, they seem to be referring to the "tubular device", not the firearm, when they give the two required conditions of being "designed to accept" and "capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition"
So, if I can put a .17 HMR bullet in my .22 LR tube, regardless of whether or not I can actually fire those in my .22, I'm committing a felony simply by having it, and not even trying to put .17 HMR ammo in it? You can disregard that the tube wasn't designed for it mind you, because bill specifically says "and", not "or". Simply that the tube is "capable" of operating with something other than .22 caliber rimfire ammo means it does not qualify for this exemption. The fact that it was designed to accept only .22 ammo, and that it wasn't modified wouldn't save you, because the tube must also not be capable of operating with anything other than .22 rimfire ammo. What other ammo can fit down a .22 tube, especially if you take the rod out? The evil, evil, armor piercing 5.7 perhaps?
It would also be nice if they further defined "magazine", because that word is also used to refer to fortified storage facitlities for explosives, and I'm sure any of those can hold more than 10 rounds.
I'm also sick and tired of seeing these sort of bills that specifically include exemptions for government agencies. I know we've come to expect this, but isn't this what the 2nd Amendment is all about?
...and the exemption for retired LEO's? Yeah, we've seen that before too, but why specifically for the possession of high capacity magazines? If they are so evil and only meant for mass murder, what would a retired LEO need such a device for? Do they offer some sort of benefit in defensive situations? Hrmmm, you don't say...
Don't even get me started on belt ammo. If you sell someone 11 links, or have 11 links that are stamped with a serial number and date code indicating they were made after the ban, that's constructive intent...
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Just thought of something else that could work in our favor when I saw the new Kel-Tec shotgun that holds 7+7+1 rounds. The way I see it, this shotgun has two devices that each hold 7 rounds. Such a firearm should be legal in the extremely unlikely event this bill becomes law someday.
Or, what if you designed a firearm that could accept two ten round magazines and feed from them both?
Or how about two ore more magazines that you can stack end to end to give yourself a 20+ round capacity, while each of them is still a magazine in and of itself and as such, two or more separate "devices", and not one single "device that has a capacity of ... more than 10 rounds of ammunition."
In other words, pass shitty laws, win shitty prizes...
Or, what if you designed a firearm that could accept two ten round magazines and feed from them both?
Or how about two ore more magazines that you can stack end to end to give yourself a 20+ round capacity, while each of them is still a magazine in and of itself and as such, two or more separate "devices", and not one single "device that has a capacity of ... more than 10 rounds of ammunition."
In other words, pass shitty laws, win shitty prizes...
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I also think that all of the people that are listed as sponsors on this bill, and anyone that votes for it, should be brought up on criminal charges.
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
-
Libertarian_Geek
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Snarkeville, MS
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
+1,000,000Blaubart wrote:I also think that all of the people that are listed as sponsors on this bill, and anyone that votes for it, should be brought up on criminal charges.
How about a law that criminalizes any action taken by an elected official to subvert the US constitution? Penalty $5,000,000 + Life in prison.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Why prison? Rope's cheap.
How about dragged behind a horse?
Forced to visit every citizen in the United States and apologize personally?
How about dragged behind a horse?
Forced to visit every citizen in the United States and apologize personally?
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Where do I donate?Libertarian_Geek wrote:+1,000,000Blaubart wrote:I also think that all of the people that are listed as sponsors on this bill, and anyone that votes for it, should be brought up on criminal charges.
How about a law that criminalizes any action taken by an elected official to subvert the US constitution? Penalty $5,000,000 + Life in prison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
-
Selectedmarksman
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 6633
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:16 am
- Location: KY
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
It's things like this that are why I own more magazines than I need. I have magazines for guns I don't even own sitting empty in my safe. I also have the means to make those magazines non-empty, if necessary.
I've got Honey Badger Fever.
*Add this to your sig if you've got the fever, too!
*Add this to your sig if you've got the fever, too!
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
The absurd amount of existing AR15 and AK47 owners and existing magazines for them will prevent this sort of thing from having any impact if, in the unlikely event it goes through, it is enforced and not just struck down by the Supreme Court.
It's not 1994 anymore. We have the internet, we have a LOT more gun owners, and a much greater percentage of gun owners are very involved in wanting to keep their firearms being theirs. Just look at the insane amount of people who, after 2004, bought a normal AR15 and a stack of mags JUST BECAUSE.
In 1994, still only a fairly small portion of gun owners used magazines of ordinary capacity over 10 rounds. Now? Hell, now even Fudd likes his PMR-30 and AR-15 (Remington brand, of course). They might as well be going after trap guns, for all the resistance this will cause.
It's not 1994 anymore. We have the internet, we have a LOT more gun owners, and a much greater percentage of gun owners are very involved in wanting to keep their firearms being theirs. Just look at the insane amount of people who, after 2004, bought a normal AR15 and a stack of mags JUST BECAUSE.
In 1994, still only a fairly small portion of gun owners used magazines of ordinary capacity over 10 rounds. Now? Hell, now even Fudd likes his PMR-30 and AR-15 (Remington brand, of course). They might as well be going after trap guns, for all the resistance this will cause.
RIP Dave. You will be missed.
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
That and, every pistol in 9mm pretty much has over 10 rounds in the magazine.
That's pretty much hitting home with everyone.
That's pretty much hitting home with everyone.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
A big part of the problem is gun owners calling their Glock magazines 'high caps.' A Glock 17 magazine is NOT a high capacity magazine. A 30 round AR magazine is not high capacity. They are normal capacity magazines. The sooner us gun owners start using proper terminology the better.
A Beta-C or Surefire 60 or 90 round magazine - or a G18 magazine - those are high capacity.
Remember back in 1994 gun owners called their AR15s "assault rifles" and set us up to make the ban easier. We claimed that an assault rifle was select fire and the gun banners just quoted gun magazines calling the AR15 an Assault Rifle and used that against us. Mix that in with NBC showing full auto guns during stories on semi autos and most people cannot decipher the difference.
Frankly select fire should be available also. If shooting FA helped so much then the military would be shooting their M4s FA, and they don't.
A Beta-C or Surefire 60 or 90 round magazine - or a G18 magazine - those are high capacity.
Remember back in 1994 gun owners called their AR15s "assault rifles" and set us up to make the ban easier. We claimed that an assault rifle was select fire and the gun banners just quoted gun magazines calling the AR15 an Assault Rifle and used that against us. Mix that in with NBC showing full auto guns during stories on semi autos and most people cannot decipher the difference.
Frankly select fire should be available also. If shooting FA helped so much then the military would be shooting their M4s FA, and they don't.
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
And the Glock-18 magazine is standard capacity... on a Glock 18. But facts hurt weak brains. Think of the brains.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Obama wants to win re-election and is not going to mess with gun control.
-
benfranklin1787
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:34 pm
- Location: pinellas park
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I don't think that this will ever get passed, not with the new congress. But, its sad that in 2011 with all the pro constitutional rhetoric and all of the new libertarians in congress, that something like this is even brought forth sickens me. The thing that bothers me is that there isn't even one shred of evidence that gun control make anyone safer(besides the government and criminals from vigilant citizens)gun control has nothing to do with crime, if anything the less gun control laws the safer the place.
"We're still relevant, we stay vigilante, and the lamestream media is right, you should fear me!"
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Even if it did make some people safer it would not be ok. Freedom and liberty for all comes first.
-
CanNotHear
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:49 pm
- Location: Clearwater,FL
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I'm gonna buy 10 or 20 thirty round pmags, incase it somehow passes , even though I don't own an AR currently I can still buy one after the fact and have standard magazines instead of neutered ones.maybe I should buy a few more 32 round Uzi mags,and even some rebuild kits. I already have 17.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I did buy 13 G18 mags. I have AR mags up the wazoo. Over 200.
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I personally sold my G18 mags (gathering dust) for ~$60 locally because someone was convinced they were about to be banned and confiscated (which would lead a rational person NOT to buy them, but whatever).
Additionally, I unloaded a bunch of Bravo Company 30rd AR15 mags for $15/ea, used, a tidy bit over the $8/ea I paid years ago. I don't even own an AR15 anymore!
Additionally, I unloaded a bunch of Bravo Company 30rd AR15 mags for $15/ea, used, a tidy bit over the $8/ea I paid years ago. I don't even own an AR15 anymore!
RIP Dave. You will be missed.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I do not fear that the mags will be banned so much as Glock will stop selling G18 mags.
-
benfranklin1787
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:34 pm
- Location: pinellas park
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
I'm going to buy some more Barrett 6.8 30rd mags just in case. I need more anyway, so this kinda gives me a reason to buy more
"We're still relevant, we stay vigilante, and the lamestream media is right, you should fear me!"
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Can't companies just sell rebuild kits? This time they will do it more quickly.
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
Gun control for liberal state politicians is exactly what segregation was for southern states: a way to appeal to voters by using a minority segment of society as punching bag for all kinds of policies which "preserved social order." Politicians needed a villain that they could convince people that they were better than. So for people living in places like Long Island or Boston or San Francisco, gun owner is all taken to mean redneck, uneducated, vigilante, savage, over religious, pro-life, anti-immigration, Republican, hunter and/or meat eater, etc. which are all "those other people" to them, EXACTLY the same way as Irish and Italians were categorized as undesirable in New York and blacks were in lots of places.benfranklin1787 wrote:I don't think that this will ever get passed, not with the new congress. But, its sad that in 2011 with all the pro constitutional rhetoric and all of the new libertarians in congress, that something like this is even brought forth sickens me. The thing that bothers me is that there isn't even one shred of evidence that gun control make anyone safer(besides the government and criminals from vigilant citizens)gun control has nothing to do with crime, if anything the less gun control laws the safer the place.
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws...it's insane!"-- Penn Jilette
http://www.NYShooters.net
http://www.NYShooters.net
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
There is. Use it already.Libertarian_Geek wrote:How about a law that criminalizes any action taken by an elected official to subvert the US constitution?
FBI.gov:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
-
L1A1Rocker
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:40 pm
- Location: Texas Hill Country
Re: Rep. McCarthy's anti feeding device bill sent to committ
So has this bill made any movement? I'm thinking that it will die in committee. Now on to the legality of banning standard mags. I don't think it will be legal according to Heller. Heller specifically said that arms that are in common use are protected. How many standard mags are there? I'd guess an avg. of 4 per gun it is made for.