Magazine Ban Question


PDA






giggitygiggity
January 21, 2013, 03:05 PM
If a high capacity magazine ban was to be enacted, would magazine manufacturers simply sell the components (springs, bodies, followers, baseplates) in order to allow them to still make money and in order to allow citizens to have the means to repair or build high capacity magazines? I don't see how the President or Congress could ban people from buying springs or pieces or pieces of metal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Magazine Ban Question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo
January 21, 2013, 03:47 PM
I don't see how the President or Congress could ban people from buying springs or pieces or pieces of metal.
Well, they've already banned people from acquiring commonly available plants which produce psychotropic effects when consumed...

6.5x55swedish
January 21, 2013, 03:52 PM
I assume it would be like the last ban which banned the manufacture and sale of mags that hold more than 10 rounds... People will be able to keep what they have until they wear out, but will not be able to buy more.

The last ban was a ban on manufacturing/sale, not possession.

giggitygiggity
January 21, 2013, 06:20 PM
Right, but I am asking about the individual pieces. I do not see any way how the President or Congress could stop a company from making the magazine box and selling it, making the spring and selling it, and making the follower and selling it, and making the floorplate and selling it. Basically instead of selling the high capacity magazine as a complete unit, a company could sell only the components and give people the ability to put it together themselves. It would be difficult if not impossible for the government to take legal action to prevent a company from selling a spring (mag spring), a metal box (mag box), a small piece of plastic (follower), or a small piece of metal (floorplate).

6.5x55swedish
January 21, 2013, 06:45 PM
How would the company advertise it for sale and how would the customer identify the part they need to complete it? There in lies the problem. All they have to do is prove intent and they have you... If you don't imply intent, nobody knows what you are selling, except that it is a spring.... springs fit lots of things.

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 07:02 PM
If they ban unicorns will we have to turn in our stuffed animals?

There is no ban, there will be no ban. Stop acting like chickenlittle. You're helping the anti's.

David E
January 21, 2013, 07:11 PM
I assume it would be like the last ban.......

WHY would you assume that?

Far too many people are "assuming" that any AWB won't be any worse than the last one. But they don't realize that the antis aren't about to cut back in their wish list.

They made mistakes, errors and omissions last time (in their mind) and they will remedy that this time around.

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 07:28 PM
WHY would you assume that?

Far too many people are "assuming" that any AWB won't be any worse than the last one. But they don't realize that the antis aren't about to cut back in their wish list.

They made mistakes, errors and omissions last time (in their mind) and they will remedy that this time around.
No. They weren't "mistakes". They intentionally did not ban arms, because if they did the law would have been thrown out by the courts under the Miller test; "suitable for Militia use". So they made an incremental law that could pass; cosmetic features. Now Heller and McDonald are even tougher for them to get around.

If Congress makes a law that bans AR15's (which they won't) it would be quickly tossed by a federal judge. Fundamental rights cannot be legislated away. They haven't been, are not now, and will not be.
All this chickenlittle panicing plays right into the anti's plan.

Feinstein says "Boo"! I'm not scared of her. I know my rights.

beeb173
January 21, 2013, 07:57 PM
I like your confidence Joe. I hope you're right.

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 08:07 PM
Read the decisions on Miller, Heller and McDonald. Know your rights and the limits already placed on government.

chipcom
January 21, 2013, 08:08 PM
No. They weren't "mistakes". They intentionally did not ban arms, because if they did the law would have been thrown out by the courts under the Miller test; "suitable for Militia use". So they made an incremental law that could pass; cosmetic features. Now Heller and McDonald are even tougher for them to get around.

If Congress makes a law that bans AR15's (which they won't) it would be quickly tossed by a federal judge. Fundamental rights cannot be legislated away. They haven't been, are not now, and will not be.
All this chickenlittle panicing plays right into the anti's plan.

Feinstein says "Boo"! I'm not scared of her. I know my rights.
As much as I agree with you on the odds of a bill passing, there are a few points that we ignore at our peril:

1. Don't depend on judges, federal or otherwise to protect your rights...history should prove why. The 2nd Amendment can, has and will be ignored/reinterpreted just as easily as all three branches of government have ignored/reinterpreted the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are now a country where one can be spied on, indefinitely detained or even killed by our government without due process of law - do you really think the omnipotent government types give a darn about Amendment #2?

2. If anything passes, it will be the background checks. Even gun owners are piling on that bandwagon. If that doesn't change, expect some kind of background check bill to pass as a quid pro quo for some other legislation...like Medicare cuts, for example. Besides the obvious negative effects on private sales, consider this...based on the wording of some of the bills introduced at the Federal level, it will be illegal for a non-licensed buyer to take possession of a firearm without going through a background check. Think about that for a minute...if you have any firearms that were not purchased from private sellers without some kind of notarized receipt, how are you going to prove that you took possession of that firearm before our hypothetical law went into effect? What is going to prevent them from charging you with illegal possession of a firearm?

Remember, we're talking about lawyers and politicians here...words are their game, they make their living by taking seeming innocuous words and twisting them to their purpose.

I applaud you for not buying into the panic...but keep in mind that knowing your rights isn't enough...you gotta be able to defend them against those who don't give a crud about trampling them.

David E
January 21, 2013, 08:16 PM
No. They weren't "mistakes". They intentionally did not ban arms, because if they did the law would have been thrown out by the courts under the Miller test; "suitable for Militia use".

Who, besides Dianne Fine Swine, has said anything about banning arms? I said that in their mind, they made mistakes on the previous AWB and that they will rectify that in any new one.

Fundamental rights cannot be legislated away.

Really? Have you tried to buy a 32oz soda in NYC lately? Or load 8 rounds in your magazine this past week in NYS?

David E
January 21, 2013, 08:18 PM
Read the decisions on Miller, Heller and McDonald. Know your rights and the limits already placed on government.

Are you not aware of the gun laws rammed thru last week in NYS?

Solo
January 21, 2013, 08:25 PM
1. Don't depend on judges, federal or otherwise to protect your rights...history should prove why.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 08:36 PM
You may quake in your slippers when Cummo or Feinstein bark. I do not. I know my history, the law and my rights.

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 08:48 PM
Who, besides Dianne Fine Swine, has said anything about banning arms? I said that in their mind, they made mistakes on the previous AWB and that they will rectify that in any new one.

And I said they weren't mistakes. They were intentional ommissions because they cannot ban arms.Their goal is incremental attack. Magazines are part of the arms and IMO, would have eventually been stuck down (but it expired so it doesn't matter) So is ammo, cleaning supplies, gun ranges, etc. "Well regulated" means to keep in good working order. None of those things can be banned. If they try, they will fail. Either in court, at the ballot box, jury box or ammo box. We have not and will not give up our rights. 100% certain. Hasn't and won't happen.

Really? Have you tried to buy a 32oz soda in NYC lately? Or load 8 rounds in your magazine this past week in NYS?

I disagree that a 32oz soda is a fundamental and Constitutionaly protected right. Give the system and voters time. This will be, must be corrected. Get angry, but not scared.

chipcom
January 21, 2013, 09:02 PM
You may quake in your slippers when Cummo or Feinstein bark. I do not. I know my history, the law and my rights.
but you don't know your barn animals...swine don't bark. ;)

BK
January 21, 2013, 09:11 PM
I wondered something similar.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512696

Magazine repair kits and the '94 AWB

http://www.44mag.com/product/high_capacity_magazine_repair_kits/

In the same way that these ↑ magazine repair kits are legal to purchase and use in the state of California today, would they have been legal under Clinton's AWB?

Was anything like this even available back then?

Anyone remember being able to buy a replacement spring, floor plate, follower, or mag body separate from one another?

6.5x55swedish
January 21, 2013, 09:16 PM
Dave:

In case you missed the title... We are talking about a High Capacity Mag Ban, not an AWB. I assume it would be like the last in that the ban will be on manufacture and sale, because that is all they really can regulate.

giggitygiggity
January 21, 2013, 10:05 PM
Joe, I'm not panicking and being Chicken Little. I am only offering suggestions and preparing in the unfortunate case that some magazine restriction or ban is able to be pushed through. Sadly, I do not have full faith and confidence that all of our politicians will do the right thing and uphold the 2nd Amendment or even go through the proper procedures in order to enact a law or amendment.

By the way, I use the term "politicians" purposely because I do not consider most of them to be respectable and deserving of being called "leaders," especially when they use a mass murdering of children to cowardly capitalize on a political goal.

David E
January 21, 2013, 10:27 PM
You may quake in your slippers when Cummo or Feinstein bark. I do not. I know my history, the law and my rights.

You take curious delight is assuming others "quake" or are "afraid," whilst you take comfort in your alleged knowledge of history, laws and individual rights, smugly assuming no one else knows them. :rolleyes:

You ignore pertinent points to perpetuate your own. I'm reminded of the folks that na´vely blathered how Obama wouldn't pursue any anti-gun legislation during his second term.

What IS interesting is the media hush on Sandy Hook details. Investigators apparently have found NO spent casings from the "evil assault rifle with 30 rd magazine" .223 that all this current hoopla is supposed to be based upon.

Odd, ain't it.

bassdogs
January 22, 2013, 12:14 AM
Other than the fact that crap tends to stink and spread as it settles, why should most of us be concerned by what they do in crazy NY? 7rd vs 10rd vs ????, if you aren't a resident and have a NY permit, everything you've got was already illegal.

cl4de6
January 22, 2013, 12:16 AM
If they ban unicorns will we have to turn in our stuffed animals?

There is no ban, there will be no ban. Stop acting like chickenlittle. You're helping the anti's.
You know, a couple of guys in New York were saying the same thing last week.

Ehtereon11B
January 22, 2013, 04:36 AM
If they ban unicorns will we have to turn in our stuffed animals?

There is no ban, there will be no ban. Stop acting like chickenlittle. You're helping the anti's.

I am sure they said the same thing when Clinton was talking about a ban in the early 90's but no one believed he would do it. I am not about to "hope" that people like Feinstein, Biden, and Schumer get lucky and vote on a bill when most pro-2A are mad about something or Obama slips in an EO. Sitting around hoping something doesn't happen is called being an ostrich, having your head in the sand means it can still happen.

The last ban is really all we have to go on at this point. Clinton's own DOJ team said the AWB of 94 had little to no measurable effect on crime. The antis know this too so if they have a chance to pass something stricter in an effort to reduce crime they will. So when considering what they will try I take into account what the 94 ban did at the very minimum and guess from there using news, voting tendencies etc.

joeschmoe
January 22, 2013, 05:01 AM
You know, a couple of guys in New York were saying the same thing last week.
Then those are the only two guys in NY who didn't know there was already a AWB and a 10 rd mag limit in NY. Probably 2 of the millions of NY'ers who keep voting for the same gun grabbing politicians year after year and now act surprised at what happened there. I'm not surpised.

6.5x55swedish
January 22, 2013, 06:50 AM
Okay David... I have to intervene again seeing as I live near Sandy Hook am I am friends with some of the local Police who responded...

Plenty of 223 casings were found... nearly 100 of them in fact. Stop watching the youtube videos about how this is a conspiracy and nobody died.... if you believe that crap come to Sandy Hook and I will show you the reality here. The Media is silent about the details because the State threatened them with lawsuits due to the miss-information they were spreading. They also sealed the case until the entire investigation is complete and the State plans to release complete details in a few months... after all the families have had a chance to review everything.

You are correct about the Mags though, the number of round mags he was carrying was never released... we don't know if he had 10 round mags or a 90 round drum because the investigation is still open and they didn't release that information.

I have been unofficially told that the Bushmaster jammed and he was unable to clear it, and at that point shot himself. He had about 300 rounds of ammo for the bushmaster with him and shot around 90 of those rounds. My guess would be he either had 30 rd mags and reloaded three times or he had a 90 round drum.... Anything less than that seems unlikely due to the limited amount of time he had. He did not reload 9 or 10 10 round mags.

David E
January 22, 2013, 11:30 AM
Okay David... I have to intervene again seeing as I live near Sandy Hook am I am friends with some of the local Police who responded...

intervene again? :rolleyes:

Plenty of 223 casings were found... nearly 100 of them in fact.

Then why hasn't this been released? I've not found any mention in an media outlet confirming your assertion.

Stop watching the youtube videos about how this is a conspiracy and nobody died.... if you believe that crap come to Sandy Hook and I will show you the reality here.

Don't assume that I believe any of that crap. My information came from noted trainer John Farnam who apparently has LE contacts involved with the investigation.

The Media is silent about the details because the State threatened them with lawsuits due to the miss-information they were spreading. They also sealed the case until the entire investigation is complete and the State plans to release complete details in a few months... after all the families have had a chance to review everything.

This never stopped them before. I agree there's been a lot of false information reported as fact.

I have been unofficially told that the Bushmaster jammed and he was unable to clear it, and at that point shot himself. He had about 300 rounds of ammo for the bushmaster with him and shot around 90 of those rounds. My guess would be he either had 30 rd mags and reloaded three times or he had a 90 round drum.... He did not reload 9 or 10 10 round mags.

Not aware of a 90 rd drum, but there are several 100 rd devices out there. The only "official" thing I've seen or read about what gun was actually used was the Coroner saying that the wounds "appeared" to have been caused by rifle rounds. Usually, the cops hoist the murder gun high for all to see, or at the very least, specify what gun(s) were actually used, as opposed to what gun(s) he simply had with him. In this case, we have the latter, but not the former. Unless I missed it, of course.

David E
January 22, 2013, 11:38 AM
Then those are the only two guys in NY who didn't know there was already a AWB and a 10 rd mag limit in NY.

Except now, it's SEVEN rounds.

Probably 2 of the millions of NY'ers who keep voting for the same gun grabbing politicians year after year and now act surprised at what happened there.

I bet they had a friend accuse them of being Chicken Little just 10 days ago, too.

I'm not surpised.

You may be surprised when you realize that the stupid laws passed by idiots still affect you.

Skylerbone
January 22, 2013, 01:11 PM
Maybe everyone could post pics of their full auto, silenced SBRs. I know my rights too but my State and the Supreme Court seem to have Infringed on that right, regardless of what they have recently decided.

Liberals have known for many moons that our Inalienable Right to self-defense can be ripped from our warm live hands. Just look at how many States have only recently accepted the notion that the "average" citizen may carry or conceal a firearm as proof that politicians feel our Constitution is as flexible as their backbones.

michaelbsc
January 23, 2013, 10:21 AM
Then why hasn't this been released? I've not found any mention in an media outlet confirming your assertion.

Because the media has an agenda, and not reporting supports that agenda better than reporting.

David E
January 23, 2013, 10:24 AM
Because the media has an agenda, and not reporting supports that agenda better than reporting.

Bingo!

jrmiddleton425
January 23, 2013, 07:13 PM
Other than the fact that crap tends to stink and spread as it settles, why should most of us be concerned by what they do in crazy NY? 7rd vs 10rd vs ????, if you aren't a resident and have a NY permit, everything you've got was already illegal.
You should be concerned about it because it went from not even existing as written legislation to passed and signed in 17 hours. They would have taken more if they thought they could. It is now a violation and a $200 fine in New York, to have a Garand clip loaded IN YOUR OWN HOME. And if they want to do it to you on the Federal level, don't believe for an instant that they can't, or won't.

bassdogs
January 23, 2013, 09:40 PM
I just don't buy that argument. NY and NYC have had gun restrictions that dwarf most other states now for years. They and a few other hyper liberal states including Ill have had these laws and they have not bled over to the rest of us and they haven't influenced Federal laws. I'm not saying we should stick our head in the sand, but you can't say that NY is bellweather state when it comes to gun laws.

If you enjoyed reading about "Magazine Ban Question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!