Dems offer gun-control amendment to cybersecurity bill

posted at 9:21 am on July 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

You didn’t think Congress would do nothing after the Aurora shooting, did you — especially the Democrat-controlled Senate?  Fueled by the detail that the AR-15 (not an AK-47) used in the massacre had a high-capacity drum magazine — which jammed — Senate Democrats have offered an amendment to the pending cybersecurity bill that would ban possession of magazines past a maximum 10-round capacity:

Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Ten rounds?  That is, I believe, the smallest capacity magazine for any firearm that uses one. I own four magazines for my semiautomatic Glock 23 .40 caliber pistol, and only one of those is a 10-round magazine.  The others, which would be grandfathered under the bill but which I could not replace if it passed, have capacities of 13 and 15 rounds.  What makes a 13-round magazine more inherently dangerous than a 10-round magazine, or a 15-round magazine than a 13-rounder?

As of 2007, six states had magazine-capacity restrictions, four of those at 10 rounds: California, New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, not exactly known for their gun-rights-friendly attitudes.  Hawaii’s only applies to handguns.  New Jersey’s limit is 15, while Maryland’s is 20.  The rest of the states haven’t seen the need to enact magazine limits.

Perhaps it might be “reasonable” to restrict the high-capacity drum magazines to military and law-enforcement uses, but that’s only if you think that someone could benefit from the need of a shooter to repeatedly reload.  Let’s not forget that Aurora forbids anyone from carrying or discharging a weapon at all, and so did the theater in which the massacre took place.  The perpetrator had no problem switching weapons and/or reloading because Aurora had already disarmed his victims through their “reasonable” gun control statutes and rules.  This regulation would have made absolutely no difference in the shooting which Democrats have used to launch this new law.

I doubt this amendment will make it through the Senate, but if it does, the entire cybersecurity bill will be ignored by the House.

Update: I was incorrect about mag capacities in some specific instances, as Madison Conservative notes in the comments:

That’s entirely wrong, Ed. First of all, most magazines for larger capacity handguns, such as .45ACP, 10MM, or .50AE, carry anywhere between 6-9 rounds. Secondly, for semi-automatic shotguns that have magazines, they usually have a minimum of five rounds. Finally, some rifle magazines carry 5-10 rounds, although that usually only applies to rifles that are 50 years old or more.

All that aside, this needs to catch fire and take the cybersecurity bill down with it.

I’d wager that most magazines for handguns and rifles have a base of 9-10 round capacity, but clearly not all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Outlaw ALL magazines… Done.

Wait! Not Maxim!

Dexter_Alarius on July 27, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Why stop with guns? More people die from car accidents. Let’s ban all cars too!

moonsbreath on July 27, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Millions have been killed in abortions. Let’s ban them too!

Trafalgar on July 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM

And just think…if we ban enough things, life will be perfectly safe and no one will ever die!! We can live forever!

/sarc/

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 10:24 AM

If you’re looking to avoid buying German, I’d highly recommend the Browning Hi-Power 9MM for an alternative full-size option. Also worth considering: the Bersa Thunder, Beretta PX4 Storm, and Ruger P95D.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM

One of my carry pieces is a Bersa “Ultra Carry” 9mm. Great handgun for the price. It’s super-accurate and nicely compact, although since it’s not “all polymer” like a Glock, it’s a little heavy (especially when fully loaded with 13 rounds). I carry that one in the winter months when I’m wearing heavier clothing so it’s easier to conceal

For summer carry, when I’m wearing shorts and lighter clothing, I carry a S&W 642 .38 hammerless revolver. It’s super light and small, but it only hold 5 rounds (usually enough to get the job done, I hope).

UltimateBob on July 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM

James Holmes was a registered Democrat. Guns don’t kill people – Democrats do.

Archivarix on July 27, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Ban Democrats? Brilliant!!!

Trafalgar on July 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM


Our response to every single ‘representative’ we have in D.C. should be this – please send it on, I will be doing it today.

It’s The Law In Kennesaw

ONE murder in 27 years – that is what our ‘representatives’ should be striving for – not Chicago’s (strongest gun ‘control’ laws in the US) 274 murders thus far THIS year.

jackal40 on July 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Just more ‘head in the sand’ and ‘feel good about themselves’ legislation – they can tell their base ‘we tried’.

Here’s a thought, in those states with ‘shall issue’, businesses forbidding entry to those with a CCW are liable should anything untoward happen to the person giving up their weapon.

If you are going to disarm me, then you’d better have a gold-plated security system in place.

GarandFan on July 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM

So wait, is this real legislation that has any chance of getting beyond the Senate? It’s been so long since they passed anything, much less anything of significance, I can’t tell if it’s real or not.

stukinIL4now on July 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM

In fact, I have never seen an AR-15 magazine that would fit the 10 or less rule.

I have one. Colt AR-15, competition h-bar – came with a 10-round mag. Because I bought this post 2004 ban, I immediately chunked the 10-round for 10 30-round mags…never looked back.

ontheright on July 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM

While larger caliber handguns typically use 6-10rd magazines, the carbines (which is what they are really after) typically use nothing short of 20+ rd magazines. In fact, I have never seen an AR-15 magazine that would fit the 10 or less rule.

Passed on July 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Yes, there are plenty of 5 or 10 round mags available for AR-15 rifles. For big game hunting in many states, you are restricted to 5 rnd mags.

Since folks do hunt w/ AR-15 type rifles (in various calibers), there are 5 rnd mags available.

climbnjump on July 27, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Don’t know if this has been covered…but…when citizens have guns…

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

coldwarrior on July 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I want to offer this thought as well:
Had this shooter not had a high capacity maagazine that jammed. Had he instead had a gunny with several 10 round magazines in it, each time he emptied one, he would have dropped it, slapped in a fresh one, and contuinued firing. When he finally ran out of ammo there would have been many more dead people. Way to go Seante dems.

paulsur on July 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The irony is, all of this talk about 9mm, AK-47′s, etc, etc…my little Ruger 22 pistol (yes I have others, but that is my favorite) could kill someone just as effective, in fact I bet I could put 3 in the bullseye, quicker than most anyone with a 9mm.

It’s not the rounds, the gun, the rifle, the pistol…it’s the intent.

This guy in Aurora, if not a gun, would have tossed a homemade grenade with nails.

Bureaucrats wait for an opportunity to pass something, anything to justify their being…worthless people.

right2bright on July 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Sorry, not to hijack the thread into a “which gun is best” free-for-all, but I have several (including the Springfield XD-40) and my all time favorite is my Kimber Gold Match 1911 .45. Great equalizer, shoots deadly accurate out of the box, cleans itself after a day at the range . . . OK, maybe that last part was a little exagerated, but it is a winner.

As for this topic, I agree with the earlier poster that if these idiots want to save lives, they should ban the more reliable 10 round mags and mandate the 100 round drum. They are known jammers.

2ndMAW68 on July 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Ten rounds? That is, I believe, the smallest capacity magazine for any firearm that uses one. I own four magazines for my semiautomatic Glock 23 .40 caliber pistol, and only one of those is a 10-round magazine. The others, which would be grandfathered under the bill but which I could not replace if it passed, have capacities of 13 and 15 rounds. What makes a 13-round magazine more inherently dangerous than a 10-round magazine, or a 15-round magazine than a 13-rounder?

..why Ed, you terrorist! Move back to your old town of Cypress (in the P. R. of Kalifornia) and live with the rest of us under-ammo’ed citizens.

On the same topic, I am wondering if you and the other readers mightn’t stop by and sign the petition to stop idiot State Senator Leleand Yee’s SB 249:

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-sb-249

It basically attempts to stop the use of the so-called bullet-button on AR-15s but is so poorly drafted that it will most likely curtail the sales of AR-15s and their accoutrements in California.

[rant]
Ladies and Gentlemen, you laugh in states like Alabama or Montana or Wyoming. “It could NEVER happen here.” Well, where do you think the 1-round mag limitation that Chuckie Schmuckie introduced came from? If this law passes, it will encourage federal statutes and then it’s only a matter of time before states conform.

THEY WANT YOUR WEAPONS, BOYS AND GIRLS. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!
[/rant off]

The War Planner on July 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Breaking Rasmussen Romney 49% Obama 44%

logman1 on July 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Drat! 1-round should be 10-round, of course!

The War Planner on July 27, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Sub-11 rounds are, for me, either CQB shotguns, BUG, C&R arms I can afford, or target pistols. These are what I like to think of as specialized arms, meant to allow you time to get to something a bit heftier in times of crisis. I go through higher capacity magazines way too fast for my taste… its something about accuracy and managed recoil to get time on target that just sets its own cycle and I am always astonished when the slide locks open at the end of the magazine.

Really, anyone making an anti-high capacity magazine argument has never fired a gun with one… the question of ‘why would you ever need one?’ disappears with use of one that has been well tuned to its gun. Soon you get to the point to ‘why don’t they make a higher round version of this?’ is something you ask yourself. That and if you can afford the cost of the extra ammo to actually use it… maybe you can get a lovely grant so someone else can make that happen for you! Just like that nut in Aurora! Then you can blame it on someone else, too… ‘I didn’t do that, society did that! Someone else made that happen!’ Yeah! That’s the ticket!

ajacksonian on July 27, 2012 at 10:52 AM

The War Planner on July 27, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Knew it was a typo when I saw it.

Remember, however, the goal of the progressives is limiting any weapon to a 0-round magazine.

coldwarrior on July 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Does this mean everyone would have to hand in their larger clips or does it only apply to new purchases? I’d hate to be the poor chap given the job of knocking on doors to collect all the big clips.

Buddahpundit on July 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Liberals hate the idea of people taking care of themselves.

gwelf on July 27, 2012 at 9:31 AM

^^^ This.

Don’t Tread On Me.

PatriotGal2257 on July 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Right2bright
I got it, lets ban intent……….. If you intend to do something wrong, you’d be a felon….Ya that’s the ticket ///////………..;-)

angrymike on July 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Does this mean everyone would have to hand in their larger clips or does it only apply to new purchases? I’d hate to be the poor chap given the job of knocking on doors to collect all the big clips.

Buddahpundit on July 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The stuff that’s already out there is usually grandfathered in when they pass one of these laws.

I remember they passed a limit on magazine capacity years ago (1992?) but my local gun shop was still able to sell off their stock of larger capacity mags. Once they were gone though, they couldn’t get any more, at least until that ban was lifted a few years later.

Now they want to pass another limit? What’s the definition of insanity again?

UltimateBob on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Finally, some rifle magazines carry 5-10 rounds, although that usually only applies to rifles that are 50 years old or more.

Also incorrect. My 7MM Magnum Browning A-Bolt has a 5 round magazine. The same holds true for most .50 caliber sniper rifles and a lot of semi-auto deer rifles. It’s more due to the size of the cartridge than the age of the weapon. There are exceptions but it’s not the rule.

slug on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Can HotAir please remove this man’s mug from the screen??

It is like a festering sore.

ToddPA on July 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM

No…reasonable would be a Senate / House rule that any amendment offered to a bill actually have something to do with the bill.

Mitoch55 on July 27, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Exactly! Tacking on unrelated junk is a tactic abused by both parties and is an embarrassment to the hallowed halls of Congress. Pity the senator that rejects Bill A because of ridiculous Amendment B — “Sen. Smith voted against the cyber-security bill!!!11! Does he support international terrorist hackers!?!?!?”

KS Rex on July 27, 2012 at 11:06 AM

War planner
Did it earlier in week…………;-D

angrymike on July 27, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I’d wager that most magazines for handguns and rifles have a base of 9-10 round capacity, but clearly not all.

….My FNh 5.7 I just bought has a standard 20 round capacity.It’s one of the main selling points of the gun.

Nothing but show coming out of democrats.
The hundred round drum being taken out of the equation of this mass murder changes nothing….he still would have been able to fire at will on a group of unarmed people.

Apparently this is the only feature that polled well that is safe for them to push without losing votes across the rust belt.

democrats are so worthless.

Baxter Greene on July 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM

So OBama is cool with people having AK-47′s now….just only with 10 round mags.

……..absolutely stuck on stupid.

Baxter Greene on July 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I got it, lets ban intent……….. If you intend to do something wrong, you’d be a felon….Ya that’s the ticket ///////………..;-)

angrymike on July 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Why stop with intent? Why not ban “bad” thoughts? We could call it something like Thoughtcrime and have the Thought Police monitor it. I think I read about this somewhere…

Trafalgar on July 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Ultimate bob
ya, I paid $60.00 for a 13 round Glock 23 mag, the ban died six months later, then they were $20.00 brand new………

angrymike on July 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM

So, if you’re caught with an empty 20 round or 30 round mag you’re going to jail or get a ticket? Okaaaaay.

Now, how would they come by these in your possession? Suppose TSA agents will be manning the rifle ranges now. Guess they could also instruct IRS agents to “have a look around” your house when they come to harangue you for not having health insurance…or not enough, or not the right kind, or…

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2012 at 11:12 AM

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote my senators and rep for NY about the UN treaty regarding firearms, in hope of pressuring Obama and Hillary to not sign it.

My rep supports my view, the second senator never wrote back, and Schumer didn’t address my concerns. Instead, Schumer, gave me a big load of nothing–a form letter, I’m sure–about how he supports the Second Amendment. I figured he was full of it.

This thread proves it, as if I needed the proof.

You know, if I was a Dem who supported gun rights, Schumer trying this stunt would cost him my support and my vote.

Liam on July 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

So I guess under the amendment my Springfield xdm-40 would be illegal considering the stock mag is 16+1… ..let’s ban the first US armory!!!!/

zosophil on July 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Remember, however, the goal of the progressives is limiting any weapon to a 0-round magazine.

coldwarrior on July 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM

..which is why we ALL need to sign that petition. Didja, C.W.?

Thanks in advance!

:-D

The War Planner on July 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Did it earlier in week…………;-D

angrymike on July 27, 2012 at 11:06 AM

..thank you, Mike!

The War Planner on July 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Perhaps it might be “reasonable”

Seriously? What part of, have you ever read the United States Constitution is it you are having problems with. I refer you to Constitutional Scholar and 2nd Amendment expert David E. Young who makes it abundantly clear that the US constitution leaves absolutely ZERO room for Reasonable restrictions. That you or anyone else would even remotely consider any restriction reasonable is only an indication to the depths in which you have been indoctrinated into Marxist ideology.

The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive “reasonable” regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the “shall not be infringed” restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the “shall not be infringed” language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb “infringe” was intended to be in the Founders’ view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison’s Usage
The Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that “infringe” based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison’s intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable “reasonable” regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of “infringe” based protection.

Samuel Adams’ Usage
Another person who used “infringe” in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison’s case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of “shall not be infringed” language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates’ historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment’s actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison’s proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of “infringed” relative to freedom of religion as well as his “shall not be infringed” language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison’s original Second Amendment restrictive language (“shall not be infringed”) to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech – freedom of the press – the right of peaceable assembly – the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison’s “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used “shall not be infringed” with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Interpreting this restrictive “infringe” based language in the manner that some advocates of gun control do for Second Amendment usage removes all meaning of the terminology and completely destroys any protective intent of the provision. Such interpretations leave the intended protected rights to be regulated exactly like any other subject placed under the government’s power. Such views of the language completely ignore the developmental history of the Bill of Rights, a history that is remarkably well documented because the need for a U.S. Bill of Rights was publicly and privately discussed for more than two full years prior to Congress’ proposal of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments.

Shall Not Be Infringed – Shall Make No Laws
Another interesting period fact is that the style of restrictive language ultimately used in the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no laws” – was previously found mostly in Second Amendment related proposals.

The Pennsylvania Minority supported a proposal that: “no law shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals”. [OSA, p.151]

The New Hampshire Ratifying Convention adopted proposals related to the subsequently adopted First and Second Amendments that stated:
“XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion”. [OSA, p.446]

The restrictive language of New Hampshire’s amendment protecting religious freedom contains not only the very words later used as restrictive language in the First Amendment but also the very strongest of restrictions that is based on the verb “infringe”. It is inconceivable that infringe was intended in New Hampshire’s religious freedom amendment as intended to allow any regulation whatever.

The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained – shall not be infringed – nor shall the right be infringed – shall make no laws touching – shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

SWalker on July 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Someone, I can’t remember who, linked an overhead photo of the emergency exit section of the Aurora crime scene. On the ground, in plain view next to the door, is the AR-15, with a standard box magazine in the magwell. Not a drum, a box magazine of the type sold/issued as standard on the AR platform.

Ahh, found it.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/23/article-2177736-142661DD000005DC-284_964x653.jpg

Upper left quandrant of the photo, right next to the door.

Someone is lying.

PXCharon on July 27, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Somebody who is going to shoot 100 rounds out of a particular weapon with an evil intent is just going to walk in with ten 10-round magazines and take the extra second or two to replace magazines, especially if he knows nobody’s going to be firing back.

Steve Eggleston on July 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM

My Springfield .45 holds 13 and the 9mm holds 16. That’s really not very many in this day of gang violence.

conservativecaveman on July 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I had this magazine capacity argument with folks after this happened and while I will admit that it saves a shooter a few seconds, it doesn’t really impact death toll. The Virginia Tech shooter should prove to them that magazine capacity has very little to do with the final tally.

If someone gets it in their head to kill a lot of people, they’re going to do it regardless of a 10 round clip or a 100 round clip.

The argument has been made that if his drum hadn’t malfunctioned, more people would have died in the theater shooting. That’s a possibility. But if he had planned this with 10rd magazines instead of a single drum, I can guarantee there would have been more deaths. I’ve never had a standard capacity clip jam on me. And I’ve shot thousands upon thousands of rounds. Whereas on the other hand, high capacity drum magazines I’ve always had nothing but trouble with.

Magazine capacity laws will only add a few seconds of time to the shooter’s plan. It will not save lives.

Strangely enough, when researching mass murders that involve firearms the most common thread I found among them is the use of shotguns. Yet I see no one trying to ban shotguns.

ButterflyDragon on July 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Comment of the Day™

Steve Eggleston on July 27, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The stuff that’s already out there is usually grandfathered in when they pass one of these laws.

UltimateBob on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM

That seems like it would be a constitutional problem. It’s saying the clips are a problem but the guy down the street can keep his but you can’t bear the same sort of firepower. Republicans should demand details in the bill as to who gets to have them and who doesn’t.

I’m off to the clip store.

Buddahpundit on July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Right2bright
I got it, lets ban intent……….. If you intend to do something wrong, you’d be a felon….Ya that’s the ticket ///////………..;-)

angrymike on July 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

That’s the point…that is what the bigot laws are…

They want to ban all this stuff for everything above a 22 cal…when they find out a 22 cal can kill just as effectively (talking about civilian), than they will ban that…than aerosol spray, than any canister, than any, any, any…

This is an important quote from another post…it pinpoints the problem exactly:

Compare that to the coverage and conversation after Anders Behring Breivik murdered sixty-nine people on the island of Utøya in Norway, a year ago next Sunday. Nobody focused on the gun. I had a hard time learning from the news reports what type of gun he used. Nobody asked, “How did he get a gun?” That seemed strange, because it’s much harder to get a gun in Europe than it is here

right2bright on July 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM

For summer carry, when I’m wearing shorts and lighter clothing, I carry a S&W 642 .38 hammerless revolver. It’s super light and small, but it only hold 5 rounds (usually enough to get the job done, I hope).

UltimateBob on July 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM

It should be just enough for a fighting retreat back to the vehicle, where your backup weapon is.

Steve Eggleston on July 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Also incorrect. My 7MM Magnum Browning A-Bolt has a 5 round magazine. The same holds true for most .50 caliber sniper rifles and a lot of semi-auto deer rifles. It’s more due to the size of the cartridge than the age of the weapon. There are exceptions but it’s not the rule.

slug on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM

No, I was stating that it was more common/”usually” in regards to older weapons, because their designs rarely accounted for larger magazines unless they only used pistol cartridges. Garand clip only had eight rounds, the most that could fit into the in-built magazine. Mosin-Nagant only had five rounds, as did the Karabiner. Can only get five into my Enfield.

Nowadays, few combat rifles have magazines less than 20 rounds. Yes, your 7MM has a five-round magazine, but it’s a magnum caliber, which makes its usage rather specialized. Same goes for .50BMGs and similar large-caliber long guns, but in those cases it’s normally because they are not intended for standard combat, but for specialized uses.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I’d like to see some clever Republican and an amendment to the Schumer’s bill making it a crime for any politician to own any form of weapon (including sticks and rocks), have a body guard, or police protection. Let them live like they want us to live and see how far it gets.
I’m sick of these hypocrites.

Iblis on July 27, 2012 at 11:43 AM

If the High Capacity Magazine hadn’t jammed the AR-15 the Aurora killer would have had a much higher death toll. Thank goodness for the high capacity magazine.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on July 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Because nothing says “cybersecurity” like gun restrictions.

J.E. Dyer on July 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Has anyone ever asked Sen. Schumer to give an example of an unreasonable restriction on guns?

PersonFromPorlock on July 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Ahh, found it.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/23/article-2177736-142661DD000005DC-284_964x653.jpg

Upper left quandrant of the photo, right next to the door.

Someone is lying.

PXCharon on July 27, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It’s quite possible that, a)the shooter removed the “100-round drum magazine” and replaced it with a standard 30-rounder on his way out (though I’ve seen no photos of a “drum” supposedly used by him); or b)that is one of the new 100-round box magazines from Surefire, which – because it uses a ‘quad-stack’ system – is only slightly longer than a standard 30-rounder.

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM

J.E. Dyer on July 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM

But, J.E., who amongst us has never had the urge to put a couple rounds into our monitors after reading some liberal/progressive drivel from our so-called “leaders.”

:-)

coldwarrior on July 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM

It should be just enough for a fighting retreat back to the vehicle, where your backup weapon is.

Steve Eggleston on July 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM

That’s funny, but every video you ever see of civilian thugs who get shot at, stick their head down and just fire randomly, while running.
I am sure if you talk to any trained sniper, firing a gun while under gun fire is unnerving at best, and takes a lot of training to stay focused.
Thugs do not expect to be retaliated, and when they do, they panic…that is why it is so important to have an armed citizenry.

A person defending will stand their ground and defend, the attacker who is surprised, doesn’t stand a chance. One is focused, the other surprised and panics…

right2bright on July 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Thugs do not expect to be retaliated, and when they do, they panic…that is why it is so important to have an armed citizenry.

Aright2bright on July 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM

This is why concealed carry is so effective. I’ve got a CCW permit. But I don’t own a gun…yet. Can the criminals tell just by looking who is carrying? Usually not. And being the cowards they are, they’re not looking for resistance. Therefore, crime rates go down.

Mitoch55 on July 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Can the criminals tell just by looking who is carrying?

Mitoch55 on July 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Some can. If you carry, your stance changes. How you walk changes. How you dress changes.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Make sure Chicago gets the memo about shooting people. They are more concerned about my chicken sandwich and where I choose to park my weiner than my real safety. The city with the strictest gun laws and the most murders. Four times more murders in a month, than one Aurora in a lifetime. I bet you there were more babies lives that were terminated by planned parenthood on that same day alone.

j bo on July 27, 2012 at 12:35 PM

It’s quite possible that, a)the shooter removed the “100-round drum magazine” and replaced it with a standard 30-rounder on his way out (though I’ve seen no photos of a “drum” supposedly used by him); or b)that is one of the new 100-round box magazines from Surefire, which – because it uses a ‘quad-stack’ system – is only slightly longer than a standard 30-rounder.

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Fair enough, it could maybe be their 60 round version, far too short for the 100 as displayed by the cover image on surefire’s website, though.

I don’t see the thought process that leads to a drum mag malfunction, swapping out for a stock 30 round, and abandoning the weapon anyway. If that’s what happened, he had time and no pressure to prevent reload, and the capacity limitation argument becomes B.S. on that front.

It’s still B.S. either way, but that’s just one more point against.

PXCharon on July 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Here, btw, is the bill………………..

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following

SEC. __. 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:

“(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device’–

“(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

“(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.

[Page: S5403] GPO’s PDF
“(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–

“(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);

“(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;

“(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

“(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:

“(8) 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.”.
Congressional Record – 112th Congress (2011-2012) – THOMAS (Library of Congress)

thomas.loc.gov

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Yes, it’s hardly the US any more in many ways – especially politically, where the most fringe, un-American, idiotic, and even unconstitutional nonsense and figures not only are taken seriously but actually are dominant in the public square and pop culture and education – but is the Senate really going to pass a tax increase AND push a “gun control” measure? Really? Now? When one of the biggest blowouts in US electoral history is almost palpable?

Those who haven’t worked there may not realize how much of the Senate’s time and “work” in election years is devoted merely to getting one or another incumbent on the record for/agin’ something or other. I haven’t bothered to check, but I can hardly imagine that the very endangered incumbents in places like WV, MO, MT and a few others would go within a million light years of either sort of measure. Even in the mostly collapsed and alien world that is now US “politics”, this sort of ineptness is hard to believe.

IceCold on July 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM

PXCharon on July 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM

One would think that the news organs would have shown the “100-round instrument of death and savagery”, at some point. I have yet to see a picture of the “drum magazine”.
Frankly, I’m wondering if it actually exists – or whether the hyperbolic statement of its capacity was first accepted and then perpetuated as “fact”.
Given that he was wearing a Blackhawk! “urban assault vest” – (not “body armor” – which has four mag pouches built in, it may be possible that someone got the amount of ammo he was carrying confused with what was actually in the gun. And, since it made for a better story, the ‘news’ organs just ran with it.
If it was, indeed, a BetaMag – as some have suggested – it’s no wonder that it malfunctioned. The 100-round 5.56 mags are notorious for not staying fixed in their proper position. The mag catch on the AR15/M16/M4 platform isn’t designed to hold that weight. (However, the 100-round 9mm and the 80-round 7.62NATO BetaMags work pretty well.) I would think that the 100-rounders from Surefire would have the same problem with weight (though the box is lighter than the Beta). [As a side note: The weight of the ammo is the reason that the M-2 Carbine had to have an extra hook added to support the weight of 30-round mags, rather than 15-rounders.)

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Senate Democrats have offered an amendment to the pending cybersecurity bill that would ban possession of magazines past a maximum 10-round capacity.

So my Yugoslavian SKS with bayonet and grenade launcher would still be legal, but most handguns won’t be. Got it.

Dems really are stuck on stupid.

dominigan on July 27, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.

A 10 round maximum would have totally stopped that man. /looney lefty

Galt2009 on July 27, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I dare F.U. Schumer to try something like this. I dare him.

Dunedainn on July 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM

How many times was that first bath salts zombie shot before he was declared no longer a threat? Something like 14?

PXCharon on July 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I pass the carry permit application desk every day on my way to jail (to do the felony appearance calendar – - so far they haven’t decided to keep me). The line has been 12 to 15 people every Monday, 3 to 5 every other day. The firearms industry seems to be the only part of our economy the soon to be former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is capable of actually stimulating. Hopefully this useless piece of feel good legislation will go no where. As usual, it’s based on several lies. Magazines over 10 rounds for most firearms aren’t “high” capacity – - they are standard capacity. They are what the gun was designed to use. And, just like the 1994 ban, the restriction will have no impact on crime, period. Never let a “crisis” go to waste.

Never forget: If you don’t have your own guns, you may have to wait for the rest of your life for the police to bring theirs.

Lammo on July 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Don’t ever, ever, ever let them take away your right to bear arms.

Pieces of crap legislation like this is just the beginning of the end and you’ll end up like Britain, god forbid.

EnglishRogue on July 27, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Dems always want something like this, but don’t look for the Unintended Consequences.

Example: Last time they got all frothy about 10 round limits, it drove the buying public to adopt .45′s. After all, if you are limited to 10 rounds, get the biggest, widest bullet per shot, right? The 1911 takes 8 (in good magazines) with one more in the spout. Also, this fed into the ammunition manufactures developing better and higher power ammo in whatever the caliber, because if you only got ten shots, why not hit them with a “Megasplat GutMuncher SuperExplosive 45+P+ ammo” rather than FMJ target ammo?

Then several manufactures came out with reliable and POWERFUL weapons like the 10mm Auto Glock 20 with a ten round limit or the EAA Witness Match in 10mm Auto. Now you had a weapon that had even more power (10 shots in magazine, one in chamber), a flatter trajectory, was legal for hunting and if you could find a “Grandfathered” magazine, 15 rounds.

It is all useless, these stupid gun laws. There is evil in this world, and it must be met and defeated. No Government can take the responsibility away from the individual Man to do so. The weapon has no moral essence, it is just a tool. As the Japanese say: “Katsujinken Satsujinken”, meaning “The Sword that Cuts down Evil is the Sword that Gives Life [to the innocent]“.

Think about that line. It can save your life.

Bulletchaser on July 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Progressives must make us all slaves to their wisdom for us.

It’s up to us…….to stand against them.

And we’re not doing a very good job.

PappyD61 on July 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Schumer and his Tyranny squad on one side of the aisle……..

…..and FREEDOM from Big Government on the other side of Capitol Hill.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/26/Congressmans-Anti-Big-Government-Rant-Gets-Standing-Ovation

Sorry Progressive wannabe dictators, I’ll take Mike Kelly and his view of America.

PappyD61 on July 27, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I don’t know, the Mexican drug thugs shoot hella rounds from the AK-47s they got from Holder.

Trafalgar on July 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Fair enough… But I’m sure we can curtail that by making the high capacity magazines illegal. lol

Yes, there are plenty of 5 or 10 round mags available for AR-15 rifles. For big game hunting in many states, you are restricted to 5 rnd mags.

Since folks do hunt w/ AR-15 type rifles (in various calibers), there are 5 rnd mags available.

climbnjump on July 27, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I’m sure there are. I’ve never seen them, though. The smallest I’ve seen for the typical .223 caliber that most people have is 20. I’ve seen the 5s and 10s for the .308 Remington R-25 (but I wouldn’t really consider that an AR. It’s based on the AR platform, though). In fact, the 20rd magazine is what generally comes with the AR15s I’ve seen in the stores (again, .223).

Passed on July 27, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).

Why not just say The Usual Gang Of Idiots, with Schmucky Schumer once again leading the charge?

pilamaye on July 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Why the gushing about Feinstein on FOX News? She is among the biggest and most persisteny gun-grabbers and “blame America for crime in other places” voices on the Left, similar to Bloomberg, Boxer, Schumer and especially Obama. Feinstein, as do those others, dresses her intents up in her feigned “I support the 2nd Amendment” language while she also continues to pursue (as do those others) gun ownership difficulty, restrictions and the ever-ongoing attempt to “regulate” the 2nd Amendment rights they actually revile.

Lourdes on July 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Just saw the amendment.

Wow.

You guys don’t really grasp how evil this is. For one thing, how do you prove that your magazine is “grandfathered”? Why you have to put a serial number on it! And those serial numbers have to be registered to the individual gun or it’s 10 years.

But if you lose the magazine or accidentally swap it with a friend at the range, it is ten years.

If you loan a magazine to a friend and its detected, its 10 years.

If you buy what you think is a 10 round magazine and it takes 11 accidentally, that 10 years.

If you replace the spring on a non-registered magazine and you get ONE MORE ROUND in the magazine, 10 years.

If you sell a grandfathered magazine and the next owner defaces the serial number and then gets busted, he can turn you over to the cops for a pleabargin for selling him “an unregistered magazine” and it is ten years.

If you have old magazines in your house, shop, business, car or vacation home, farm, whatever and it is discovered without a serial number matching to a gun, 10 years.

If you are uncooperative or the cops want to put pressure on you, they drop an unmarked magazine on you property and then “find” it during the course of the investigation. 10 years. Even the arrest can ruin your life as many businesses will not hire someone with an arrest on their record, let alone a “gun violation”.

If you talk about the stupid ban and say to a friend “I wish I could drill out my magazines to full capacity” that’s Conspiracy to violate Federal Gun Laws, 10 years.

Using seizure laws, a imported car can be seized by dropping an unregistered magazine. Custom agents call it “snowflaking” a car as they used to use a small bag of cocaine to seize the car and pressure the owner (dealer or private) into not protesting by allowing him to plead to a misdemeanor or not pressing charges in exchange for taking his property.

Finally, who is to say that the nice new data bank of magazines will remain up to date and completely accurate, because one mistake can ruin your life and it is being run by the BATF.

Bulletchaser on July 27, 2012 at 2:10 PM

James Holmes was a registered Democrat. Guns don’t kill people – Democrats do.

Archivarix on July 27, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I think you’re onto something here. All these mass shootings seem to happen in Democrat-controlled areas. That’s a significant correlation!

The solution is clear: We need to ban high concentrations of Democrats. Once they get a voting majority in any area, they should be forcibly dispersed. Strictly for the public safety, of course.

It’s for the children!!

tom on July 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Chuck Shumer is one of the biggest tools to ever hit Wasington DC. He is also the one most full of Chick-fil-A.

Concerned_American on July 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Also incorrect. My 7MM Magnum Browning A-Bolt has a 5 round magazine. The same holds true for most .50 caliber sniper rifles and a lot of semi-auto deer rifles. It’s more due to the size of the cartridge than the age of the weapon. There are exceptions but it’s not the rule.

slug on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Are you sure that’s not a four round mag with one in the chamber?

Tenwheeler on July 27, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.

A 10 round maximum would have totally stopped that man. /looney lefty

Galt2009 on July 27, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Apparently the psycho didn’t realize he was bringing a knife to a gun fight….

dentarthurdent on July 27, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I wonder what kind of magazines those Fast N Furious guns have? I bet those hold more than 10 rounds. Let’s get to the bottom of why the ATF was allowing thousands of guns to ‘walk’ into the hands of narcoterrorists before we start disarming law abiding Americans.

bitsy on July 27, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Gun control laws may be technologically obsolete. An amateur gunsmith has successfully used a 3D printer to manufacture AR-15 components at home.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-assault-rifle-made-3-d-printer

At the moment, just the lower receiver has been made and tested. But 3D printing technology is improving rapidly. Industrial 3D printers that use steel as their feedstock already exist and if they shrink to the point where private at-home users can afford them, then all bets are off.

Ten years from now, all someone will need to have an assault rifle will be design schematics, a few pounds of plastic and metal and a couple kilowatt hours of electricity.

Fear the future AG Holder… it’s coming and you can’t stop it.

Alberta_Patriot on July 27, 2012 at 3:26 PM

‘Madison conservative’ is playing sloppy games as well. There are no hard categorizations to be made for mag capacity. They very widely across platforms and calibers and even for individual models as different capacity mahs are available. And the ’50yr old designs’ rubric includes things like the Ak-(19)47. But chiefly rifles with internal magazines, moot for this discussion.

As to the issue of the large drum magazines, the Beta Corp ‘C-Mag’, C as in Hundred’, is the quality standard and work well, espcially their revised model. There are also two knockoff versions, IIRC from Korea and China. The Aurora shooter’s was apparently of the latter category, contributing to the jam. But note that the rifle shown on the ground outside the emergency exit of theatre 9 is a 30rd-mag on the STANAG pattern (at least it is in external appearance, it could be a 10- or 20rd capacity).
The quality C-Mag goes for about $250. The knockoffs about $100. That same $100 would buy you (8) solidly reliable 30rd mags. And 30mins on YouTube looking at 3-Gun match videos and the like will show you just a slight bit of practice makes them just as effective as the cumbersome weight and bulk of a C-Mag.

The entire magazine capacity argument is a canard. A superficial pile of garbage that does nothing to redress the real issue – that feelgood liberals destroyed our mental health care system in the mid-80s, doing away with most sequestering of psychotics. Instead allowing potentially murderous schizoids to roam amongst us on ‘voluntary’ medication regimens. Which they quit taking when they feel good.
The problem is then further compounded by th eridiculous nonsense of HIPAA and idiot teacher union policies where the people second-most likely to notice a psychotic are prohibited and conditioned against doing anything about it. As in the Loughner shooting. Or the Cho shooting. And this shooting.
And on top of all of this, after layer upon layer of ruinous idiotic regulations, our Nanny State wishes to impose yet MORE useless regulations that do nothing more than limit our freedoms once again, instead of acting directly on the offenders. An opportunity for Statists to infringe, and for Governmental ‘concern trolls’ to give the false impression that they are doing anything of value whatsoever. While our Republic burns.

rayra on July 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

“Outlaw ALL magazines… Done.” I agree, let outlaw the liberal magazines!!!

grapeknutz on July 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

‘Madison conservative’ is playing sloppy games as well. There are no hard categorizations to be made for mag capacity. They very widely across platforms and calibers and even for individual models as different capacity mahs are available. And the ’50yr old designs’ rubric includes things like the Ak-(19)47. But chiefly rifles with internal magazines, moot for this discussion.

rayra on July 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Nothing you stated here has anything to do with the statements I made. I didn’t say there were hard categorizations. To the contrary, I pointed out that mag capacity has varied widely for decades. I also made no hard rule about “50 year old” designs. I pointed out that magazine capacity has generally increased over time, but that before the 1960s, magazines in most firearms, whether internal or detachable, held less than 10 rounds. You pointing out the AK-47 does nothing but cite a completely new technological innovation in a sea of firearms unlike it, which did not become part of rifle engineering for years. We were still using the M14 when Vietnam fired up.

I’d suggest reading my posts before you attempt to play petty gotcha games just because you seem to have a bug up your ass about me.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Handguns use clips, mags are for rifles. Reading the info above it looks like the aim is “assault” firearms.

John Kettlewell on July 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The venerable 1911 uses a 7 round mag.

Joe Mama on July 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Handguns use clips, mags are for rifles. Reading the info above it looks like the aim is “assault” firearms.

John Kettlewell on July 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Wrong.

The M1 Garand used “clips”.

Semi-auto handguns and rifles use removable interchangeable magazines.

Joe Mama on July 27, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Not interchangeable between platforms, of course.

Joe Mama on July 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Handguns use clips…

John Kettlewell on July 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

No, they don’t. Ever.

Handguns have detachable magazines. Shotguns have detachable and internal magazines. Rifles have detachable and internal magazines, the latter of which are often filled using clips.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

John Kettlewell on July 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

No, they don’t. Ever.

Handguns have detachable magazines. Shotguns have detachable and internal magazines. Rifles have detachable and internal magazines, the latter of which are often filled using clips.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Except …

An M1 Garand uses a clip which the rounds are secured in, in your ammo pouch and becomes an integral portion of the weapons internal magazine when inserted to hold the rounds. Once the eighth and last round is shot, the weapon ejects it and the clip with a famous and very recognizable “twang”.

Your points are accurate and informed. (Makes me wonder if Bishop send you those points to post) :-)

hawkdriver on July 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Handguns use clips…

John Kettlewell on July 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM
No, they don’t. Ever.

Handguns have detachable magazines. Shotguns have detachable and internal magazines. Rifles have detachable and internal magazines, the latter of which are often filled using clips.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Unless they are revolvers chambered for semi-auto ammunition, in which case they do use clips, usually 1/2 moon or full moon. See for example: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757842_-1_757839_757837_image/

You see, there really is an exception that proves every rule. File under “Never say never”.

Lammo on July 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

“sent”

hawkdriver on July 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Lammo on July 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Meh. Looks like a cheap speed loader to me. :P

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM

An M1 Garand uses a clip which the rounds are secured in, in your ammo pouch and becomes an integral portion of the weapons internal magazine when inserted to hold the rounds. Once the eighth and last round is shot, the weapon ejects it and the clip with a famous and very recognizable “twang”.

As I said…some rifles have internal magazines fed by a clip.

As a kid, I knew an older guy who damn near the tip of his thumb to the Garand’s infamous “twang”.

Your points are accurate and informed. (Makes me wonder if Bishop send you those points to post) :-)

hawkdriver on July 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM

You just found out I’m a gun nutfirearms enthusiast? :P

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 7:09 PM

hawkdriver on July 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM

You just found out I’m a gun nutfirearms enthusiast? :P

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 7:09 PM

In the words of Rooster Cogburn, “I did not know. You are a hard one to figger.”

hawkdriver on July 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

You see, there really is an exception that proves every rule. File under “Never say never”.

Lammo on July 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

And the venerable ‘Broomhandle’ Mauser, which is loaded using stripper clips.

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM

And the venerable ‘Broomhandle’ Mauser, which is loaded using stripper clips.

Solaratov on July 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM

…into an internal magazine.

MadisonConservative on July 27, 2012 at 11:11 PM

We need to Ban all Democrats, that would make more sense than banning guns or mags.

rgranger on July 27, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I’d wager that most magazines for handguns and rifles have a base of 9-10 round capacity, but clearly not all.

This varies WIDELY and mostly on the size of the firearm in question. Compact self defense handungs are 6-8 round capacity from factory. Mid size ones are usually 10 or less, and the fullsize 5″bbl ones are the 10-15 round capacity mags. Rifles of any brand that accept a magazine usually will accept 10-20-30 depending on the style. A bolt action is usually a 5 round mag because of hunting capacity restrictions. The AR15 style, AK, 10-22 style take the 5-10-20-30-40-50- round capacity.

But as was said, this is all pointless. All evidence shows the so-called assault gun is used in very very few crimes. Less than a percentage I believe as proven by many legit studies.

Everyone knows the 94 gun ban was a failure, the FBI called it a failure, and so did the ATF. It had no affect on anything but the price of magazines.

TX-96 on July 28, 2012 at 6:06 AM

I’d hate to be the poor chap given the job of knocking on doors to collect all the big clips.

Buddahpundit on July 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Answer from behind the closed door: “Sure. Just let me empty the magazine first….”

GWB on July 28, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Every time they bring up limiting magazine capacity, remind them that the Luby’s shooter reloaded several times and still had lots of rounds left when he turned one of his weapons on himself. The only reason he was able to do that was because his victims had been disarmed. (Search “Suzanna Hupp”.)

GWB on July 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I’d hate to be the poor chap given the job of knocking on doors to collect all the big clips.

Buddahpundit on July 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Answer from behind the closed door: “Sure. Just let me empty the magazine first….”

GWB on July 28, 2012 at 7:59 AM

As the saying goes, you can have mine, bullets first!

Lammo on July 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3