McCarthy/Lautenberg Magazine Capacity Bills

[gc70]

Previous threads about magazine capacity limits have been closed because, as Art noted, "Until there is a House bill and a companion Senate bill, there is little to discuss."

A set of identical bills, titled the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, have now been proposed in the House and Senate to limit magazine capacity.

• H.R.308 introduced by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
• S.32 introduced by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

The proposed bills are very similar to the magazine limits of the '94 AWB. The biggest difference is that the proposed bills would ban transfers of devices in existence before enactment of the bill (allows for continued possession).

Since political discussions are prohibited on THR, please do not rant about McCarthy, Lautenberg, particular political parties, or people who hold particular political beliefs.

The proposed bills contain provisions that are ripe for serious legal discussion. As a starter:

• The bills ban transfers, so businesses and people holding magazines exceeding the capacity limits in the bills would not be able to sell them; would this run afoul of the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause?

• The capacity limits in the bills would ban the standard magazines for many of the most popular handguns and rifles commonly in use; would this run afoul of the Heller decision?

 

[GerryM]

Yep, time to call and send emails to your folks in Washington - let's put a stop to this before it even gets going

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well the Speaker has said that it will not make it out of the House committee. Guess we will see.

Keep in mind that these 2 introduce basically the same stuff every session.

 

[bobbo]

They're in committee. While the Senate might see it come to the floor (eventually), there isn't enough support to stop a filibuster by the GOP, and several Dems will cross the aisle to oppose this.

In the House, as it's been said on here far too many times, it will never leave committee, let alone see an up-or-down floor vote. This bill died before it was born.

Without the House passing it, it won't become a law. Ever. Period.

I'd say lock this up, as absolutely nothing has changed. The only people who will profit off of this continued talk are those with big magazines to sell.

 

[gc70]

Could we please avoid the politics surrounding these bills, including their prospects (or lack thereof) for passage, which has been thoroughly discussed in previous locked threads.

While gun control advocates would like to see the entire AWB reinstated and extended, these bills reflect what our opponents believe are our weakest spot, where they are most likely to gain political traction. Since the political prospects of bills like the ones proposed change over time, it is worthy of our attention to consider whether there are legal defenses against the proposals.

 

[aryfrosty]

What?

I'm sorry. I generally try to avoid politics but it is akin to burying our heads in the sand to completely avoid politics in such discussions. When you can show me an effort by right wing politicians or a particular party to ban guns or gun owner's rights then we will avoid politics. The party of anti-gunner's stands on its' own legs and they need to be held accountable for their silliness. Now, moderators, I did not say the name of the party but if you want to pull my post you certainly can.

 

[Carter]

I've sent my emails to NC's senators and my congressman. I also addressed the issue of banning private sales because it would keep people from getting a fair market value for their private property. Hopefully it doesn't fall of deaf ears.

Just because these bills go against the constitution or court decisions doesn't mean they couldn't be passed. Since when do mere words keep politicians from doing what they want?

I think the fact that it would keep soldiers or police from buying affordable magazines for their duty use without all the departmental red tape should be brought up too.

 

[chihuahuatn]

Without the House passing it, it won't become a law. Ever. Period.

bobbo, my thoughts exactly

A few comments here folks...
1) The climate was much different for the Clinton ban than it is today...we're more informed with the internet and have recent pro-2A court decisions
2) I have to be honest, if this happened early in Obama's presidency with a Dem house controlled I would be worried
3) The Economy/Jobs, Health Care, Rising oil prices, unrest in the middle-east, the GOP taking the house...there are much more important issues at hand
4) When my pro-Obama Democrat friends are complaining about Obama getting involved in Gun-Control I know the political climate is not right for gun-control.

Please dont get me wrong I wrote my legislators this week and I believe that as gun supporters we need to fight heavy right from the start to stop anything from progressing. We must be vigilant.

 

[Art Eatman]

aryfrosty, re-read: "...please do not rant about McCarthy, Lautenberg, particular political parties, or people who hold particular political beliefs."

We're talking about the effects of such laws and ways to stop their passage. The people/party stuff is irrelevant.

The point about magazines provided by civilians to troops overseas is probably unknown to most legislators. It's worth a comment in your letter to your Congresscritter. Also worth comment is the track record of purchases of firearms, these last fifteen to twenty years. Just the last three years, I'm told, have had the FBI do some 30+ thousand NICS checks. That's votes.

I've read that in the world of advertising, one snail-mail letter equates to the opinion of 300 more people besides the writer. I have to guess that fairly well would hold true for letters to Congress. Snail mail letters have more import than emails or FAXes.

Sen. KB Hutchison of Texas makes a point of personally reading any hand-written letter. Her staff deals with everything else.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Maybe they should just make it illegal to commit a crime with a "hi-cap" magazine.... or to commit a crime with a gun for that matter.... that would be a law I would throw support behind.

 

[gc70]

Also worth comment is the track record of purchases of firearms, these last fifteen to twenty years.

FBI summary of Total NICS Background Checks, November 30, 1998 - December 31, 2010 = over 124 MILLION.

 

[Balrog]

I do not believe the average person cares much about high capacity magazines, and if they just limit the ban to any mags over 10 rounds (and not try to ban any guns at the same time), I think there will be not too much general resistance from the public at large. This is especially true if they attach it as an amendment to some other important legislation that the Republicans really want to pass.

Maybe they should just make it illegal to commit a crime with a "hi-cap" magazine.... or to commit a crime with a gun for that matter.... that would be a law I would throw support behind.

Well that seems absurd to me. Murder is murder. I would just as soon be shot with a high capacity Glock as a six shot revolver. Dead is dead.

 

[General Geoff]

Well that seems absurd to me. Murder is murder. I would just as soon be shot with a high capacity Glock as a six shot revolver. Dead is dead.

A magazine capacity ban in any form is absurd. Might as well back an absurd law that doesn't affect the law abiding.

 

[Balrog]

A magazine capacity ban in any form is absurd. Might as well back an absurd law that doesn't affect the law abiding.

Or maybe not back any absurd laws.

In any case though, I think a magazine ban, if they leave guns out of it, may well come into being especially if there is another high profile murder using a gun with a high cap magazine.

 

[gc70]

In any case though, I think a magazine ban, if they leave guns out of it, may well come into being especially if there is another high profile murder using a gun with a high cap magazine.

Do we have a basis for judicial recourse to that legislative action?

 

[General Geoff]

Do we have a basis for judicial recourse to that legislative action?

The fact that standard capacity (over 10 rounds) magazines are in common use and would thus be protected by the 2nd Amendment as per the Heller decision.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Well that seems absurd to me. Murder is murder. I would just as soon be shot with a high capacity Glock as a six shot revolver. Dead is dead.

Ding ding ding... So why would a ban on magazines over 10 rounds be effective on crime?

 

[Onward Allusion]

The fact that standard capacity (over 10 rounds) magazines are in common use and would thus be protected by the 2nd Amendment as per the Heller decision.

While that may be the case, one can easily argue that magazines in excess of (fill in the blank - 14, 15 ) rounds are not in common use and would not be covered under Heller.

 

[General Geoff]

While that may be the case, one can easily argue that magazines in excess of (fill in the blank - 14, 15 ) rounds are not in common use and would not be covered under Heller.

It could also easily be argued that standard capacity for AR-15 magazines is 30 rounds, and there are millions of them in the hands of private citizens, which would make them also in common use. For that matter, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of drum magazines of various types in circulation in the private sector as well. I don't see any kind of magazine capacity limit passing constitutional muster.

 

[sig220mw]

How can you avoid the politics of these proposals when they are about nothing but politics. If you support people in a party that has gun control as one of it's main party platforms and those people support that platform, then you voted for an anti gunner.

Politicians make this about politics. We don't.

I will not vote for ANY PERSON that supports gun control no matter what party.

 

[71Commander]

bills would ban transfers of devices in existence before enactment of the bill

Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong. Does this mean I can break a law before it becomes a law?

 

[Deus Machina]

No, it means that you get to keep what you have, but can't buy or sell them after the bill passes.

 

[alsaqr]

The House Speaker says that H. R. 308 is dead; therefore, i believe that it is dead.

H. R. 308 could be brought to the floor over the Speaker's objection if it's proponents get the signatures of 218 House members on a discharge petition: That is not going to happen.

 

[Onward Allusion]

It could also easily be argued that standard capacity for AR-15 magazines is 30 rounds, and there are millions of them in the hands of private citizens, which would make them also in common use. For that matter, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of drum magazines of various types in circulation in the private sector as well. I don't see any kind of magazine capacity limit passing constitutional muster.

So, one can argue that while 30 round magazine capacity for rifles are common such capacity for handguns are not. Are we willing to give up 33, 31, 20, 18, or even 16 round handgun magazines?

I for one am not.

 

[xcgates]

I'd almost be tempted to draw some correlation between magazine capacity and vehicle horsepower/torque based on arbitrary numbers, but I'd be affraid that politicians would take that and take all the fun vehicles away.

Bottom line is to do all we can to keep the government from imposing artificial limits based on "we don't feel that anyone could possibly need so much!"