General Geoff
Member
Any legislation specifically banning pistol magazines would be thrown out as unconstitutionally vague, if nothing else, because there are plenty of AR/AK pistol variants on the market.
McCarthy/Lautenberg Magazine Capacity Bills
- Thread starter gc70
- Start date
- Status
Any legislation specifically banning pistol magazines would be thrown out as unconstitutionally vague, if nothing else, because there are plenty of AR/AK pistol variants on the market.
I plead with you all...take the time to write a note to your senators and reps specifically asking them to oppose this bill. Do not let this be another 1994 moment where our own inaction led to our right being restricted. If you care about the RKBA, you must register your opposition to this bill. Speak and be heard, if not for yourself, for us.
Heller applies to guns, not magazines. The SC justices were clear that Heller would not prevent additional gun control legislation, including the banning of certain features. I am not even sure how coherent an arguement you could make about a magazine ban being unconstitional under the 2nd amendment. You are still armed if your gun only holds 10 rounds.
I wonder if high capacity magazines could be reclassified by the ATF as destructive devices, and regulated as such, or in the manner of Class III weapons.
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
The magazine is an integral part of a firearm, even if it's detachable.
Right, but the number of rounds is irrelevant to function of the gun.
Others here have said that the recent Tuscon shooter would have killed just as many people with a 10 round magazine as with a high capacity magazine. The conclusion to draw from this statement then is that a high cap magazine is not necessary for the gun to work properly, and you are are still keeping and bearing arms even if your gun has 10 rounds not 33.
I don't support a high capacity magazine ban, I am just offering what I believe the opposition will claim as justification for banning them.
xXxplosive
Member
We already have a 15 round max. magazine requirement here in NJ.....what does Sen. Lautenmummy want now ? Has he risen from the crypt again ?
zxcvbob
Member
And how does that not violate the Takings Clause (5th Amendment, I think)
bobbo
Member.
Because the government isn't saying you can't keep them, but saying you can't sell them. If they were taking them, then they'd have to pay you for them. But their not.
Travis McGee
Member
I think such a bill WILL PASS this year. Once it's packaged, the MSM will promote it to the sky. Any politician who opposes it will see his picture on TV between Cho and Loughner. "Why does Congressman Smith want maniacs to have easy access to these massacre-makers?"
Fact is, no Congressman will want his mug between those two killers on TV. At least 50 R's will cross the aisle to vote for it. Even Dick "Shotgun" Cheney has said,"We don't need these magazines." Plenty of Fudd "sportsmen" will go on TV to agree.
I would buy any "standard capacity" mags holding over 10 rounds pretty soon. Once the bill is up for consideration, prices will skyrocket and availability will go down. The grabbers have learned from the AWB. Instead of a comprehensive bill, they will target the low-hanging fruit: high cap mags. And this time, there won't be a sunset. Gone will be gone.
Fact is, no Congressman will want his mug between those two killers on TV. At least 50 R's will cross the aisle to vote for it. Even Dick "Shotgun" Cheney has said,"We don't need these magazines." Plenty of Fudd "sportsmen" will go on TV to agree.
I would buy any "standard capacity" mags holding over 10 rounds pretty soon. Once the bill is up for consideration, prices will skyrocket and availability will go down. The grabbers have learned from the AWB. Instead of a comprehensive bill, they will target the low-hanging fruit: high cap mags. And this time, there won't be a sunset. Gone will be gone.
OP
OP
gc70
Member
Prohibiting a business from selling a product takes away its ability to recover its cost or investment in the product.
‘‘The distinguishing characteristic between eminent domain and the police power is that the former involves the taking of property because of its need for the public use while the latter involves the regulation of such property to prevent the use thereof in a manner that is detrimental to the public interest.’’
Onward Allusion
Member
WILL pass??? Maybe it will pass in some form, but it's not a definite. In any event - GO HERE...
http://whoismyrepresentative.com/
AND write a snail mail letter to your reps. Forget about email. Do the letter thing. Much more effective. If you're lazy, pick up the phone.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
These 2, McCarthy and Lautenberg, propose these types of bill every session, they never get out of committee.
Speaker Boehner said they won't get out of House committee this time either.
It didn't happen even when Cho did his thing and Congress was made up of even more anti gun members. This one shooting in Arizona doesn't appear to be such a attitude shift as would be required to push this through.
I just don't see a compelling reason for the entire attitude of the nation and their representatives to make a 180 degree shift here.
Leverb66
Member
Many Reps have indicated that email is a better communication tool for them than snail mail.
Onward Allusion
Member
Yes, so that they don't have to actually open the envelope and file it away. Too easy for email to be dragged and dropped into an electronic folder... Do both...
Travis McGee
Member
I hope you guys are right, but I fear that squishy RINOs will cave on this one. Cho didn't kill one of their congressperson pals. Any pol who opposes this law will see his photo on the MSM between Cho and Loughner. They won't want that, at all.
Husker_Fan
Member
It would be really interesting to see how the courts treat such a restriction post Heller and MacDonald.
As for the "Takings Clause." It's likely a closer case than most people think. Any physical taking is going to be a violation, but this isn't. This is what would be called a regulatory taking. The threshold for finding a violation of the Takings Clause is much by regulation is much higher, but this could do it.
I still don't think this sees the light of day in either house. If Reid had lost to Angle, then Schumer would be Majority Leader and this would be heading for a floor vote. With Reid in the Senate, this is dead there too.
As for the "Takings Clause." It's likely a closer case than most people think. Any physical taking is going to be a violation, but this isn't. This is what would be called a regulatory taking. The threshold for finding a violation of the Takings Clause is much by regulation is much higher, but this could do it.
I still don't think this sees the light of day in either house. If Reid had lost to Angle, then Schumer would be Majority Leader and this would be heading for a floor vote. With Reid in the Senate, this is dead there too.
alsaqr
Member
H. R. 308 has 65 co-sponsors. It will go nowhere unless 218 house members sign a discharge petition.
JustinL
Member
As I have written before, there are 262 NRA 'A' rated members in Congress as well as 50 'A' rated Senators. If they were 'squishy' on second amendment issues they would not have received such a rating.
This bill is going nowhere.
This bill is going nowhere.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Gonna stop with this one for now. Unless these numbers change there isn't anything to discuss or get active over.
That's about the same number of sponsors this bill gets every session so it's a little early to try to figure out how the confiscations will take place.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
