Anyone have the text Sen. Lautenberg's Magazine Bill?


PDA






bushmaster1313
January 23, 2013, 01:58 AM
Could not find the text.

Is it just like the 1994 "Ban"

Keep what you have, even if over 10, but can't buy any over 10 if made after a certain date?

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone have the text Sen. Lautenberg's Magazine Bill?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gc70
January 23, 2013, 04:04 AM
Senator Lautenberg and Representative McCarthy had identical magazine bills in the prior session of Congress. No Senate bills have been submitted yet, but McCarthy has submitted the exact same bill in the current session of Congress (H.R.138 (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr138ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr138ih.pdf#page=2)).

McCarthy's bill would ban sales of new magazines, grandfather possession of existing magazines, but prohibit transfers of existing magazines (this is the change from the 1994 ban).

Sure, you can keep your magazines, in fact you won't be able to transfer them. And as the owners of magazines die, those magazines become non-transferable contraband that would presumably be forfeited to the government. Our opponents are willing to work over the long term. It might take 50 or 60 years, but all legal magazines with a capacity greater than 10 would eventually be eliminated.

bushmaster1313
January 23, 2013, 07:58 AM
Was there a 10 year expiration?

gc70
January 23, 2013, 09:27 AM
No.

TNBilly
January 23, 2013, 11:00 AM
In response to the original question these links should help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-31.htm#text

USAF_Vet
January 23, 2013, 03:46 PM
Looks like, if it passes, all my magazines will belong to the kids, and I'll simply be he legal custodian thereof until they turn 18.

AlexanderA
January 23, 2013, 05:24 PM
What's going to kill this is the lack of transferability of the "grandfathered" magazines, even to heirs upon the owner's death. It's as if Lautenberg and McCarthy have included their own "poison pill" in the bill. Reminds me of a soccer team that scores against itself. BTW, making a hitherto-legal asset non-transferable reduces its economic value to zero and therefore triggers a "taking" under the 5th Amendment. I'd like to see them come up with the money to compensate all the over-10 magazine owners.

Of course, if they finally do make the magazines transferable, it will be just like the last AWB, which simply drove up the price of magazines, but didn't remove them from the market. There are millions and millions of such magazines out there, so supply shouldn't be much of a problem. So Lautenberg and McCarthy are caught between a rock and a hard place on this.

Telekinesis
January 23, 2013, 06:49 PM
Looks like, if it passes, all my magazines will belong to the kids, and I'll simply be he legal custodian thereof until they turn 18.


If you have the means to do so, maybe create a small corporation and have the corp own the magazines. That way you can transfer ownership of the corp (or include new owners like children as they turn 18) at a later time and there is technically no transfer of the magazines (as the corp is still the legal owner) only a transfer of ownership of the corporation. I know, legal semantics, but you just have to adhere to the letter of the law, not the spirit of it ;)

mr.scott
January 23, 2013, 07:18 PM
Set up a trust and transfer everything to it before any thing passes. A trust can go on forever.

mbogo
January 23, 2013, 07:34 PM
The trust must name the trustees and beneficiaries when set up. If I remember correctly, you can add/change/delete beneficiaries but not trustees.

mbogo

Drail
January 23, 2013, 07:36 PM
Buy extra springs for every magazine you own before they start to become hard to find like everything else.

Landric
January 23, 2013, 07:38 PM
If you have the means to do so, maybe create a small corporation and have the corp own the magazines. That way you can transfer ownership of the corp (or include new owners like children as they turn 18) at a later time and there is technically no transfer of the magazines (as the corp is still the legal owner) only a transfer of ownership of the corporation. I know, legal semantics, but you just have to adhere to the letter of the law, not the spirit of it

If anything like this looks like it might even pass, that is exactly what I am going to do. Setting up an LLC in Missouri is simple, and it isn't hard to maintain.

AlexanderA
January 23, 2013, 07:38 PM
A trust can go on forever.

Not quite. Unless it's been abolished by a state statute, there's such a thing as "the rule against perpetuities."

chipcom
January 23, 2013, 07:42 PM
there are other bills that make registration and background checks a condition of grandfathering...gotta watch these sneaky fellers every second.

snake_plisskin
January 23, 2013, 07:56 PM
Wouldn't we need to register our magazines if transfer is outlawed? Otherwise how would they know if we bought and sold them in a private sale? Sounds pretty unenforceable to me.... unless I'm missing something.

AlexanderA
January 23, 2013, 10:50 PM
Sure, they would be bought and sold, same as illegal drugs are bought and sold today. But this trade would be driven underground. If caught (probably through a sting operation), you could be convicted of a felony and lose your gun rights for life. Would it be worth it? Remember, we're talking about otherwise law-abiding gun owners here, people who have families and community ties (unlike the typical drug dealers).

Don't think you could ignore this law once it was passed. The time to fight it is now, before it's too late.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone have the text Sen. Lautenberg's Magazine Bill?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!