Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction? at the General Forum; Starting a thread to discuss people's opinions on legislation on Magazine Capacity Restrictions... What are your opinions on this matter? ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 07:27 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,698
Thanks: 9,405
Thanked 14,346 Times in 8,664 Posts
Post Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

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?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 03-02-2017 at 07:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 07:50 PM
Mellon_Collie's Avatar
Species 5618
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,335
Thanks: 915
Thanked 1,765 Times in 1,078 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
What are your thoughts?
Magazine capacity restrictions is just stupid make feel good legislation plain and simple.
__________________
They say there is
NO MONEY FOR SCHOOLS, NO MONEY FOR HOMELESS, NO MONEY FOR VETERANS ..

So how is there ALWAY MONEY FOR WAR?
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mellon_Collie For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 09:28 PM
300 H and H's Avatar
newer isn't always better
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Western Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Thanks: 6,304
Thanked 3,560 Times in 2,269 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellon_Collie View Post
Magazine capacity restrictions is just stupid make feel good legislation plain and simple.
Yes we agree in that one,

Regards, Kirk
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 09:40 PM
winston53660's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,671
Thanks: 1,774
Thanked 3,977 Times in 2,975 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

When I was growing up their was a limit on the number of shells one could have in a shotgun.
__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:03 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,626
Thanks: 1,379
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,528 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...

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."

What are your thoughts?
This caught my attention because I've either owned revolvers like the Colt .357 that have a six-round capacity or in the past I had a Model 1911 .45 caliber semi-automatic (standard military handgun for many years) that had a seven-round magazine capacity or my more recent 9mm that has an eight-round capacity magazine.

I actually took the time to check on a Glock 9mm used by many police officers and they do have a 17-round capacity and that sort of blew me away. I'm not sure how they stuff than many rounds in the grip but obviously they do.

Here's an exception I'd take with the opinion. The classification of magazine capacity of low, medium, or high is not based upon how many people use the firearms with those capacities. A 17-roung capacity for a pistol is a high capacity magazine even if 100% of the people using semi-automatic pistols have a 17-round capacity.

"Normal" is not a definition of capacity - it's a definition of usage.

The "capacity" really should be based upon a "pistol" regardless of whether it's a semiautomatic or a revolver.

Low capacity for a handgun is one to four rounds that covers a single shot pistol, a derringer or pepperbox.

Standard capacity for a handgun would be 5 to 10 rounds, This covers revolvers that can have a five or six round capacity and semi-automatics that have from 7-10 rounds.

High capacity would be "over" ten rounds.

One thing I always find interesting is that "gun control" advocates seem to worry a lot about "magazines" while completely ignoring belt fed ammunition systems like used on the semi-automatic version of the M-1919 where a hundred rounds or more can be hooked together in the belt.
__________________
"Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being president," John D. Gartner PhD
Professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.

Gartner states Trump's public behavior meets the diagnostic criteria for "malignant narcissism" which include anti-social behavior, sadism, aggressiveness, paranoia and grandiosity. "Alternative Facts" refers to the delusional world of Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:13 AM
Mellon_Collie's Avatar
Species 5618
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,335
Thanks: 915
Thanked 1,765 Times in 1,078 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
When I was growing up their was a limit on the number of shells one could have in a shotgun.
Only for hunting, there had never been one for any other reason.
__________________
They say there is
NO MONEY FOR SCHOOLS, NO MONEY FOR HOMELESS, NO MONEY FOR VETERANS ..

So how is there ALWAY MONEY FOR WAR?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 04:54 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,626
Thanks: 1,379
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,528 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellon_Collie View Post
Magazine capacity restrictions is just stupid make feel good legislation plain and simple.
Arguably true but then I've always considered large magazines to be an indicator of poor marksmanship. I was taught to hunt as a boy with a single shot .22 rifle and with only one round you need to be able to hit the target every time. That's marksmanship.
__________________
"Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being president," John D. Gartner PhD
Professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.

Gartner states Trump's public behavior meets the diagnostic criteria for "malignant narcissism" which include anti-social behavior, sadism, aggressiveness, paranoia and grandiosity. "Alternative Facts" refers to the delusional world of Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 07:23 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,554
Thanks: 6,557
Thanked 5,225 Times in 3,228 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
When I was growing up their was a limit on the number of shells one could have in a shotgun.
Still is, I believe, for migratory birds. The idea is to prevent entire flocks from being decimated. That too is a stupid idea.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 07:33 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,554
Thanks: 6,557
Thanked 5,225 Times in 3,228 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
This caught my attention because I've either owned revolvers like the Colt .357 that have a six-round capacity or in the past I had a Model 1911 .45 caliber semi-automatic (standard military handgun for many years) that had a seven-round magazine capacity or my more recent 9mm that has an eight-round capacity magazine.

I actually took the time to check on a Glock 9mm used by many police officers and they do have a 17-round capacity and that sort of blew me away. I'm not sure how they stuff than many rounds in the grip but obviously they do.

Here's an exception I'd take with the opinion. The classification of magazine capacity of low, medium, or high is not based upon how many people use the firearms with those capacities. A 17-roung capacity for a pistol is a high capacity magazine even if 100% of the people using semi-automatic pistols have a 17-round capacity.

"Normal" is not a definition of capacity - it's a definition of usage.

The "capacity" really should be based upon a "pistol" regardless of whether it's a semiautomatic or a revolver.

Low capacity for a handgun is one to four rounds that covers a single shot pistol, a derringer or pepperbox.

Standard capacity for a handgun would be 5 to 10 rounds, This covers revolvers that can have a five or six round capacity and semi-automatics that have from 7-10 rounds.

High capacity would be "over" ten rounds.

One thing I always find interesting is that "gun control" advocates seem to worry a lot about "magazines" while completely ignoring belt fed ammunition systems like used on the semi-automatic version of the M-1919 where a hundred rounds or more can be hooked together in the belt.
I'd disagree with that statement. Normal to a bannoid, which are the only persons outside the military who care, is based on the perception of skeery looking. Generally coming from Rambo movies or pictures of Thompsons with drum magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 08:33 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,522
Thanks: 169
Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,500 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Arguably true but then I've always considered large magazines to be an indicator of poor marksmanship. I was taught to hunt as a boy with a single shot .22 rifle and with only one round you need to be able to hit the target every time. That's marksmanship.
During a home invasion, I don't believe a homeowner is going to want to depend on that one single shot .22 rifle and with only one round needed to be able to hit the target every time.

Marksmanship my ass.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ammo, arms, capacity, legislated, magazine, restriction, thoughts

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0