DC Emergency Legislation "takes" magazines

[hoffmang]

The new DC emergency legislation is now basically sane except for one item.

Emergency Legislation (http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20080917160812.pdf)


“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

Note that possession of all sizes of magazines was perfectly legal the day before passage.

-Gene

[nick]

The new DC emergency legislation is now basically sane except for one item.

Emergency Legislation (http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20080917160812.pdf)



Note that possession of all sizes of magazines was perfectly legal the day before passage.

-Gene

Of course, let's not forget who was pushing for it.

[the_quark]

It's only valid for 90 days. So, clearly, some more legislation is going to be needed...

-TQ

[C.G.]

Of course, let's not forget who was pushing for it.

Let me take a wild guess here. The Dems.:confused::rolleyes:

[bwiese]

Geez, aren't they getting tired of paying Gura's legal fees?

The 'takings' issue is exactly why CA's mag ban allowed continued possession.

[savasyn]

Wow, I believe they just banned certain lever action rifles in .38/.357. If I remember correctly, some can hold 12 rounds of .38.

Do they really expect this new law to stand?

[nick]

They aren't paying it, the taxpayers are.

[bulgron]

Do they really expect this new law to stand?

The new law is only good for 90 days so, no, they don't expect it to stand.

[dfletcher]

Just to be clear, this is the temp DC city council version and NOT the US Congress version.

I notice the 22 cal magazine exception doesn't even state "permanently" attached. So I'd guess that if a 22 mag is tubular (gee, the Butler Creek looks tubular to me - a square tube, but tubular nonetheless) it's OK - but only when it's "attached" to the rifle?

And are the 38, 357, 44 lever action types supposed to plug their mags?

I notice their definition of a machine gun (more than one round, single pull of the trigger) includes the phrase "without manual reloading". Exactly what does that mean? Is a semi cycling considered manual? I've always thought of manual as being by hand - as in I load my 1885 single shot manually. It seems the more than one round, single pull of the trigger line should be enough.

And nice of them to say the gun in the home "should" be unloaded, locked or not assembled - not "must" or "shall" just should. Thanks for the suggestion that I should, but I choose shall not.

If the goal was to satisfy the US Congress by showing Heller compliance, doesn't this fail enough to compel Congress to continue?

[Hopi]

Geez, aren't they getting tired of paying Gura's legal fees?

The 'takings' issue is exactly why CA's mag ban allowed continued possession.

Interesting, that implies that there are other non-Heller related issues with confiscation? What might those be?

[bwiese]

Interesting, that implies that there are other non-Heller related issues with confiscation? What might those be?

5th Amendment 'takings': gov't declares something illegal without either grandfathering in your ownership, or paying you cash equivalent.

[Hopi]

5th Amendment 'takings': gov't declares something illegal without either grandfathering in your ownership, or paying you cash equivalent.

Thanks!

[mymonkeyman]

Except even Scalia indicated that non-compensated takings of chattels were probably permissible. There was no grandfather clause for the Marijuana Act, Controlled Substances Act, etc.

[Paratus et Vigilans]

Haste makes waste! :)

[Hopi]

Except even Scalia indicated that non-compensated takings of chattels were probably permissible. There was no grandfather clause for the Marijuana Act, Controlled Substances Act, etc.

Right. More reading for me.....

I found this which is interesting...
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pi210.html

Excerpted...
But the compensation requirement served to discipline the public's appetite as well, for without it, the demand for public goods would in principle be infinite. That is exactly what has happened today. Without the discipline that is provided by the compensation requirement, regulations have grown and grown. It is time to rein in that growth as the Framers meant it to be reined in. The public appetite has been undisciplined for too long and the victims today, both direct and indirect, are too numerous to let this go on any longer.

[tombinghamthegreat]

And nice of them to say the gun in the home "should" be unloaded, locked or not assembled - not "must" or "shall" just should. Thanks for the suggestion that I should, but I choose shall not.


Couldn't this be a problem in a SD legal situation? Could someone uses a firearm in self defense and find them self in legal hell because DA is arguing since you failed to lock up your gun, you must have planned on killing someone? Hopefully DC losses its right to pass regulation because they keep making traps.

[jamesob]

man they all copy california crap don't they.

[hoffmang]

I just noticed something really funny. There is no exemption for LEOs or Feds to possess large-capacity ammunition feeding devices in the law.

-Gene

[leelaw]

man they all copy california crap don't they.

It's worse than California's law.

Besides, if they were copying CA's laws, CA might sue them for stealing copyrighted material ;)

[Telperion]

Question: how do magazine capacity laws fit with our understanding of Heller? Are they currently suspect, or what kind of decision from the courts would we need to attack them in earnest?

[Liberty1]

Question: how do magazine capacity laws fit with our understanding of Heller? Are they currently suspect, or what kind of decision from the courts would we need to attack them in earnest?

DC can be taken for a ride right now via ex post facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto#United_States)

[JDoe]

I just noticed something really funny. There is no exemption for LEOs or Feds to possess large-capacity ammunition feeding devices in the law.

-Gene

Exactly! Heh, you beat me to it, that was the first thing I looked for.

I guess all the LEOs have to turn in their magazines for destruction now.

[ilbob]

Except even Scalia indicated that non-compensated takings of chattels were probably permissible. There was no grandfather clause for the Marijuana Act, Controlled Substances Act, etc.

there probably were not a whole lot of cases where such property was owned before the prohibition and they were charged afterward.

[jimx]

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

I guess that outlaws all linked ammo.
Since it does not say “readily converted” just converted I’m thinking that 10/30 mags would also be illegal. Come to think of it maybe all mags are a no go because with a little cutting and welding you can “convert” any mag to an hi-cap…

[bohoki]

so there idea for a semi auto pistol registration is banishing of all 11 or more holding magazines

man shouldnt there be some kind of fast track for supreme court relief for this baloney

[nick]

Exactly! Heh, you beat me to it, that was the first thing I looked for.

I guess all the LEOs have to turn in their magazines for destruction now.

Nope, they'll just be allowed to keep them in violation of that law, after which it'll be amended. I don't know if you noticed how we've become a society of triple (at least) standards, but we have become one.

[BillCA]

or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
It might also ban a lot of magazines with removeable base plates where an extended finger rest can be added that increases the capacity by +1 or +2 rounds.

The law says no person shall ... sell... any hi-cap magazines. Does that mean sell them inside the DC limits or a resident of dc selling one in a "free" state? Would it be a crime under the statue for you to sell your own property outside of " DC?

[trashman]

I just noticed something really funny. There is no exemption for LEOs or Feds to possess large-capacity ammunition feeding devices in the law.


Something I imagine will become typical - as most of the anti-gun legal crowd aren't gun nuts...basic things like this will get overlooked - and especially in DC where there are so many different independent LE agencies (that are federal) -- e.g, stakeholders.

My sense is the legislative team there is just throwing all kinds of stuff over the transom on the off-chance that it won't get thrown back..

--Neill

[Patriot]

I just noticed something really funny. There is no exemption for LEOs or Feds to possess large-capacity ammunition feeding devices in the law.

-Gene

IIRC a certain agency uses P90s...

ETA - How could they not have thought to add LE exemption?

[DedEye]

Just to be clear, this is the temp DC city council version and NOT the US Congress version.

I notice the 22 cal magazine exception doesn't even state "permanently" attached. So I'd guess that if a 22 mag is tubular (gee, the Butler Creek looks tubular to me - a square tube, but tubular nonetheless) it's OK - but only when it's "attached" to the rifle?

And are the 38, 357, 44 lever action types supposed to plug their mags?

I notice their definition of a machine gun (more than one round, single pull of the trigger) includes the phrase "without manual reloading". Exactly what does that mean? Is a semi cycling considered manual? I've always thought of manual as being by hand - as in I load my 1885 single shot manually. It seems the more than one round, single pull of the trigger line should be enough.

And nice of them to say the gun in the home "should" be unloaded, locked or not assembled - not "must" or "shall" just should. Thanks for the suggestion that I should, but I choose shall not.

If the goal was to satisfy the US Congress by showing Heller compliance, doesn't this fail enough to compel Congress to continue?

Calico .22s seem to be able to use tubular magazines as well, yes?

[SJgunguy24]

Couldn't this be a problem in a SD legal situation? Could someone uses a firearm in self defense and find them self in legal hell because DA is arguing since you failed to lock up your gun, you must have planned on killing someone? Hopefully DC losses its right to pass regulation because they keep making traps.

I have always thought that "Should" is a suggestion or an opinion. There is no way that can hold up in court. A judge can suggest anything they like. You should go to treatment , you should go to jail. When there is an order you will/ must do what your ordered to do. I actually had a LEO tell me I shouldn't carry 2 knives. I asked him to show me a law that forbids me from carrying more than 1 knife, and I will comply with the law. I "shouldn't" was his opinion, I don't care what his opinion is. He left and was not happy. I would use that type of arguement and get that B.S. law thrown out .

[CA_Libertarian]

IIRC a certain agency uses P90s...

ETA - How could they not have thought to add LE exemption?

Politicians are good at two things: getting elected and effing up everything they touch.

[Liberty1]

Politicians are good at two things: getting elected and effing up everything they touch.

No, no. I really think they were trying to be egalitarian ;).

[trinydex]

I just noticed something really funny. There is no exemption for LEOs or Feds to possess large-capacity ammunition feeding devices in the law.

-Gene

oh that's cute.... wtf are they doing.

[Patriot]

oh that's cute.... wtf are they doing.

Opening mouth and inserting foot from the looks of it

[N6ATF]

So much time wasted writing and interpreting these unconstitutional laws...

When they could just sum up their feelings towards humanity with this simple acronym:

FOAD!

[artherd]

Secret Service is in violation... I don't think this will last long.

[trinydex]

Secret Service is in violation... I don't think this will last long.

maybe bush will say ALL YOUR EMERGENCY LEGISTRATION ARE BERONG TO ME!

[Liberty1]

Secret Service is in violation... I don't think this will last long.

You mean they're going to take out the DC council for banning the SS's high caps as a threat to the Pres.'s safety?

God I hate having all those words in one post together :TFH: :eek: :TFH:

[N6ATF]

maybe bush will say ALL YOUR EMERGENCY LEGISTRATION ARE BERONG TO ME!

When did Bush become a Engrish (Japanese R/L sound mixup) stereotype? :p

[trinydex]

he didn't... :D

[BillCA]

Secret Service is in violation... I don't think this will last long.

Anyone have a copy of the previous law? I don't recall a direct LE exemption in that either. It may be covered under a different section of the D.C. code.