Mag confiscation talking points

[30 cal slob]

Folks,

It's been a long week and I'm brain-dead and could use your collective IQ re: mag bans.

I am hoping to speak with a state legiscritter shortly. This person has submitted legislation to confiscate anything more than ten rounds.

Here are my bullet points that I will put into a powerpoint. We will also try to do a hands on, live-fire demo.

1) Criminals won't abide by mag bans.

2) Even so, criminals and nutjobs can reload. (I have examples).

3) Mag bans will put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage. More rounds = more time in the fight. This is a two-fold asymmetry: a) some folks need to be shot more than ten times to stop them (don't worry, I have real-world examples). b) multiple opponents

4) Legiscritters are genuinely surprised to hear that standard capacity mags are commonly sold with new guns. If you buy a new pistol or rifle, you'll get 2 or 3 mags. Pistol mags are typically 15-17 rounders and rifle mags are typically 30 rounders.

5) 30 really means 28, and 17 really means 16. SME's generally train their students to download AR15 mags by 2 rounds to ensure proper seating. It usually is not possible to load a 17 round Glock 17 mag with 17 rounds. SME's suggest downloading all Glock mags by 1 round to ensure reliable seating. At the end of the day, a ten round mag may really mean 8 or 9.

6) Confiscation will mean a LOT of property will be taken by the state, and compensation. Mags are wear and tear items. They will need to be replaced at some point. There are tens of millions in circulation in the US and their value has tripled in the past month. It's not uncommon for gun owners with more than one gun to own dozens, if not hundreds of standard capacity mags.

7) There exist no magazines with 7-8 round capacity for many popular guns (other than 1911's). Imposing such an arbitrary limit would effectively render many firearms immediately useless.

Did I miss anything?

Anyone recommend a few live fire drills/demos that would be helpful in this regard?

TY

-3CS

 

[avs11054]

I like it. What does SME stand for?

 

[Sam1911]

5) 30 really means 28, and 17 really means 16. SME's generally train their students to download AR15 mags by 2 rounds to ensure proper seating. It usually is not possible to load a 17 round Glock 17 mag with 17 rounds. SME's suggest downloading all Glock mags by 1 round to ensure reliable seating. At the end of the day, a ten round mag may really mean 8 or 9.

That's probably a non-starter. The "load 28" thing is not widespread outside the military and doesn't really seem to translate to platforms other than the M16/AR family.

I don't know a single person who downloads a handgun magazine -- EVER (outside of some competition that requires it). In fact, most load, chamber, and then top off the mag. (Like with my xDM, that's 19 +1 ... not only loading 17 or 18. )

And I doubt any legislator would care even a tiny little bit about whether a mag "usually" holds 28 instead of 30.

No point in even bringing it up.

 

[solvability]

SME = Sony Music and Entertainment

Might be Small Minded Ensign too.

 

[Sam1911]

What are you hoping to show with a live-fire drill? Running a Langdon 9 in six seconds or whatever isn't likely to convince a law maker that guns aren't dangerous!

What specific things ARE you trying to show him or her with live-fire drills?

 

[Fryerpower]

Subject Matter Expert (SME)

 

[Sam1911]

Subject Matter Expert (SME)

Ha ha...yes, or in this case, no.

 

[DblGonzo]

Any mag ban should have to apply law enforcement also. If you have a intruder in your home you will have to deal with the threat long before the police arrive. And they will show up with high capicity mags in every weapon they bring. If they need them so do we.

 

[30 cal slob]

One thing that could be easy to demo live fire is the reload.

Limiting guns to 10 rounds doesn't reduce the danger to anyone if the shooter has practiced his reloads. As was reportedly the case with the Newtown shooter - he tac loaded after 15 rounds. You can thank COD or another game for that.

The other thing is engaging multiple targets with a 10 round mag.

As an aside, to put aside any doubt as to the suitability for AR15's for home defense, have person engage target at 20 yards with a pistol. Then with a carbine. Repeat under low light conditions with pistol + hand held light vs. rds equipped carbine and rail-mounted white light.

I could go on.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

It usually is not possible to load a 17 round Glock 17 mag with 17 rounds.

No one told my Glock magazines that.

 

[Owen]

I have no problem loading my 17 round G17 mags to 17.

 

[mooner]

I also top off all my mags with no issues.

 

[The Grand Baboon]

As valuable as we see live fire drills to instilling a proper understanding of the function and use of a weapon, a senator or "legiscritter" will see nothing other than "Oh goodness, looks like mags aren't really the problem, all semi-autos need to go..."

I've seen people suggest that we send Peirs Morgan to a Travis Haley carbine or pistol course. Not a good idea. Despite all our best efforts Peirs would just say, "I've seen firsthand the power of these weapons, and they need to go."

Until those people are put in a situation where they would actually want a firearm to defend their lives, nothing is going to change and, mind you, it's not our responsibility to put them in such a situation - I've seen it suggested, sadly.

I don't exactly remember how the saying goes, but it's something along the lines of "A gun owner is a liberal who's been mugged."

 

[Sam1911]

The real benefit of getting an anti- (or fence-sitting) type to the range is the gut-level FUN of shooting. That's where we really make some headway because they start to change how they think of the "sport" of shooting and generally find it all intensely enjoyable.

Unfortunately, a few drills to show them that -- for example, you can do the same damage with 3 10-rd. mags as 1 30-round mag in about 4 seconds longer ... or that your deer hunting rifle is MUCH more powerful than that 5.56mm AR, etc. can totally backfire. Now they've seen with their own eyes how powerful and scary these guns can be!

 

[David E]

Any mag ban should have to apply law enforcement also. If you have a intruder in your home you will have to deal with the threat long before the police arrive. And they will show up with high capicity mags in every weapon they bring. If they need them so do we.

I see this as a far better argument than the bullet points in the OP

If cops need full capacity magazines to deal with threats when they have back up and SWAT (all with full cap mags), then the ordinary citizen, who has none of that, needs full cap mags, too.

 

[30 cal slob]

we can arrange to have an leo there to make just that point. ;-)

 

[breakingcontact]

Did I miss anything?

Just that you can't appeal to emotion with reason.

But I respect what you're saying.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is the major problem with limiting magazine capacity. The criminal picks where and when the attack happens. He can go into a mass shooting attack with a bag full of spare magazines. We do not know where an attack will happen - if we are robbed on the street, caught in a mass shooting, or the window break at 2am, the magazine in the gun is likely all we will have.

When you consider that trained police officers (NYPD and LAPD) have an average hit rate of 28-33% in officer involved shootings (and that number includes dogs and suicides) and that more than one hit may be necessary to stop an attack. You quickly see that a magazine capacity puts a major limitation on the citizen who doesn't know an attack is coming and isn't walking around with a bag of 10rd mags; but barely slows down the person planning an attack.

There is also a good example of this (I'll update later) where a trained SWAT officer got into a shoot out with a bad guy at car distances - just pistols for both of them. he fired 36 of his 40 rounds he was carrying before the bad guy finally stopped attacking. Example: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495800

 

[gazpacho]

Ex Post Facto

See if your state constitution has something similar to Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 of the US Constitution.

 

[Solo]

My favorite question to ask of someone supporting magazine bans: How's the War on Drugs going?

 

[30 cal slob]

Here is the major problem with limiting magazine capacity. The criminal picks where and when the attack happens. He can go into a mass shooting attack with a bag full of spare magazines. We do not know where an attack will happen - if we are robbed on the street, caught in a mass shooting, or the window break at 2am, the magazine in the gun is likely all we will have.

When you consider that trained police officers (NYPD and LAPD) have an average hit rate of 28-33% in officer involved shootings (and that number includes dogs and suicides) and that more than one hit may be necessary to stop an attack. You quickly see that a magazine capacity puts a major limitation on the citizen who doesn't know an attack is coming and isn't walking around with a bag of 10rd mags; but barely slows down the person planning an attack.

There is also a good example of this (I'll update later) where a trained SWAT officer got into a shoot out with a bad guy at car distances - just pistols for both of them. he fired 36 of his 40 rounds he was carrying before the bad guy finally stopped attacking.

Bart, thanks. I will try to pass on as much as I can. This is very helpful.

I think you are referring to the Officer Involved Shooting on 11/29/06 in PA - where an 18 y.o. assailant absorbed 10 rounds of .40 S&W and 16 rounds of .223 TAP and still had to be cuffed by a cop.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Pm44PbOE03mpVmQ&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dmQ&cad=rja

 

[miamivicedade]

To my understanding, any confiscation would be in direct violation of Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The government can not make you a criminal for something you obtained legally or during a time when it wasn't against the law, and later, pass a law forbidding it and take it from you (or threaten criminal proceedings or action). This is what is known as Ex Post Facto. And again, like so many other places in our Constitution, the founding fathers saw the importance of this because the government, and those that make it up, would use their power to criminalize people with whom they disagree.

 

[Derry 1946]

Ex post facto does not mean making the mag you bought yesterday illegal today or tomorrow. It means making that mag illegal as of yesterday. A law that applies prospectively to property you acquired in the past is not ex post facto (though it may raise issues under the takings clause). A law is ex post facto if, for example, you can be convicted under that law for your actions taken before the law was passed, and which were legal when you took them. A law is ex post facto when it illegalizes prior actions that were legal at the time they were taken, such that a person may be prosecuted for the prior actions, even if they ceased before the law went into effect.
In the case of magazines or weapons (or any other objects or substances), if one bought them legally, the then-legal purchase cannot be later criminalized retroactively. But their continued possession can be criminalized prospectively. This raises issues of notice and, sometimes, compensation, but does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

 

[miamivicedade]

That's what I said. If you didnt give up your mags or weapons, they would make you a criminal. Deery, your first sentence is completely incorrect.

 

[joeg26er]

so how is it that the new NY mag "laws" are not in violation of ExPost Facto? Simply because they have a time limit to get "rid" of their 10 rd mags which they previously purchased legally?