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.
Not that it has a snowball's chance of passing, but what would happen if magazine ("clip" for the short bus folks) capacities were reduced to 10 rd mags? Glock 19s take 15 rd mags as stock. Would Glock 19s be useless? Would new mags have to be shortened with a smaller spring or internal floorplate? Would it be illegal to sell parts (springs, etc) that would allow a regular 15 rd mag to be constructed? How do you possibly register the millions of magazines out there? How is it possible for a DA to prove that a mag was transferred (esp. through inheritance) or sold?
Since it's unconstitutional to restrict grandfathering, do you think it was a wise move to overreach?
Mag limits will accomplish nothing except to further restrict law abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about silly gun laws. Never have, never will.
They would plug them to a lowered capacity like a three round hunting shotgun. At the same time we give up our arms, we give up all the rest of our rights. This is dangerous stuff.
Mag limits will accomplish nothing except to further restrict law abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about silly gun laws. Never have, never will.
110% agreement. I'm just curious what the media indoctrinated progressives (aka those who typically use the word clip when they mean magazine) think about this. Since the architect of this bill doesn't know what a barrel shroud was ("the thing you put on your shoulder" LOL), I'm just curious how these different problems will be addressed? Is McCarthy trying to overreach so as to create a compromise (ban mags with > 20rd capacity)? I think there was a danger in trying to construct a bill that went over the top like this, rather than aiming for the 33rd mags that were used in the shooting. I'm glad they overreached so that it'll die quickly, just sayin'...
They would plug them to a lowered capacity like a three round hunting shotgun. At the same time we give up our arms, we give up all the rest of our rights. This is dangerous stuff.
I guess it "creates jobs"?
But, how do you restrict the sale/transfer of mags? How about inheritance? Some of these polymer and steel mags can last generations if you just replace the spring. Are springs going to be banned?
What about people unplugging the mags and keeping them around for a just incase situation, and keeping only the plugged ones when using on a public range? This is the most useless law I've seen.
I always figured if I could not settle a gunfight with another individual, close combat with several opponents is an exception, with 7 rounds, the capacity of a standard 1911 45. cal pistol or most shotguns, the rest would be irrelevant because I would likely be dead. If I was really worried about getting into a gunfight with a gang I would want a short barrel 12 ga. semi automatic shotgun with a 20 round clip and pistol grips.
I do not believe any part of our government should restrict personal firearms in any way shape or form. I can see the value of keeping major military weapons like artillery, tanks and heat seeking missiles regulated but I am not all that supportive of the idea.
BTW - criminals will have whatever weapons the cops are using. Always have and always will.
We've dealt with this for a few years. It's stupid and LE has to have trouble with it. How do they know who has grand fathered weapons and who doesn't?
Many people have shown that a mag is so easy to swap out limiting them is stupid. If you count rounds you don't even have to rechamber.
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.