PDA

View Full Version : 10 round magazine capacity limit?


kozelnik
05-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Exactly what is the point of the 10 round magazine capacity limit?

Aside from the obvious, limiting the number of shots available to shoot in immediate succession without reloading. Is this perhaps intended for limiting the length of fire fight engagements?

It occurs to me that a person with a smaller caliber weapon may not be allowed to inflict sufficient injury to stop their assailant. Not to mention their skill level and ability under duress.

So it seems to me that we are being denied the full potential of a defensive weapon's design and intended use. Like only allowing one airbag in a car. Doesn't that just put people at a greater risk?

"Oh-oh! out of ammo! Guess I'll throw the thing at him!"

What will come next? "Sure, you can have bullets but they must be made of rubber and cannot cause lethal injury?"

Any input is appreciated, thanks!

CHS
05-20-2009, 10:52 AM
Control.

caoboy
05-20-2009, 11:04 AM
It is to stop the 'bad guy' from laying waste to a crowd of babies, even with his bad aim.

kozelnik
05-20-2009, 11:08 AM
It is to stop the 'bad guy' from laying waste to a crowd of babies, even with his bad aim.

Yeah, but "bad guys" don't care about the rules anyways.

trendar5
05-20-2009, 11:22 AM
Seems like the CA hi-cap ban was at least in part a reaction to the Stockton schoolyard shooting.

If somebody threw a salami at somebody else, and it resulted in an injury, there will always be a politician like Leland Yee in S.F. to get TV cameras around him and announce proposed legislation the next day. He even wrote proposed legislation on a snowmobile safety issue...

evan69
05-20-2009, 11:23 AM
Control.

Fear

AndrewMendez
05-20-2009, 11:24 AM
Yeah, but "bad guys" don't care about the rules anyways.

OMG Dont tell Diane Finestien!! Her entire life will be over!

evan69
05-20-2009, 11:34 AM
I doubt you could talk sense into that woman even if you caught her in a corner face to face...

thefurball
05-20-2009, 11:50 AM
Exactly what is the point of the 10 round magazine capacity limit?

There is no rational point.

Is this perhaps intended for limiting the length of fire fight engagements?

If everybody in the firefight follows the same rule then sure. Real world? Not going to happen.

So it seems to me that we are being denied the full potential of a defensive weapon's design and intended use.

Makes hypocrites like DiFi sleep better dreaming of a world where only The State has a gun and we mere citizens are unarmed.

"Sure, you can have bullets but they must be made of rubber and cannot cause lethal injury?"

Please don't give them any ideas.

Nate74
05-20-2009, 1:09 PM
Makes hypocrites like DiFi sleep better dreaming of a world where only The State has a gun and we mere citizens are unarmed.


One minor correction: an unarmed citizen is a subject.

Librarian
05-20-2009, 1:26 PM
bdsmchs had it correct in one word: control.

Please do not ever allow yourself to believe that 'gun control laws' have anything whatsoever to do with public safety, nor that they can be explained by any logic beyond 'will this help me get re-elected?'

CapnHawk
05-20-2009, 5:32 PM
As much as I detest the hi-cap magazine ban, it was never an issue for me as a 33-year LEO. I carried a revolver the entire time, including my back-up. The emphasis of Army and LE firearms training was to account for every shot fired and make every shot count. The few times I had to deploy my sidearm, I always did it in six. I consider myself lucky.

Riodog
05-20-2009, 9:36 PM
As much as I detest the hi-cap magazine ban, it was never an issue for me as a 33-year LEO. I carried a revolver the entire time, including my back-up. The emphasis of Army and LE firearms training was to account for every shot fired and make every shot count. The few times I had to deploy my sidearm, I always did it in six. I consider myself lucky.

Capn, with all due respect, you forget that most of the clowns that yell the loudest never learned to make each and every shot count. Basic firearms 101, NRA basic, Boy Scouts basic, etc.

They all imagine themselves 'laying down' suppression fire in the case of a 'punk' stealing the stereo out of their beater.
Rio

bluestaterebel
05-20-2009, 9:52 PM
so you dont spray from the hip without reloading

CHS
05-20-2009, 10:25 PM
Capn, with all due respect, you forget that most of the clowns that yell the loudest never learned to make each and every shot count. Basic firearms 101, NRA basic, Boy Scouts basic, etc.

They all imagine themselves 'laying down' suppression fire in the case of a 'punk' stealing the stereo out of their beater.
Rio

You like your reduced-capacity magazines, I like freedom.

SDgarrick
05-20-2009, 10:53 PM
the 10 round limit asserts the idea that 10 rounds is enough. over time some people, perhaps the voting majority become very comfortable with 10 rounds, and eventually no longer question this number. that is when the time will be ripe to re badge 10 round mags as hi-caps and start the process again...

The goal behind it all is to slowly phase out our mechanisms of defense , to take away our claws.

dchang0
05-20-2009, 11:27 PM
Yeah, but "bad guys" don't care about the rules anyways.

Yeah, and really bad guys would use bombs anyway, especially if guns were banned outright.

the 10 round limit asserts the idea that 10 rounds is enough. over time some people, perhaps the voting majority become very comfortable with 10 rounds, and eventually no longer question this number. that is when the time will be ripe to re badge 10 round mags as hi-caps and start the process again...

The goal behind it all is to slowly phase out our mechanisms of defense , to take away our claws.

That's a big reason why we gotta reclaim our nomenclature: start calling 10+ round mags "STANDARD CAPACITY" and 10 or less round mags "NEUTERED" or "LEGALLY-MANDATED LOW-CAPACITY MAGS."

jlchavis0844
05-21-2009, 7:03 AM
Yeah, and really bad guys would use bombs anyway, especially if guns were banned outright.



That's a big reason why we gotta reclaim our nomenclature: start calling 10+ round mags "STANDARD CAPACITY" and 10 or less round mags "NEUTERED" or "LEGALLY-MANDATED LOW-CAPACITY MAGS."

This is actually a good idea. The RNC has used effective language like this to win more than a few elections over time. It's a bit like calling a gay marriage ban the "defense of Marriage Act". Politics aside, ban is a much more negative word than "defense of". Let's hope they don't start call the standard magazine ban the "defense of revolvers act"

10+ = Standard Mags
10 or below = Low Capacity.

Socom16Fan
05-21-2009, 9:09 AM
Fear

Loathing

MasterYong
05-21-2009, 9:43 AM
This is actually a good idea. The RNC has used effective language like this to win more than a few elections over time. It's a bit like calling a gay marriage ban the "defense of Marriage Act". Politics aside, ban is a much more negative word than "defense of". Let's hope they don't start call the standard magazine ban the "defense of revolvers act"

10+ = Standard Mags
10 or below = Low Capacity.

I have always referred to "high capacity magazines" as "full capacity magazines". I have also always called 10 round magazines (for the calibers that can fit more than 10) "neutered magazines".

I don't think this will really help change any laws, but I feel it's more politically correct. If I have ever said "high capacity" on this forum it was a slip- just like, every now and then, I accidentally call a magazine a "clip" even though I'm one of those jerks that always corrects folks for saying "clip" instead of "magazine".

I think I learned the "full capacity" jargon from survivalblog, long before I ever even bought a firearm.

hybridatsun350
05-21-2009, 9:48 AM
Yeah, but "bad guys" don't care about the rules anyways.

Of course bad guys care about the rules. Actually, they passionately care about them. It makes it easier for them to victimize us law-abiding folk!

kozelnik
05-21-2009, 10:23 AM
That's a big reason why we gotta reclaim our nomenclature: start calling 10+ round mags "STANDARD CAPACITY" and 10 or less round mags "NEUTERED" or "LEGALLY-MANDATED LOW-CAPACITY MAGS."

Interesting comment!

Thanks to everyone for your comments thus far! I'm glad that this is turning into a conversation.

Control, Fear, Loathing. All good quips and true to the problem at hand. Personally I think these are at the heart of the political machines that promote knee jerk laws into action. As a result of which we end up getting the shaft.

I still would like to know, that is if anyone actually knows, what was the argument proposed on the 10 round minimum. Why was it 10 and not 9 or 11. Also, part of my initial post is to stimulate some thought on the political/legal angle of defensive argument that will stem the tide of legislation forcing manufacturers to abandon the California market.

By many standards I am a relatively newcomer to the gun enthusiast circles. That being said, most of my family and friends have had no interaction with guns or gun culture and many have had a initial negative reaction to my enthusiasm. So, a part of my motivation here is to be able to communicate with them clearly, rationally and methodically as to what this is all about. I'm hoping that I can dissipate some of the "Fear", "Loathing", and "Control" that non gun folks perceive.

many thanks!

CHS
05-21-2009, 11:14 AM
I still would like to know, that is if anyone actually knows, what was the argument proposed on the 10 round minimum. Why was it 10 and not 9 or 11.

I'm guessing because it's an easy round number.

pacifico
05-21-2009, 11:16 AM
A regular magazine comes in whatever capacity the manufacturer wants to provide. Legally-mandated low capacity magazines are not the same as regular magazines.

(I like that phrase and will continue to use it.)

supersonic
05-21-2009, 11:33 AM
Exactly what is the point of the 10 round magazine capacity limit?

Aside from the obvious, limiting the number of shots available to shoot in immediate succession without reloading. Is this perhaps intended for limiting the length of fire fight engagements?

It occurs to me that a person with a smaller caliber weapon may not be allowed to inflict sufficient injury to stop their assailant. Not to mention their skill level and ability under duress.

So it seems to me that we are being denied the full potential of a defensive weapon's design and intended use. Like only allowing one airbag in a car. Doesn't that just put people at a greater risk?

"Oh-oh! out of ammo! Guess I'll throw the thing at him!"

What will come next? "Sure, you can have bullets but they must be made of rubber and cannot cause lethal injury?"

Any input is appreciated, thanks!

Ummmm........:beatdeadhorse5:

ldivinag
05-21-2009, 1:06 PM
bdsmchs had it correct in one word: control.

Please do not ever allow yourself to believe that 'gun control laws' have anything whatsoever to do with public safety, nor that they can be explained by any logic beyond 'will this help me get re-elected?'


as the old saying goes...

gun control aint about guns... it's about control...

CalNRA
05-21-2009, 1:55 PM
no no no and no.

you guys got it alllll wrong.

Statistics show that the 12th round in a gun is most used in fatal shootings. See by limiting the number of rounds in a gun to 10+1 in the pipe, the great folks in Sac are ensuring your safety.

No joke.























:D

ironpete
05-21-2009, 8:30 PM
So it seems to me that we are being denied the full potential of a defensive weapon's design and intended use.

You're forgetting one thing. Anti's only see firearms as offensive weapons...unless used in their defense. US Soldiers can kill for America but can't protect themselves once they return home.

It isn't just control. It is to permanently tip the balance in their favor. Whether it is the state, police, etc, all of this game playing is to create and secure a permanent advantage.

We went from all men being created equal to us (peons) vs them (powerful/rich/elite/state).

-pete

ojisan
05-21-2009, 8:43 PM
Old guy here...back in the day, when all the various bans were being planned, guns like the AK w/ 30 round mag, AR w/ 30 round mag, Glock w/ 17 round mag were the "evil" ones.
Lots of solutions to the evil were proposed.
The worst proposal was limiting semi-auto rifles to 5 rounds (same as hunting rifles for "Sporting Purpose") and semi-auto handguns to 6 rounds, the same as most revolvers.
The Fed AW Ban and limit to ten round mags was the final compromise.

low94noma
05-21-2009, 9:43 PM
The word 'Control' in this issue is very funny. The politicians excuse is for public safety. Is that stopping criminals from obtaining magazines with a capacity greater than 10, NO! Did banning AR15's and rifles with 'evil features' stop criminals from obtaining them from another source, NO. What about the criminals with hand grenades? We do not get to play with them to conform to the law. Criminals do not give a sh**. The reason I laugh at the word 'Control, is because they will never be able to fully control the citizens in America unless they want another Civil War. The 2nd amendment population is growing stronger everyday, we just got to keep fighting.

eccvets
05-22-2009, 6:42 PM
11 bullets would create a blackhole which would suck us all in to it and destroy the world!!!

wm97s
05-23-2009, 10:36 AM
Exactly what is the point of the 10 round magazine capacity limit?

Aside from the obvious, limiting the number of shots available to shoot in immediate succession without reloading. Is this perhaps intended for limiting the length of fire fight engagements?

It occurs to me that a person with a smaller caliber weapon may not be allowed to inflict sufficient injury to stop their assailant. Not to mention their skill level and ability under duress.

So it seems to me that we are being denied the full potential of a defensive weapon's design and intended use. Like only allowing one airbag in a car. Doesn't that just put people at a greater risk?

"Oh-oh! out of ammo! Guess I'll throw the thing at him!"

What will come next? "Sure, you can have bullets but they must be made of rubber and cannot cause lethal injury?"

Any input is appreciated, thanks!

If you had more than ten rounds you would surely hurt yourself or someone else. Same thing as with the flash hider on the Springfield M1A1. If you have the flash hider with the long slots, that is very dangerous. If you have one, you should switch it out with the similar tube that has round holes. That is much less dangerous.

If you can't understand that then, I am sorry, but you are forever disqualified from being a lawmaker in California.

Greg-Dawg
05-23-2009, 11:23 AM
Do what I do, just buy more ten round mags.

If you have 20 magazines, then you'll have 200 round high capacity magazines!!!!:eek:

Black Majik
05-23-2009, 11:26 AM
no no no and no.

you guys got it alllll wrong.

Statistics show that the 12th round in a gun is most used in fatal shootings. See by limiting the number of rounds in a gun to 10+1 in the pipe, the great folks in Sac are ensuring your safety.

No joke.



:D

What'd they do, test with only 9mm? ;)

phamkl
05-23-2009, 4:26 PM
Low blow.

Not cool, man. Not cool.

hawk81
05-23-2009, 4:59 PM
The point is, is that it is about the government wanting to control you and making you their B****.


Exactly what is the point of the 10 round magazine capacity limit?

Aside from the obvious, limiting the number of shots available to shoot in immediate succession without reloading. Is this perhaps intended for limiting the length of fire fight engagements?

It occurs to me that a person with a smaller caliber weapon may not be allowed to inflict sufficient injury to stop their assailant. Not to mention their skill level and ability under duress.

So it seems to me that we are being denied the full potential of a defensive weapon's design and intended use. Like only allowing one airbag in a car. Doesn't that just put people at a greater risk?

"Oh-oh! out of ammo! Guess I'll throw the thing at him!"

What will come next? "Sure, you can have bullets but they must be made of rubber and cannot cause lethal injury?"

Any input is appreciated, thanks!

Cato
05-23-2009, 7:22 PM
Save criminals lives from honest citizens.

Greg-Dawg
05-24-2009, 7:51 AM
Will the high cap ban law expire, just like the AWB?

lioneaglegriffin
05-24-2009, 9:03 AM
Will the high cap ban law expire, just like the AWB?

no it has to be torn down like a Sadam Hussien Statue and beaten with flip flops.

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 9:10 AM
As much as I detest the hi-cap magazine ban, it was never an issue for me as a 33-year LEO. I carried a revolver the entire time, including my back-up. The emphasis of Army and LE firearms training was to account for every shot fired and make every shot count. The few times I had to deploy my sidearm, I always did it in six. I consider myself lucky.

Two important points Capn.

First, as a professional LEO, you can invest the practice time that those of us with day jobs that don't mandate firearms training can not. It should come as no surprise that less trained citizenry might need a couple of more rounds if things went bad - if only to add to the confidence if/when one ever has to use it. Odds are you will not, but knowing you have some margin for error makes you more effective.

Second, you have/had a radio and armed men who would take your "shots fired" call very seriously very quickly. Somtimes 911 works for citizens and sometimes it doesn't.

The actual self defense argument for the common citizen may very well be that they need more ease of use than the trained professionals.

-Gene

kozelnik
05-24-2009, 11:48 AM
no it has to be torn down like a Sadam Hussien Statue and beaten with flip flops.

Anyone know where I can find a decent pair of tactical flip flops for this. Cali-approved of course! LOL!

lioneaglegriffin
05-24-2009, 1:13 PM
Anyone know where I can find a decent pair of tactical flip flops for this. Cali-approved of course! LOL!

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l85/lioneaglegriffin/pinkboxerssoldier.jpg
i think these count?

also notice the tactical tennis shoes. :D

Jerm
05-24-2009, 7:59 PM
I doubt you could talk sense into that woman even if you caught her in a corner face to face...

I have wondered who the hell votes for her and boxer for many years I sure the hell Have not!!!!

bsg
05-24-2009, 9:18 PM
i have heard it said that "you don't need more than 10 rounds to defend your home." well, that is a presumptuous statement and it neglects the presence of the 2nd amendment. and finally... the people cannot possibly ever form a militia that has any potential to do it's job with '10 round magazine capacity.' the armed forces cannot ever be considered to be a "militia of the people" as it is a body that enforces the will of government, and essentially is part of government.

Analog Kid
05-24-2009, 9:42 PM
That's an important point. I've heard people say, "Well, the 2nd amendment doesn't really apply because we don't have militias anymore."

The founding fathers were extremely smart -- and distrustful of authority (sort of goes with the whole "smart" thing). The right to bear arms is inalienable because it enables citizens to defend themselves against their own government should the need arise. That's why the 2nd says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE." It does not simply say, "a State," or "the United States." A militia is different from a standing army in that regard, and the fathers knew exactly what they were writing.

The Bill of Rights protects people from all governments, including (perhaps especially) their own. Violating it is an act of war, since such violation composes the prelude to dictatorship -- see Hitler, Stalin, etc.

But yeah ... dead horse. I just had to go on my soap box :D

jrsportssupply
05-25-2009, 12:44 AM
Let us not forget the 101 California St shooting, where some mentally ill person, armed with Tec9/Mac10/Uzi (I forget which), with "high capacity magazines" killed several people without the need to reload. This was a high-profile case that was used to demonize so-called "high-capacity" magazines, and ultimately led to the current assault weapons ban & high-capacity magazine ban.

The pro-gun crowd was not able, at that time, to articulate why the anti-gun people's arguments were fallacious. THEY were arguing that so-called high-capacity magazines were designed solely to kill more people without reloading, while the best argument we had was that restricting magazine capacity was a violation of our constitutional rights. In the court of public opinion, we lost.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do see the pendulum swinging back in our favor. After decades of studies showing the American people in favor of tighter controls on guns, the last several polls show declining support for tighter restrictions on guns and increased support for enforcement of current laws (the NRA should be proud!).

Quiet
05-25-2009, 1:20 AM
OMG Dont tell Diane Finestien!! Her entire life will be over!
I doubt you could talk sense into that woman even if you caught her in a corner face to face...
Makes hypocrites like DiFi sleep better dreaming of a world where only The State has a gun and we mere citizens are unarmed

I believe Feinstein initially wanted a 6 round capacity limit, but had to settle on 10 rounds as a compromise to the fence sitters in order to get it passed.

I do know that Brady Bill II [S1878](introduced 05-14-1994) had the 6 round capacity limit.

stormy_clothing
05-25-2009, 9:08 AM
this whole thing is bs - for soldiers 30 rounds is not enough for a battle - so they carry 5-10 mags - 150 to 300 rounds to square off against 5 people perhaps or less

thats between 30 and 60 rounds pp which statistics have shown is not enough.

now you look at police who are trained a 20% hit ratio - so 2 out of 10 rounds average, what if those hit arms or legs

what if he has a partner ?

I'm sure quite a few people have hi caps for home defense and rightly so.

diane ******* is not going to respond to a break in so I really dont care about her oppinion.

Quiet
05-26-2009, 12:42 AM
"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun." - Bill Ruger

Bill Ruger advocated and promoted a Federal magazine ban since 1989.

Most anti-gun sites point to Bill Ruger as the architect for the "hi-capacity magazine" ban.

Ron-Solo
05-26-2009, 9:22 PM
Exactly what is the point of the 10 round magazine capacity limit?



Stupidity

Seesm
05-26-2009, 10:44 PM
Just there to hurt the law abiding gun owners out there...

Funny also Ruger just came out with that Ar style rifle now...

http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAFamily?type=Rifle&subtype=Autoloading&famlst=66&variation=10/22%C2%AE Rimfire

DaveB1
05-31-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm with you on this one kozelnik... Newcomer to the gun crew on this side as well (just bought my third in six months), with similar reactions from my surroundings. As can be expected, I am also relatively new to the legislative questions and politics surrounding gun/magazine ownership issues. Now that I'm actually buying and using firearms, the 'why' questions sure are framed in an entirely different light!

Interesting comment!

Thanks to everyone for your comments thus far! I'm glad that this is turning into a conversation.

Control, Fear, Loathing. All good quips and true to the problem at hand. Personally I think these are at the heart of the political machines that promote knee jerk laws into action. As a result of which we end up getting the shaft.

I still would like to know, that is if anyone actually knows, what was the argument proposed on the 10 round minimum. Why was it 10 and not 9 or 11. Also, part of my initial post is to stimulate some thought on the political/legal angle of defensive argument that will stem the tide of legislation forcing manufacturers to abandon the California market.

By many standards I am a relatively newcomer to the gun enthusiast circles. That being said, most of my family and friends have had no interaction with guns or gun culture and many have had a initial negative reaction to my enthusiasm. So, a part of my motivation here is to be able to communicate with them clearly, rationally and methodically as to what this is all about. I'm hoping that I can dissipate some of the "Fear", "Loathing", and "Control" that non gun folks perceive.

many thanks!