Semi Automatics which do not have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds?

[SDGlock23]

.45 GAP Glocks, G36, G42, G43, most 1911's, all of the Springfield XDS lineup, the smaller Kahr's, I'm sure the S&W Shield series as well. Definitely some Ruger pistols and Sig pistols and I suppose you could choose a revolver. The thing is, why do people allow such restrictions on the 2nd Amendment? Too few really care, the ones that do aren't willing to do anything about it because ultimately the people really don't have power at all, so I'd be moving out of IL if I lived there. Any people that think a magazine ban will lower crime rates don't seem to realize that the only people who are restricted by such laws aren't the people committing crimes, so in essence they're implying that all law abiding gun owners are potentially dangerous criminals.

 

[edwardware]

Anything with a detachable magazine is capable of accepting magazines of more than 10 rounds. <snip> All of this just illustrates why having people that do not understand guns draft gun regulations is profoundly stupid!

Yes.

Just imagine how much worse it'd be if they weren't profoundly ignorant!

 

[ATLDave]

Except that increased knowledge tends to come with increased skepticism about the ability of rules regarding materiel to change overall crime or homicide rates.

• Once you know enough to understand that an old-fashioned pump action shotgun with 00 buck would be perhaps the most dangerous of all weapons for a mass shooter to use, you kind of let go of the idea of addressing that problem with rules about technical characteristics of guns.
• Once you know enough to realize that, if mass-manufactured guns were somehow inaccessible to civilian population, the most likely black-market replacement would be open-bolt submachine guns (simply because they are the easiest kind of repeating firearm to make with garage-grade equipment and supplies), you kind of let go of the idea of limiting the supply of guns as a way to reduce crime or homicides.
• Once you know enough to realize that a .22lr is powerful enough to be lethal, and that substantially any rifle cartridge suitable for hunting deer is powerful enough to punch through soft body armor, then you kind of let go of the idea that we can get rid of guns that are "too powerful."

I say all this as someone who was once sympathetic to moderate levels of gun control, but became increasingly skeptical as I looked at data and learned more about the particulars of firearms.

 

[AlexanderA]

All of this just illustrates why having people that do not understand guns draft gun regulations is profoundly stupid!

And the people that do understand guns (the gun community) are missing from the process. For example, it should be easy to amend such a bill to exempt pistols that don't hold more than 10 rounds in a standard magazine that doesn't extend significantly beyond the butt of the grip. They would then outlaw only the extended magazines for such guns. Don't get me wrong -- I am not for such legislation. I am thinking only about ways to mitigate the damage, if passage of such bills becomes inevitable.

 

[ATLDave]

I'm not sure that would be better, though. I would think a 2nd amendment challenge to a law that functionally bans all modern self-loading pistols would be easier to sustain than something that allowed 1911's and P220's and various other self-defense-adequate handguns. Hard to say whether a grotesquely overbroad bad law is better or worse than a merely ordinarily-bad law.

 

[TomJ]

The issue we have here is that this is not an attempt to reduce crime, but it's an end around the 2A. They can't do away with it so they're doing what they can to limit our rights. The alternative you have is to pick one doublestack gun for CC and register it so you can continue to carry it with the understanding that it may at some point be subject to confiscation. It should be an inexpensive, reliable gun that won't hurt much financially if it's confiscated.

 

[edwardware]

And the people that do understand guns (the gun community) are missing from the process. . .

You're right, and I think this is a good thing. I prefer that gun control legislation be poorly written, because it makes for weaker law, and better workarounds.

Think of all the loopholes we have through the intent of GCA and NFA; if those laws had been written by smart engineers instead of dumb politicians, they would be much more restrictive than they turned out to be.

For example, if some idiot politician had been smart enough to Iink the $200 stamp tax to inflation, then the law would have worked as intended and none but the very wealthy would own legal suppressors/SBRs/SBSs, etc.

Full disclosure: not much in politics gives me more joy than watching smart engineers design circles around dumb legislators, in firearms, CAFE Standards, and elsewhere.

 

[FL-NC]

As long as it uses a detachable magazine, they are all 1 hobby metal fab project from holding as many rounds as the fabricator cares to make the mag to hold. Take a look at Baby Face Nelson's full auto 1911. Maybe something like that weird grendel 9mm that was top-loaded, and sold for about 15 minutes back in the late 80's would be compliant with this reg.

 

[Texas10mm]

.45 GAP Glocks, G36, G42, G43, most 1911's, all of the Springfield XDS lineup, the smaller Kahr's, I'm sure the S&W Shield series as well. Definitely some Ruger pistols and Sig pistols and I suppose you could choose a revolver. The thing is, why do people allow such restrictions on the 2nd Amendment? Too few really care, the ones that do aren't willing to do anything about it because ultimately the people really don't have power at all, so I'd be moving out of IL if I lived there. Any people that think a magazine ban will lower crime rates don't seem to realize that the only people who are restricted by such laws aren't the people committing crimes, so in essence they're implying that all law abiding gun owners are potentially dangerous criminals.

Every 1911 has the capability to have a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

 

[CZF]

Having had to endure one
AWB and asinine 10-round limits
was enough for me.



with the new gun storage act here in WA state.

Our anti-gun Democrats will also be passing a
mag ban.

10-rounds at first, then all semis, then onto revolvers.

With my carpal
tunnel and other health factors, I've
decided to sell every gun, except one.

It's been a very fun 35 years of owning them ,but
I've always known that someday I'd have to hang
up my guns.


Just not be forced to do so by

Communist
Mills..Pushing the UN
Agenda, backed by billionares and Democratic judges...
and stupid
retires who fall for every measure on guns in this state.



Others in this state are also getting out of the shooting sports.

 

[Garandimal]

...Are there any other semi automatics which would still be legal under this legislation without having to register it?

One of the Best ones:

GLOCK G36 .45 ACP




​

GR

 

[kidneyboy]

"All of this just illustrates why having people that do not understand guns draft gun regulations is profoundly stupid!"

There doesn't need to be any understanding of guns to pass legislation to ban them.
The long term objective of all this type of legislation is to disarm the public. Looking at each individual piece of legislation keeps you from seeing the big picture.

 

[sigarms228]

By the wording it sounds like a ban on AR rifles and pistols. I don't think it applies to regular pistols.

Correct.

That’s the way I interpreted the language and hope you’re correct, but have received e-mails from groups such as the NRA-ILA interpreting it as I described. I think the way sentences 6B through 8 and where they placed the comma is causing confusion.

NRA-ILA is showing this on their webpage now. It can be a little confusing with first read. Still a really bad proposed law and hoping downstate Democrats help stop it and I believe they will. Illinois, like other states, tends to let these bills linger until the next mass shooting and then brings it to a vote.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190124/illinois-bill-introduced-to-ban-many-firearms-accessories

Some examples to be banned include:

• Any semi-automatic rifle or handgun that can accept a detachable magazine greater than ten rounds in capacity and has one or more features, such as a protruding grip for the support hand; a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; a handguard; or a muzzle brake or compensator.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I’m thinking the spirit of the way the law was drafted pertains directly to larger double stack type pistols. However, apparently lib incompetence has paid off and it won’t take anything to interpret as meaning any pistol with a removable magazine as we have already and logically done here.

People who understand guns would be better fit to draft such legislation but those same people who understand guns are going to be the very ones who oppose said legislation.

Apparently anti gunners thoroughly don’t understand what they are trying to restrict. Which makes said proposed restrictions somewhat groundless and illogical even from a personal and emotional standpoint.

 

[George P]

Apparently anti gunners thoroughly don’t understand what they are trying to restrict. Which makes said proposed restrictions somewhat groundless and illogical even from a personal and emotional standpoint.

They understand PERFECTLY what they are trying to restrict: ALL guns; they just know they have to do it inch by inch and they have been successful for many years.
WE keep thinking, and waiting for, that one piece of legislation that will instantly ban all guns; they know to ban them one little piece of law at a time.
They have been successful in getting the general public and media to accept that an inanimate object is the cause of all of this gun violence and not the criminal; that takes a lot of smarts to pull off.

 

[P5 Guy]

http://www.a-human-right.com/clip-fed-pistols.html

Sadly they are obsolete.

 

[Ignition Override]

ATLDave: You mentioned "increased knowledge". How about those of us who had Zero knowledge?
I'm embarrassed to add that I had no interest in guns between the ages of 25 (very seldom used the .22 rifle) and age 52, in '07.

My only source of info about guns in the 90s was CNN. Living in "East Memphis", near midtown, anything regarding very rare gun discussions with Non-gun people, indifferent or otherwise,
might have been similar to living in Manhattan NY.

Finally, a coworker living on rural land in so. MO (one of many commuters) mentioned something at random, and politely contradicted the distorted info I had gleaned from CNN about 'cop killer bullets'. He described the skewed and intentionally omitted facts.
This prompted a little thinking. What really sparked interest was moving to the edge of the suburbs and for a while having access to a river where people were allowed to shoot (until Tannerite was used there...), and the nearby club.

 

[JR24]

Except that increased knowledge tends to come with increased skepticism about the ability of rules regarding materiel to change overall crime or homicide rates.

• Once you know enough to understand that an old-fashioned pump action shotgun with 00 buck would be perhaps the most dangerous of all weapons for a mass shooter to use, you kind of let go of the idea of addressing that problem with rules about technical characteristics of guns.
• Once you know enough to realize that, if mass-manufactured guns were somehow inaccessible to civilian population, the most likely black-market replacement would be open-bolt submachine guns (simply because they are the easiest kind of repeating firearm to make with garage-grade equipment and supplies), you kind of let go of the idea of limiting the supply of guns as a way to reduce crime or homicides.
• Once you know enough to realize that a .22lr is powerful enough to be lethal, and that substantially any rifle cartridge suitable for hunting deer is powerful enough to punch through soft body armor, then you kind of let go of the idea that we can get rid of guns that are "too powerful."

I say all this as someone who was once sympathetic to moderate levels of gun control, but became increasingly skeptical as I looked at data and learned more about the particulars of firearms.

Then of course they'll fail to realize that even in their "ban all guns" (for non criminals) in the US, the hot new market to be smuggled north will, of course, be guns.

And if we cant stop hundreds of thousands of people and millions of tons of drugs from entering the country, a few truckloads of "illegal guns" will be trivial.

I believe I was reading Toronto (maybe?) Was/is having a similar issue where payment for drugs now often involves a quick crate of guns too.

 

[ATLDave]

I often ask pro-gun-control people how they feel the war on drugs has worked out. Or how prohibition worked. This gives some of them real pause, while others just blithely insist "that's just different."

 

[JR24]

I often ask pro-gun-control people how they feel the war on drugs has worked out. Or how prohibition worked. This gives some of them real pause, while others just blithely insist "that's just different."

I have done the same, and got the same response. Especially "well, this time it would work" answer. Which makes no sense.

 

[AlexanderA]

I often ask pro-gun-control people how they feel the war on drugs has worked out. Or how prohibition worked. This gives some of them real pause, while others just blithely insist "that's just different."

I think that the more savvy antigunners know that their bans cannot be airtight. Their argument would be that the number of guns would be lessened (over time) by attrition, and in the meantime the gun culture would be driven underground. This overlooks the huge number of guns extant in this country, the nature of guns being non-consumable and non-perishable (unlike drugs or alcohol), and the pervasiveness of the gun culture (in some parts of the country) being much greater than they realize.

 

[ATLDave]

Yeah, the whole "reduce the supply" line of thinking is beyond preposterous if you do a little math.

There are about 10k gun-involved homicides per year. There are 400+ million guns in the United States. Even assuming that every homicide requires a different gun (which we know is wrong), we literally have 40,000 times the number of guns needed to supply our existing gun-for-homicide demand. In other words, you'd have to reduce the total supply multiple orders of magnitude before you reached the point where there aren't enough guns to go around to "support" current levels of gun-involved homicide.

The old Will Rogers joke about finding u-boats by boiling the oceans comes to mind.

 

[sigarms228]

I have done the same, and got the same response. Especially "well, this time it would work" answer. Which makes no sense.

That is because you use logic and the person you are debating uses emotions to make their decisions. Good luck with that as it often resorts to name calling.

IMHO we are going to see another major run on firearms,accessories, and ammo sometime in 2020. Right now we are enjoying great times in a buyers market for such and I advise everyone to double check their wish lists and considering moving on purchases while the good times last.

 

[Rebel 1]

That is because you use logic and the person you are debating uses emotions to make their decisions. Good luck with that as it often resorts to name calling.

IMHO we are going to see another major run on firearms,accessories, and ammo sometime in 2020. Right now we are enjoying great times in a buyers market for such and I advise everyone to double check their wish lists and considering moving on purchases while the good times last.

Amen, sigarms228, please pass the ammo!!!

 

[Obturation]

Yeah, illinois is a gem. 20 years until i can leave...

Op- duh, desert eagle with a spare on each ankle for the new york style reload.