Say no to the magazine ban!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bill, as currently written, would grandfather possession of existing magazines, but not their sale or transfer. Therefore you would be stuck with whatever you had on the date of enactment.

Don't worry, though, this will die in the Senate.
 
''The bill, as currently written, would grandfather possession of existing magazines, for now''

Eating the elephant one bite at a time directly implies more bites in the future.

''Don't worry, though, this will die in the Senate.'' OK you don't worry, I will. The time to worry is at a supposed time of peace, calm, complacency; the lilly livered word...compromise.
 
I gotta agree with AA this time, it will most likely die in the Senate and then the Dems can show the world what hateful insensitive people the Repubs are, nothing new in the anti gun strategy book. The antis love to do this and use emotion to make whoever voted against the bill look bad, and in this case they want to make the republicans look bad to help the Dems chances in 2020.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry, and don't need to call and write, because we do.
 
That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry, and don't need to call and write, because we do.
I agree. This situation might be the wake-up call that gun owners need to quit hiding in the shadows, thinking nothing will affect them, and start making their voices heard. I have been a silent 2A advocate, "I fully support the 2A, in words only" type, for too long. I only started putting (a little) money where my mouth is, about a year ago, and have been writing representatives every time a new issue is presented. Still have a way to go, but I can say that I have at least "woken up."

Oh, and I signed this the minute the FPC alert popped up in my inbox.
 
Done done and done!

Previous posters are right, this will die in the senate. But don't get lazy, we don't know the future. The currently possessed mags are grandfathered in this bill probably only because there's too many out there to count and no way, really, to know who owns them. But that could change via new technologies .... or more likely, more extreme politicians simply pass another law and people using them get arrested as they're discovered, secondarily to some other investigation or action.
 
My only issue is, can someone verify this site? I know back during the Obama reign there was some anti stuff set up seemingly as pro gun and some site was collecting info like this from people who were thinking they were sending a pro gun message when the antis took their info and flipped the script. So, they took their info and sent in anti gun sentiments instead.
 
My only issue is, can someone verify this site? I know back during the Obama reign there was some anti stuff set up seemingly as pro gun and some site was collecting info like this from people who were thinking they were sending a pro gun message when the antis took their info and flipped the script. So, they took their info and sent in anti gun sentiments instead.

Seems legit.

https://ballotpedia.org/Firearms_Policy_Coalition
 
By overreaching (and I consider outright magazine bans and AW bans to be grossly overreaching), the antigunners are actually diminishing their chances of enacting things like UBC's and "red flag" laws. This is true now and will be even more true if the Democrats come to power after 2020.

USA Today is running an editorial on this very subject this morning:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...gun-buyback-no-editorials-debates/2082219001/

The truth of the matter is that there are so many "assault weapons" -- not to mention magazines -- in private hands today that any "ban" short of "mandatory buybacks" (confiscation) will hardly make a dent. Once confiscation is off the table (and we can see that is, politically), the rest is just empty posturing.
 
Interesting article but it has some flaws.

It says:
A better proposal would mirror the assault weapons ban of 1994, which outlawed the manufacture, sale and possession of these military-style rifles from the date of the bill's enactment

Not really, AR pattern rifles without some of the doodads were readily available new. Also, the Mini-14s of equal efficacy when push came to shove were available. New mags though were restricted.

It also makes the argument that bans on new manufacturer might slow down mass shooters as it closes the path of easiest acquisition of a such a weapon. The gun world usually says that a dedicated killer will get one anyway or use a substitute method (bomb, truck). That's an empirical question as we don't know if it would slow down some folks. There is a case in NE of Islamic terrorists who turned away from a gun plot as they wanted full auto and thought the NFA rules were too much trouble.

People have pointed out that UBCs (private sale NICS checks) won't affect rampages as some of the shooters have been legit new purchasers. NICS checks on private sales won't stop those who pass the checks. However, tightening up reporting might have stopped some that passed as they should have been reported. Would they have gone on to private sales - we don't know?

Lots of suggestions and we don't have empirical support for a supposed law. Most laws are political statements, anyway.
 
My rep is a lawyer turned activist, your typical anti gun puke, won't do any good.
in her lawyer days she considered charging an mma fighter who killed a guy with one punch after the guy and 2 of his buddies kicked in mma fighters door in the middle of the night in a hilariously failed attempt at a home invasion.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article but it has some flaws.

It says:

Not really, AR pattern rifles without some of the doodads were readily available new. Also, the Mini-14s of equal efficacy when push came to shove were available. New mags though were restricted.

It also makes the argument that bans on new manufacturer might slow down mass shooters as it closes the path of easiest acquisition of a such a weapon. The gun world usually says that a dedicated killer will get one anyway or use a substitute method (bomb, truck). That's an empirical question as we don't know if it would slow down some folks. There is a case in NE of Islamic terrorists who turned away from a gun plot as they wanted full auto and thought the NFA rules were too much trouble.

People have pointed out that UBCs (private sale NICS checks) won't affect rampages as some of the shooters have been legit new purchasers. NICS checks on private sales won't stop those who pass the checks. However, tightening up reporting might have stopped some that passed as they should have been reported. Would they have gone on to private sales - we don't know?

Lots of suggestions and we don't have empirical support for a supposed law. Most laws are political statements, anyway.


Also possession wasn't banned. If you owned it before the ban you were good to go.
 
Also possession wasn't banned. If you owned it before the ban you were good to go.
As far as magazines go, the difference between the 1994-2004 AWB and this current proposed magazine ban is that transfers were allowed under the '94 ban, but would not be allowed under this one. That's clearly a significant difference, but possession of magazines owned on the date of enactment was / would be still legal. Since there's no way to track pre-enactment magazines, they would still change hands informally. Considering the present surfeit of magazines, there is no way to enforce this thing. It's all just for show.
 
As far as magazines go, the difference between the 1994-2004 AWB and this current proposed magazine ban is that transfers were allowed under the '94 ban, but would not be allowed under this one. That's clearly a significant difference, but possession of magazines owned on the date of enactment was / would be still legal. Since there's no way to track pre-enactment magazines, they would still change hands informally. Considering the present surfeit of magazines, there is no way to enforce this thing. It's all just for show.

Annd, did you sign ... just for show ?
 
Since there's no way to track pre-enactment magazines, they would still change hands informally. Considering the present surfeit of magazines, there is no way to enforce this thing.

Which is why grandfathering is just a bite of the whale and a full ban is the next step.

It's all just for show.


If the goal is only to 'out' the R's that won't support it, that would be true.

But it's naïve, at best, to think thats the only goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top