View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-04-2017, 10:10 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
jamesrage jamesrage is offline
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,573
Thanks: 678
Thanked 840 Times in 543 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Starting a thread to discuss people's opinions on legislation on Magazine Capacity Restrictions...

What are your opinions on this matter?
Do you agree with such legislation? Disagree?
Do you think it's constitutional?


While I personally have not given the issue too much consideration, I don't like where the "line" is currently drawn in the few states described below. It's too stringent IMO (if one has to be drawn).
As far as establishing a limit in the first place, I don't agree with that either.
A high-capacity magazine ban is a law which bans or otherwise restricts detachable firearm magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds. Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity. States that do have large capacity magazine bans or restrictions typically do not apply to firearms with fixed magazines whose capacity would otherwise exceed the large capacity threshold.

The federal ban of 1994 defined a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Likewise, the state of California defines a large capacity magazine as "any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds."[1] Such devices are commonly called high-capacity magazines.[2][3][4] Among states with bans, the maximum capacity is 10 to 15 rounds. Several municipalities, such as New York City, restrict magazine capacity to 5 rounds for rifles and shotguns.[5] The state of New York previously limited magazine capacity to 7 rounds, but a District Court ruled this ban to be excessive and could not "survive intermediate scrutiny".[6]

Most pistols sold in the U.S. are made and sold with magazines holding between 10 and 17 rounds, in reality making this the normal magazine capacity, not "high."[7] In November 2013, the National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco over an ordinance banning possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. At the time, no court had overturned a ban on high-capacity guns or magazines.[8] In March 2014, the Supreme Court refused to halt a similar ban by the city of Sunnyvale, California.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-c...y_magazine_ban


What are your thoughts?
I think high capacity magazine bans are stupid and its false term. Because a 20 to 30 round capacity magazine is a standard capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle.And what is standard capacity with other rifles and hand guns varies. All the anti-2nd amendment trash did was redefine what high capacity is so they can scare monger into supporting bans on these standard capacity magazines.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post: