Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It just seems like common sense to me that you would not need more than 20 bullets per month. That's 2 bullets every three days. Why would someone need more bullets than that?
Imagine if the Las Vegas shooter had been limited to 20/mo. Many people that he killed might be alive today.
Simply sighting in a rifle consumes more than that.
Those libturds have to be stopped by smarter voters. Except, in pot smoking Oregon, there are no smarter voters
Most of those pot smokers are in Portland and Eugene. If you look at Oregon's election maps, those two areas are heavily dem while the rest of the state is repub.
They can keep their whacky, libby gun laws out there on the extreme "left" coast...….20 rounds, how hilarious. Alright then, they can have no more than 20 soy lattes in a month, compromise.
It just seems like common sense to me that you would not need more than 20 bullets per month.
You know what a common sense measure can be identified as?
It's one that would apply to every person regardless of their profession or function in society.
So to me nothing can be considered common sense if it would not apply to, police, federal agencies or the military within the US borders.
So here's a question, would strictly issuing 20 rounds of ammunition to the police be common sense? Would limiting their firearms to 5 rounds prior to reload be common sense? "Strictly" meaning on pain of prosecution for violations of possessing more than 20 rounds at any given time of any mix of cartridges?
If they don't appear to be sensible for police, FBI, DEA, NFS, NPS etc. to enact, then why is it considered sensible for the public? Don't give me "those people need them in the pursuit of their duties" the vast majority of those people work office jobs, they're about as likely to need a gun as any general member of the larger community. They can also call backup, who will have their own 20 rounds of ammo.
So we would need to buy a box of 22 rimfire that comes in a box of 50 rounds on layaway? 20 rounds this month, and 20 the next till the purchase is complete????
Gives reloading a boost!
How about if you traded stuff for ammo instead of buying ?
Likely, the NY law on 7 rounds did not make the magazines illegal. You would commit a crime loading more than 7 bullets. Genius, yes? The 7 round limit was not upheld by the courts. An outright ban on the magazines was likely not tried because they were advised it would fail. This law is slightly different in that it outright bans the magazine but I don't see it surviving the courts.
It was overturned in Erie county. Right now, the results of that court case are very unclear as to whether it pertains to all of NY State. To be on the safe side, it's advised that NY'ers follow the 7 round limit outside Erie county.
And yes, the idea is that you can only load 7 rounds into your 10 round magazine. Had they actually tried for a 7 round magazine law, they would have used the excuse that you could still own a 1911, so guns aren't banned, ergo the law is constitutional. That's how their ridiculous minds work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 7 round limit was not upheld by the courts. An outright ban on the magazines was likely not tried because they were advised it would fail. This law is slightly different in that it outright bans the magazine but I don't see it surviving the courts.
