PDA

View Full Version : Gun surprise: 2nd Amendment advocate says ban on high-capacity clips passes muster


joefrank64k
01-12-2011, 3:57 PM
Wow...just, wow.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/12/5824805-gun-surprise-2nd-amendment-advocate-says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster

A leading gun rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high-capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent “looney tunes” from committing more gun massacres.


Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court’s decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.


“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”...

Flopper
01-12-2011, 4:02 PM
W

T

F

:mad:

Vanilla Gorilla
01-12-2011, 4:04 PM
wow :mad:

Legasat
01-12-2011, 4:06 PM
They will NEVER stop.

This is why WE have to keep vigilant!!!

CCWFacts
01-12-2011, 4:19 PM
This isn't bad. This is being interpreted out of the context of understanding what it means. He's just saying that the RKBA isn't absolute, just like no right is absolute. He's also acknowledging that the court didn't define the limits of the right or the level of scrutiny.

Unfortunately most readers won't understand that he's talking about nuances here.

anthonyca
01-12-2011, 4:22 PM
The people on calguns are the hard core gun owners. About 75% of he guys I work with own at least one gun, or go shooting or hunting with friends. I only know of one other guy there who is a strong second amendment supporter.

Here are the things I hear from other gun owners. " you think your still in the Army and you need that" " I already got my AW, so I don't care" "why do you need to have more than 10'rounds?" "ya, you really need that AR to take a deer :rolleyes:" "there is no reason to have thousands of rounds, the Chinese are not attacking" "why would you even want a CCW?" " I don't care that antestraining order on an argument can let them take your guns, my wife is cool,'and I'm not a wife beater". These are all quotes from people who hunt or own guns.

What do most people say? Ya, most people say we should be able to own guns, but they are thinking of a six shooter or pump shotgun with 5 rounds. Look at the polls. And what does the government think? We already know they hate freedom.

Look, the Health care vote was the most contested vote ever. We shut down the congressional switch board by over loading it fore Pete's sake, but it passed.

I am not holding my breath for them not to trample more rights due to this nut job going on this murder spree.

MasterYong
01-12-2011, 4:22 PM
This has to be taken out of context.

He's right, but I highly doubt he's advocating such issues.

I don't AGREE with him being right, but I don't see anything in the constitution's actual text or the recent SCOTUS decisions that would prevent such a ban. The actual INTENTION of the constitution on the other hand surely covers high-caps, IMHO.

...from my cold, dead hands...one bullet at a time... etc etc etc

MasterYong
01-12-2011, 4:26 PM
The people on calguns are the hard core gun owners. About 75% of he guys I work with own at least one gun, or go shooting or hunting with friends. I only know of one other guy there who is a strong second amendment supporter.

Here are the things I hear from other gun owners. " you think your still in the Army and you need that" " I already got my AW, so I don't care" "why do you need to have more than 10'rounds?" "ya, you really need that AR to take a deer :rolleyes:" "there is no reason to have thousands of rounds, the Chinese are not attacking" "why would you even want a CCW?" " I don't care that antestraining order on an argument can let them take your guns, my wife is cool,'and I'm not a wife beater". These are all quotes from people who hunt or own guns.

What do most people say? Ya, most people say we should be able to own guns, but they are thinking of a six shooter or pump shotgun with 5 rounds. Look at the polls. And what does the government think? We already know they hate freedom.

Look, the Health care vote was the most contested vote ever. We shut down the congressional switch board by over loading it fore Pete's sake, but it passed.

I am not holding my breath for them not to trample more rights due to this nut job going on this murder spree.

Agreed.

I've spoken to many, many people that support the 2A, but think I'm crazy that I think it needs to be actively supported. A guy at work just last week told me "dude, take off the tinfoil hat. No one's trying to ban guns or take them away from you, no one wants to, and no one's ever done it so what are you worried about?" I just walked away. This was a guy that owns a gun and claims to be pro-2A.

The folks that don't actively research this stuff don't know it's happening until it's too late (if then) because while anti-gun rhetoric makes it in to mainstream news outlets, pro-gun rhetoric rarely does.

I even had a guy I know maybe three weeks ago ask me "hey have you heard anything about this CA ammo ban?" and this guy owns DOZENS of guns. I couldn't believe it.

oddball
01-12-2011, 4:56 PM
Robert Levy is not only the co-counsel of the Heller case, but bankrolled the case as well. He is also the chair of the Cato Institute, a libertarian thinktank advocating limited government.


This has to be taken out of context.

He's right, but I highly doubt he's advocating such issues.

Hard to say from Levy's quote here:

"It may stop a few of these looney tunes," Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a "close call, he said that that a restriction of "10 to 15 rounds makes sense."


:mad:

HondaMasterTech
01-12-2011, 5:05 PM
So, lets just say a ban on magazines with a capacity over 10 was passed. Let's also say no criminal was ever able to get their hands on a magazine with a capacity over 10. Do we now feel better that the criminal can kill 10 people without reloading instead of 17 or 33?

The solution, then, is to restrict magazine capacity to 1 round. That way a criminal must reaload after every person he/she kills. But, wait. Every life is precious. We should limit all magazines to a capacity of zero. That way a criminal can't kill anyone!

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Oh yea, I forgot. Criminals by definition DON'T OBEY LAWS!

dantodd
01-12-2011, 5:17 PM
The problem with a magazine limit is what is "reasonable" any capacity magazine that doesn't protrude a full round below the handgrip of a pistol? 30 rd. for a rifle? (std. m-16/Ak-47 magazine)

15 rds. for everything? 14 rds? 1 rd?

in common use? That would place us probably around 17 or 19 for handguns (many full-sized 9mm can carry this many commonly today) But what about new technologies that could easily fit 100 rds. into a pistol grip and would be economically disastrous to try and produce a "magazine" of only 10 or 15 rds. Do we strangle that sort of technology in the crib?

Perhaps we should have a 3 abortion limit or maybe a 65 op-ed limit. Maybe 1 church service a week limit.......

highpowermatch
01-12-2011, 5:19 PM
So, lets just say a ban on magazines with a capacity over 10 was passed. Let's also say no criminal was ever able to get their hands on a magazine with a capacity over 10. Do we now feel better that the criminal can kill 10 people without reloading instead of 17 or 33?

The solution, then, is to restrict magazine capacity to 1 round. That way a criminal must reaload after every person he/she kills. But, wait. Every life is precious. We should limit all magazines to a capacity of zero. That way a criminal can't kill anyone!

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Oh yea, I forgot. Criminals by definition DON'T OBEY LAWS!

Agreed, where does it stop? Why is 10 acceptable but not 11-30? Once they have it knocked down to ten then they will cry that semi autos are too dangerous, and so on. :mad:

Hopalong
01-12-2011, 5:19 PM
I don't see this guy as advocating anything.

I don't see him as a traitor.

I see him as trying to have an objective opinion as to a prediction as to how this may turn out.

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 5:22 PM
Levy may also be somewhat moderate on 2A issues, as opposed to some of us who are much for opposed to any regulation. Does anyone see him bankrolling current cases?

Also, I think a hicap ban probably passes muster until we get into police powers and militia use territory, about anal sex years away.

tonelar
01-12-2011, 5:29 PM
The Bambi shooters and Duck hunters smiled and nodded their heads when the 1989 Caliban was looming.
"Why do you even need 42 round mags in your AUG?"
"What are you doing with an UZI?"

faterikcartman
01-12-2011, 5:44 PM
I'm not surprised. I said at the time not to get too excited as we may just end up with revolvers, single shots, or even muskets.

IMO the only justice who can be counted on to follow the Constitution as originally understood where "shall not" actually means "shall not" rather than "may" in cases where "x, y, and z", is Thomas.

Tacit Blue
01-12-2011, 5:56 PM
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/bush_carbon15_ca_text.jpg

Somethings wrong with my AR15. Oh wait nvm this is how it's supposed to be :(

Barbarossa
01-12-2011, 6:03 PM
Levy may also be somewhat moderate on 2A issues, as opposed to some of us who are much for opposed to any regulation. Does anyone see him bankrolling current cases?

Also, I think a hicap ban probably passes muster until we get into police powers and militia use territory, about anal sex years away.

:confused:

LOL

:D

NightOwl
01-12-2011, 6:16 PM
anal sex years

You realize that someone is going to make a sig out of this, right? ;)

Jake71
01-12-2011, 6:25 PM
Charles Whitman primarily used a bolt action rifle and killed 16 and wounded 32. He didn't have "hi caps".

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't use a "hi cap" rifle....

So when will they get it, that it's not the size of the magazine, it's the bleeding idiot behind it. i.e. a criminal.

the_quark
01-12-2011, 6:32 PM
This is why I was ready to respond to Calatrava. When I first heard "he was tackled reloading an extra-capacity magazine," I realized people who want to ban things were going to say, "Fewer people would've been killed in this incident if he'd had a ten round magazine, so we should ban larger magazines because it would save lives." I knew this idea would sound very reasonable to most people, including people who are pro-Second Amendment.

Frankly, I've been disappointed that most of the responses I've seen from our side have been either "A trained shooter can reload quickly, so bans are stupid," or "The 2nd Amendment absolutely protects my right to any firearm accessory I want, you moron". Neither of these arguments is effective in this case.

There are a lot of other arguments, some of which may or may not be effective depending on the audience:


The initial information was incorrect. He was tackled after he completed a reload, when his extra-capacity magazine misfed, which they are notorious for. Ironically, his extra-capacity magazine may have saved lives.
If he'd been unable to purchase more than ten-round magazines, he likely would've purchased a higher caliber pistol, and it's likely some of the wounded (including Rep. Giffords) would be dead, today.
There are many more successful defensive gun shootings in the US than there are spree killings. Even though most defensive gun shootings don't need more than ten shots, some do, and that number must be larger than the number of victims of spree killings who would be saved if we could ban extra-capacity magazines.
The "Federal Assault Weapons" ban on magazines wasn't a ban on possession, just on manufacture. It likely would've not prevented the shooter from acquiring the magazines he used.
It's a very poor idea to make policy decisions based upon sudden, rare, high-profile events. This argument should do well with anyone who's been through a TSA checkpoint in the past decade.

I'd be interested in more arguments we could use (especially with people normally on "our side" who are just being "reasonable" after this tragedy). Attacking them, I think, isn't going to convince them on this issue - you need to be calm and present facts.

POLICESTATE
01-12-2011, 6:40 PM
I will not be surprised when the NRA comes down in support of limitation on ammo capacity in magazines.

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 6:47 PM
I will not be surprised when the NRA comes down in support of limitation on ammo capacity in magazines.

Not going to happen.

Tripper
01-12-2011, 6:50 PM
Masteryong , refer your friend to new orleans after the havoc there, if I recall correctly the mayor ordered the national guard to go gather all the guns, they promised were not being recorded for confiscation and that would Never ever happen, ask the folks there if they ever got their firearms back, some haven't and won't because they were destroyed

the_quark
01-12-2011, 6:50 PM
Not going to happen.

Yeah. Not even in anal sex years.

ke6guj
01-12-2011, 6:56 PM
:confused:

LOL

:D

You realize that someone is going to make a sig out of this, right? ;)

you guys do know what this is in reference to?

NFA is a long ways off as well it should be. Going after the NFA soon is like asking the girl you just met in the bar if she's into anal sex...

Handguns have the most protection right now so you're going to see things move from handguns out. Don't worry though, the end of the AW laws are very near and dear to many hearts here.

-Gene

razorx
01-12-2011, 7:03 PM
Has there been any studies on criminals not being able to, or inclined, to reload? Even if somehow mags are magically reduced to 10 rounds, do criminals suddenly "Oops, out of ammo, I'm tapped out..." or "I wish guns could use more than one mag..." or ...

There are a number of people on youtube that honestly, are so fast changing mags that 10 rd or 30 rd almost doesn't make a difference to them.

Is the belief that time changing mags for average person (3-5 secs), allows a target window for perp to be taken down?

Seems to me showing that one video of this guy on youtube changing mags sub second would end this debate on "high capacity" but I must be missing the argument somewhere.

the_quark
01-12-2011, 7:05 PM
you guys do know what this is in reference to?

*Sigh*. Yet another great line of mine stolen by hoffmang. You know I'm his ghost writer, right?

the_quark
01-12-2011, 7:07 PM
Seems to me showing that one video of this guy on youtube changing mags sub second would end this debate on "high capacity" but I must be missing the argument somewhere.

The argument is that, according to initial press reports, Mr. Loughner was tackled (and disarmed) during his first reload. Saying "Well, there's a guy on YouTube that can reload sub-second" isn't much of a refutation.

I now believe those initial reports to be in error. But, as long as that misinformation is out there, if someone believes "Mr. Loughner screwed up the reload," arguing "Well there's a guy on YouTube that wouldn't have" isn't very effective.

Quser.619
01-12-2011, 7:10 PM
The other trend I've noticed, including from Rep. Bob Gilner (sp?) of San Diego, is the questioning for semi-automatic handguns... the new evil black gun. God luck explaining that they've been around for over a 100 years

GOEX FFF
01-12-2011, 7:18 PM
Has there been any studies on criminals not being able to, or inclined, to reload? Even if somehow mags are magically reduced to 10 rounds, do criminals suddenly "Oops, out of ammo, I'm tapped out..." or "I wish guns could use more than one mag..." or ...

There are a number of people on youtube that honestly, are so fast changing mags that 10 rd or 30 rd almost doesn't make a difference to them.
.

This of course is falsely fixed when some bill gets introduced for some type of federal BB.

SoCal Bob
01-12-2011, 7:18 PM
The deranged killer in Tucson used a gun to carry out his plan. History tells us that deranged people are capable of great destruction using whatever tools are available.

Japan has some of the strictest gun controls anywhere so one might think that violence of this magnitude would be unheard of, however Japan was the location of two murderous rampages:

On June 8, 2001, a deranged man stabbed 21 children and two adults, killing 8 children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre


On June 8, 2008, a deranged man stabbed twelve people, killing four.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

To wish for Utopia is understandable, but it cannot be legislated. Lawmakers feel better about having passed laws they believe are tough on crime, when all they have done is to further restrict the very people who suffer most from the actions of the criminals or the deranged.

paul0660
01-12-2011, 7:19 PM
I'm not surprised. I said at the time not to get too excited as we may just end up with revolvers, single shots, or even muskets.

The slippery slope started to give way when they took away our full auto guns.

dustoff31
01-12-2011, 7:20 PM
I'd be interested in more arguments we could use (especially with people normally on "our side" who are just being "reasonable" after this tragedy). Attacking them, I think, isn't going to convince them on this issue - you need to be calm and present facts.

FWIW, there is a report from the SO, I believe, that the shooter was also in possession of 2 or 3 loaded standard capacity magazines as well as the extended mags.

The point of course is it simply doesn't matter what the mag capacity is. He went there to kill and injure as many people as he possibly could. And that is what he did. If he hadn't had the big mags, he would have used the small ones.

infamous209
01-12-2011, 7:22 PM
I think most have overlooked a simple fact. It only takes seconds to load a new clip/mag regardless if its 1 rd or 1000 rds.

GOEX FFF
01-12-2011, 7:25 PM
To wish for Utopia is understandable, but it cannot be legislated. Lawmakers feel better about having passed laws they believe are tough on crime, when all they have done is to further restrict the very people who suffer most from the actions of the criminals or the deranged.


WELL SAID!

jayala4444
01-12-2011, 7:29 PM
Hello I am new to these forums and have some questions regarding CA laws. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Barbarossa
01-12-2011, 7:40 PM
you guys do know what this is in reference to?

Anal sex?

*Sigh*. Yet another great line of mine stolen by hoffmang. You know I'm his ghost writer, right?

Hey I'm still trying to figure out when "2 weeks" is over....

Don't put the cart in front of the horse.


I honestly though this was an autocorrect (http://damnyouautocorrect.com/) moment.

Archie B.
01-12-2011, 7:49 PM
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/bush_carbon15_ca_text.jpg

Somethings wrong with my AR15. Oh wait nvm this is how it's supposed to be :(

And to think retailers wanted 1k for this POS...

Archie B.
01-12-2011, 7:59 PM
I always hear the rhetoric about a gun not having a sporting/hunting purpose. The 2nd. Ammendment is not about hunting and trap shooting. It`s about defending ones person, family and property from harm and the nation from a radical/tyrannical govt. and any insurrection, both foreign & domestic...and owning the types of weapons & hi cap mags to do the job. Hunting & sporting is nothing more than a by-product.

Window_Seat
01-12-2011, 7:59 PM
Could Silveria v. Lockyer also have the same effect LCMs?

If so, (in my IANAL opinion), a Peace Officer who is off duty might be able to have the LCM while off duty, but can only use it in their official capacity & duty as a LEO (eg. keeping it for use at home for work duty, or in the case of being called to duty while off duty), and can't just take it to the range for fun. Nor can they have it while retired, so even if a LCM ban were to take place, there is not one entire legislature in this nation that might take them away from LEOs who are off duty for personal reasons, or retired, and I can't see them allowing theirs to be taken away in the name of us being deprived of it. Or gone could be the days of "Yeah, I can use it at the range because I'm a cop, and I'm off duty", no?

Could this go to SCOTUS if the Legislature does it? Do we go out & start buying all kinds of LCMs (from out of state, and leaving them in another state :devil2:)?

And one other thing (ETA)... This one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383109)

Erik.

putput
01-12-2011, 8:18 PM
1. Climate. I don't think a high cap ban would get through Congress
2. Post Heller/McDonald total bans of tons of stuff that is already out there can't pass scrutiny so give me my High Cap/AW permit and I'll join MILLIONS of others who have em and don't abuse them...

Theriverjustknows
01-12-2011, 8:27 PM
oURZ3LxYhIY

jdberger
01-13-2011, 1:57 AM
Hello I am new to these forums and have some questions regarding CA laws. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

You should probably start a new thread and ask something specific. We've good people here. Some are a bit sarcastic. Some snarky. But good people.

Watch out for that the_quark character, though. He's a wicked one.

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 2:00 AM
Watch out for that the_quark character, though. He's a wicked one.

He's probably the most unevenly-tempered guy I know.

:rofl2:

Dutch Schultz
01-13-2011, 2:03 AM
I really can't see why it's so hard to understand "shall not be infringed". It's so damn simple, but nobody seems to get it.

gunsandrockets
01-13-2011, 2:59 AM
Robert Levy is not only the co-counsel of the Heller case, but bankrolled the case as well. He is also the chair of the Cato Institute, a libertarian thinktank advocating limited government.




Hard to say from Levy's quote here:

"It may stop a few of these looney tunes," Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a "close call, he said that that a restriction of "10 to 15 rounds makes sense."






Then according to Levy's logic a ban on fixed ammunition, smokeless powder, and revolvers would also be reasonable. In fact such a policy regime is the only thing which makes sense using the 'madman on a rampage' standard of reasonable regulation. Because even a brace of cap and ball revolvers could inflict an awful toll if wielded by a determined nutcase.

Proposals such as 10 round magazine limits would have no practical effect on how many people a madman could kill, and would have sky high enforcement costs too. A freeze on magazines like the old 1994 AW ban would be a total joke, accomplishing nothing. A true magazine ban would require confiscation of all existing magazines exceeding the limit that are held by the public. And that's a recipe for civil conflict!

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 3:14 AM
Levy's legal point makes sense. The question asked by the court is simply "Does this regulation infringe the core activity of self defense using arms?"

The answer with high-cap mags is most probably "No" provided enough rounds exist to make a fight. The previous magic number (10) was arguably enough.

Will such a ban have a chance of passing in the next two years? No. I doubt such a bill would even get out of committee let alone pass a floor vote in either chamber.

But 2A is not an absolute. What Levy is discussing is a good sign of the limits we have, even if we do not like them.

gunsandrockets
01-13-2011, 3:44 AM
Levy's legal point makes sense. The question asked by the court is simply "Does this regulation infringe the core activity of self defense using arms?"

The answer with high-cap mags is most probably "No" provided enough rounds exist to make a fight. The previous magic number (10) was arguably enough.

Will such a ban have a chance of passing in the next two years? No. I doubt such a bill would even get out of committee let alone pass a floor vote in either chamber.

But 2A is not an absolute. What Levy is discussing is a good sign of the limits we have, even if we do not like them.

Assuming that 10 cartridges are the magic number for self-defense, then why couldn't they ban possession of more than 10 cartridges at a time?

A ten round magazine ban is totally meaningless and arbitrary if the goal is to prevent any spree-killer from shooting up the neighborhood. What good is a magazine limit when possessing unlimited amounts of magazines, ammunition and firearms is still legal?

Funtimes
01-13-2011, 4:11 AM
What you are going to need to look at I think is the the manufacturing of firearms has since increased to standards in excess of 10. If those are "arms" commonly used by the militia, they may be protected under Miller v. US test and thus protected against infringement or banning.

That's at least my thinking.

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 4:40 AM
Assuming that 10 cartridges are the magic number for self-defense, then why couldn't they ban possession of more than 10 cartridges at a time?

A ten round magazine ban is totally meaningless and arbitrary if the goal is to prevent any spree-killer from shooting up the neighborhood. What good is a magazine limit when possessing unlimited amounts of magazines, ammunition and firearms is still legal?

I didn't say logic played a role.

The argument can be made both ways, but I think the "will of the people" (aka: a legislature) could pass muster with the court on this matter.

Court's rarely interpret the actual logic used as the basis of a lawmaking exercise; the assumption is that the will of the people should be respected. In this case I think a theoretical high-cap ban would evade strict scrutiny because it would fall outside the "core" protection of Heller - lawful self defense using arms. Once the court does this, a lower form of scrutiny would call only for the government to demonstrate a semi-lucid argument in favor of public safety. They would not need to "prove" anything. That's probably what Levy was thinking (though I disagree with his contention it would be helpful or make a bit of difference).

For what it's worth, this is the exact model being used in all these cases we see going against us: the judge finds the merits of our case outside the core protection of 2A (which they view as bearing arms in the home), which allows him/her to assign a lower standard of review, and hence dispense with our claims. So far we are not seeing District Courts do the type of categorical analysis we need, but that is another topic and probably an issue for another level of court anyway.

joefrank64k
01-13-2011, 9:55 AM
Then according to Levy's logic a ban on fixed ammunition, smokeless powder, and revolvers would also be reasonable. In fact such a policy regime is the only thing which makes sense using the 'madman on a rampage' standard of reasonable regulation. Because even a brace of cap and ball revolvers could inflict an awful toll if wielded by a determined nutcase.

Proposals such as 10 round magazine limits would have no practical effect on how many people a madman could kill, and would have sky high enforcement costs too. A freeze on magazines like the old 1994 AW ban would be a total joke, accomplishing nothing. A true magazine ban would require confiscation of all existing magazines exceeding the limit that are held by the public. And that's a recipe for civil conflict!

Well said!!!

tonantius
01-13-2011, 10:04 AM
I think we should pass a law that if a legislator sponsors a law that is ruled unconstitutional then they are guilty of treason.

CAL.BAR
01-13-2011, 10:22 AM
LEGALLY - I agree. 2A doesn't give us unfettered rights to any weapon (right?) NFA has been the law of the land for over 70 years. (Right?) NO ONE has ever

Even Heller said that states may enact "reasonable restrictions" on firearms etc.

So yelling 2A is really unproductive here. We will not win this argument. (at least not in court - especially a California court)
(sorry for the reality check)

AJAX22
01-13-2011, 10:24 AM
the push for Anal Sex is going to happen in the near future, my worry is that it will be done by poorly informed parties making poorly constructed 2nd amendment based arguments.... arguments we will loose and will set very bad precident.

We need to come up with a NON 2A based argument and strategy for obtaining Anal Sex, because if we don't have a viable alternative to present to these guys, they're going to go ahead with their loosing case.

anyway.

Thats how I see it.

Lone_Gunman
01-13-2011, 10:35 AM
Ahhh yes. The fabled Anal Sex. I really hope that the CGF gets to pick the bar, the evening, and the time we go questing for this most elusive carnality.

Pred@tor
01-13-2011, 10:37 AM
the push for Anal Sex is going to happen in the near future, my worry is that it will be done by poorly informed parties making poorly constructed 2nd amendment based arguments.... arguments we will loose and will set very bad precident.

We need to come up with a NON 2A based argument and strategy for obtaining Anal Sex, because if we don't have a viable alternative to present to these guys, they're going to go ahead with their loosing case.

anyway.

Thats how I see it.

LOL!!!!

RRangel
01-13-2011, 10:50 AM
What Robert Levy has done should be appreciated, but it does not mean we should hang on his every last word, or take it as a foregone conclusion for the surrender of our rights. There's not an iota of evidence, not to mention logic on its face, that magazine capacity is correlated to the causation of crime. It would certainly not have prevented the Tuscon shooting.

Magazine capacity is so important that government will never limit itself to restrictions. While at the same time naysayers claim capacity is so insignificant that we don't need it.
What those who push these knee jerk reactions are telling us is that they don't like them. Big surprise. No real argument other than that they're scary. Which is the same reasoning used to attack "assault weapons," and any other class of firearm, or objects they would like to deem verboten.

Fate
01-13-2011, 10:56 AM
I really can't see why it's so hard to understand "shall not be infringed". It's so damn simple, but nobody seems to get it.

That's because it is TOO simple. It needs to be convoluted and overly spelled out. If it read as follows, perhaps it might be more "understandable." :rolleyes:

Penal Code
2 (A)...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed:
(a) not in a house
(b) not with a mouse
(c) not with a fox
(d) not in a box
(e) not on a train
(f) not in the rain
(g) not with a goat
(h) not on a boat
(i) neither here
(j) nor there
(k) nor anywhere

bwiese
01-13-2011, 11:03 AM
Some things are best fought in courts, and some are best fought politically.

Lower level stuff like mag bans are best fought politically - we own congress.

Other stuff is best fought in courts, esp where states ban guns or certain otherwise legal conduct.

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:04 AM
I always hear the rhetoric about a gun not having a sporting/hunting purpose. The 2nd. Ammendment is not about hunting and trap shooting. It`s about defending ones person, family and property from harm and the nation from a radical/tyrannical govt. and any insurrection, both foreign & domestic...and owning the types of weapons & hi cap mags to do the job. Hunting & sporting is nothing more than a by-product.

EXACTLY!!!!! Even the Conservative Sheeple and NRA fall into the trap of this sporting /hunting BS. Using that as the excuse for gun rights will lead to our ruin!!! The liberal left wing eats this up!

Bugei
01-13-2011, 11:10 AM
Sorry, Mr. Levy. Sorry, Supreme Court. Sorry, NFA. A 30-round mag may not be useful for duck-hunting (or it might...could set a new style). Might not even be useful for self-defense, as it's kind of hard to conceal (opinions may vary).

But it would be very handy for its militia use, and thus is sacrosanct. Even if the Constitution was rendered null and void (and they are trying), the right itself would still exist. And any government that doesn't support it is probably self-identifying as a problem, rather than a solution.

If they had wanted "reasonable restrictions" on arms, the Founding Fathers would have put them in the Second Amendment. They aren't there. There is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction"; they don't exist. And anyone that passes a law or enforces a law against 30-round mags is violating your rights.

Archie B.
01-13-2011, 11:23 AM
Sorry, Mr. Levy. Sorry, Supreme Court. Sorry, NFA. A 30-round mag may not be useful for duck-hunting (or it might...could set a new style). Might not even be useful for self-defense, as it's kind of hard to conceal (opinions may vary).

But it would be very handy for its militia use, and thus is sacrosanct. Even if the Constitution was rendered null and void (and they are trying), the right itself would still exist. And any government that doesn't support it is probably self-identifying as a problem, rather than a solution.

If they had wanted "reasonable restrictions" on arms, the Founding Fathers would have put them in the Second Amendment. They aren't there. There is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction"; they don't exist. And anyone that passes a law or enforces a law against 30-round mags is violating your rights.

Well said. :thumbsup:

cvc04
01-13-2011, 11:39 AM
Didn't the Virginia Tech shooter use standard capacity magazines? He was able to kill and injure many more people due to better tactics. Mindset, Tactics, then equpment. I haven't heard too many people who are calling for a new ban mention this.

Uriah02
01-13-2011, 11:47 AM
Since the gun-grabbers want to ban hi-caps I am sure they are going to ban them from LEO use as well, right? After all, they claim the only reason someone needs a hi-cap is to "spray at crowds of people", which isn't a LEO function. :rolleyes:

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:52 AM
We can spray back!! HAHAHAAH

Window_Seat
01-13-2011, 11:58 AM
We can spray back!! HAHAHAAH

Or use Karate chops. :laugh:

Erik.

Patrick-2
01-13-2011, 12:30 PM
Kung Foo Action Grip.

17+1
01-13-2011, 12:36 PM
The legislature needs these shooting sprees to justify passing more restrictions.

People dying at the hands of a nut using a Glock and 'high-cap' magazines are the gun grabbers bread and butter, believe it or not.

English and Australian mass shootings have spurred tight gun legislation. It will happen here if it is not nipped in the you-know-what.

Steve_338LM
01-13-2011, 2:18 PM
Agreed, where does it stop? Why is 10 acceptable but not 11-30? Once they have it knocked down to ten then they will cry that semi autos are too dangerous, and so on. :mad:

We all know that 10 rounds is an acceptable limit because it is a number that our elected officials can understand without taking off their shoes or dropping their pants.

faterikcartman
01-13-2011, 2:20 PM
LEGALLY - I agree. 2A doesn't give us unfettered rights to any weapon (right?) NFA has been the law of the land for over 70 years. (Right?) NO ONE has ever

Even Heller said that states may enact "reasonable restrictions" on firearms etc.

So yelling 2A is really unproductive here. We will not win this argument. (at least not in court - especially a California court)
(sorry for the reality check)

I reject this Realpolitik capitulation. It signals that if judges start deciding that the Constitution says the state may not establish any religion except Islam, or that people may be secure in their persons and papers only insofar as they don't look shifty or speak out against the government, or [fill in the blank] you'll go along with it and say that is the law.

The Constitution is the law and it was written so that the people could understand it and agree to it. It is, after all, the written social contract where the people accept and agree to be governed. People aren't held to agreements they don't understand. If the idea was "[w]e the government, in order to..." that's what it would say. What it actually says is "[w]e the people..."

Your beliefs, whilst certainly common and popular, diminish us as a people in my opinion.

We are now living in a time where one cannot trust one's own eyes in reading the Constitution. Judges, include sitting members of the SCOTUS believe they may read into the Constitution what they will and likewise ignore that which they find objectionable.

When we accept that, as we apparently have, we have lost our country. If the agreement between the government and the governed may be ignored almost at will then it is no longer a country by the people and for the people. We are not governed with our consent, we are governed with coercion.

Letting people vote is no consolation for the reasons which led the founders to form a republic instead of a democracy.

In sum, Orwell was right. People will agree night is day because the apparatuses of the state say so.

I can't help but wonder if Plessy v. Ferguson and other notorious decision lingered for decades because people thought themselves too practical and realistic to stand against them.

sholling
01-13-2011, 2:41 PM
Wow...just, wow.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/12/5824805-gun-surprise-2nd-amendment-advocate-says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster

A leading gun rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high-capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent “looney tunes” from committing more gun massacres.
CoINO? Constitutionalists In Name Only?

Crom
01-13-2011, 2:44 PM
oURZ3LxYhIY

What a great video and so true. In California we prohibited from acquiring standard capacity magazines, instead we are forced to acquire handguns with legislatively reduced capacity magazines. How true.

Bigtime1
01-13-2011, 2:55 PM
Not going to happen.

That's what the NRA said about AB962 passing. They have a HUGE credibility gap with me.

RRangel
01-13-2011, 3:03 PM
Didn't the Virginia Tech shooter use standard capacity magazines? He was able to kill and injure many more people due to better tactics. Mindset, Tactics, then equpment. I haven't heard too many people who are calling for a new ban mention this.

Most crime guns are not top of the line. You can likely deduce that no "high caps" are so significant in the commission of crime. They are so useful to society that every law enforcement agency has to have them. Yet so terrible that disingenuous people argue against them. These arguments are used to cast a sinister shadow over certain brands, and things like magazines, so as to influence the masses. That's why an informed public is the enemy of gun prohibition.

mblat
01-13-2011, 3:09 PM
This is actually very interesting.

I would like to look at couple points here.

1.
Let's say outlawing 30 round magazines are indeed constitutional. What about 20? What about 10? Who said that outlawing 11 round magazines is constitutional and 10 aren’t? If it so, then why? If outlawing 11 rounds magazine constitutional would outlawing revolvers capable of holding 11 rounds also would be? What about revolvers that can hold 30 rounds? Such thing may not exist today, but it probably can be designed….

2.
What are actaul arguments against prohibition of 30 rounds magazine? Short from ( this is Bill of Rights....... ). I would like not Constitutional, but "real World" argument here, for my benefit.

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 3:12 PM
That's what the NRA said about AB962 passing. They have a HUGE credibility gap with me.

I was pretty intimately involved in opposing AB962, and I don't remember a single conversation where NRA said it wouldn't/couldn't pass, only that there was a shot at killing it a the guv's desk (which didn't happen as a byproduct of other "pro gun"/industry orgs shooting gunnies in the proverbial foot with earlier issues).

tacticalcity
01-13-2011, 3:23 PM
The people on calguns are the hard core gun owners. About 75% of he guys I work with own at least one gun, or go shooting or hunting with friends. I only know of one other guy there who is a strong second amendment supporter.

Here are the things I hear from other gun owners. " you think your still in the Army and you need that" " I already got my AW, so I don't care" "why do you need to have more than 10'rounds?" "ya, you really need that AR to take a deer :rolleyes:" "there is no reason to have thousands of rounds, the Chinese are not attacking" "why would you even want a CCW?" " I don't care that antestraining order on an argument can let them take your guns, my wife is cool,'and I'm not a wife beater". These are all quotes from people who hunt or own guns.

What do most people say? Ya, most people say we should be able to own guns, but they are thinking of a six shooter or pump shotgun with 5 rounds. Look at the polls. And what does the government think? We already know they hate freedom.

Look, the Health care vote was the most contested vote ever. We shut down the congressional switch board by over loading it fore Pete's sake, but it passed.

I am not holding my breath for them not to trample more rights due to this nut job going on this murder spree.

You are forgetting that you live in an extremely liberal state. Your buddies are a fair representation of California, but not necessarily the rest of the country. I am considerred pretty damn far the right here in California, but in other states would be seen as a liberal. A fact that really shocked me at first.

It is a very common mistake to assume the entire country thinks the way the people in our community think. This country is a hodge podge of very different cultures.

tacticalcity
01-13-2011, 3:30 PM
I really can't see why it's so hard to understand "shall not be infringed". It's so damn simple, but nobody seems to get it.

When reading the constitution liberals can only read and understand the first half of statements. They totally get the parts that restricts what the people can do, but cannot wrap their heads around the parts that restricts what government can do. Gun rights and freedom of religion are two classic examples.

kcbrown
01-13-2011, 5:40 PM
We are now living in a time where one cannot trust one's own eyes in reading the Constitution. Judges, include sitting members of the SCOTUS believe they may read into the Constitution what they will and likewise ignore that which they find objectionable.

When we accept that, as we apparently have, we have lost our country. If the agreement between the government and the governed may be ignored almost at will then it is no longer a country by the people and for the people. We are not governed with our consent, we are governed with coercion.


We have always been governed with coercion. Were this not the case, "law enforcement" wouldn't be armed.

Governance is a coercive function by definition. We can put a pretty veneer on top of government and call it "by the will of the people" or some other such thing, but in the end it is always about coercion. And once you give an entity coercive force, it will use that force to its own ends.


The only real way to keep a coercive force such as government under control is through another coercive force. The founders of this country understood that, but obviously didn't understand that they needed to explicitly say this in the Constitution (as much as they did have figured out, there's a lot they didn't. They weren't cynical enough), else they would have explicitly said in the Constitution that it is the duty of the people to keep all their governments in check through force of arms.


The reality is that the government can now bring more force to bear than the people can. It is now the "big dog" and, therefore, what it says goes. It is only by a "gentleman's agreement" that we are allowed the illusion of rights.

OrovilleTim
01-13-2011, 5:47 PM
And to think retailers wanted 1k for this POS...

The one I saw at Huntington's in Oroville last night has been reduced to $899.

hoffmang
01-13-2011, 8:35 PM
*Sigh*. Yet another great line of mine stolen by hoffmang. You know I'm his ghost writer, right?
I usually know when I'm stealing a line from you and on this one I don't have that recollection. Now, it is certainly true that I do often steal lines from you :D

-Gene

gatdammit
01-13-2011, 9:10 PM
This hoo haa... seems like a knee jerk reaction to a horrible event. Although, simultaneously it is something that has been brought up deliberately and just another example of a 'nudge' towards stripping us of our gun rights.

Seriously, how arbitrary is limiting the number of rounds in a magazine? I mean what's ok? 10? Why not make it 6? How about 1, 2, or 3 strikes or you're dead? They could all ban us to have 10 rounds max, but guess who's still gonna have those 'banned' hi cap mags? - The loons and criminals? Ya think?

The limiting magazine is just a symbolic push to eventual banning. It's just another piece that they need to erode away. It little more here and then a little more there. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere. "The Founders could have never imagined the type of weapons that are around today..." HOGWASH! The muskets were the AR-15s of the day weren't they? How about crediting their foresight and wisdom in all areas. And how do 'you' know what the founders thought? Again we're blaming the inanimate object instead of the loon. Anyways, does having more rounds automatically increase the 'lethality' of the weapon? I don't think so. It's about shot placement yes?

I've had discussions with liberals about civilized society and guns. They say "we don't need em" ... "last resort to protect us against government? You're too paranoid"... this coming from the people that despised the Bush years, and seem to also believe that our government is capable of some pretty egregious atrocities around the world, and yet when it comes to protecting the last thing that keeps the government in check against us, they stay silent.

CAL.BAR
01-13-2011, 9:13 PM
Some things are best fought in courts, and some are best fought politically.

Lower level stuff like mag bans are best fought politically - we own congress.

Other stuff is best fought in courts, esp where states ban guns or certain otherwise legal conduct.

"We" own a small majority in only one of three branches of govenrment necessary for the passing of laws. While I agree with the sentiment that no massive gun ban will get passed w/o the House being involved, remember it happend before! Don't look for any pro gun bills getting through for a while.

hoffmang
01-13-2011, 9:16 PM
"We" own a small majority in only one of three branches of govenrment necessary for the passing of laws. While I agree with the sentiment that no massive gun ban will get passed w/o the House being involved, remember it happend before! Don't look for any pro gun bills getting through for a while.

Your math is incorrect. "We" also have a majority of pro-gun senators. Just because some of them say (D) behind their name doesn't mean they'll vote for gun control.

-Gene

CAL.BAR
01-13-2011, 9:19 PM
I reject this Realpolitik capitulation. It signals that if judges start deciding that the Constitution says the state may not establish any religion except Islam, or that people may be secure in their persons and papers only insofar as they don't look shifty or speak out against the government, or [fill in the blank] you'll go along with it and say that is the law.

The Constitution is the law and it was written so that the people could understand it and agree to it. It is, after all, the written social contract where the people accept and agree to be governed. People aren't held to agreements they don't understand. If the idea was "[w]e the government, in order to..." that's what it would say. What it actually says is "[w]e the people..."

Your beliefs, whilst certainly common and popular, diminish us as a people in my opinion. my beliefs are neither common or popular (at least on CG), but they are the LEGAL truth. I am an attorney with 16 years experience in criminal law. We may not like it, but every court case leaves open the opportunity for the States to pass "reasonable restrictions"

We are now living in a time where one cannot trust one's own eyes in reading the Constitution. Judges, include sitting members of the SCOTUS believe they may read into the Constitution what they will and likewise ignore that which they find objectionable.

When we accept that, as we apparently have, we have lost our country. If the agreement between the government and the governed may be ignored almost at will then it is no longer a country by the people and for the people. We are not governed with our consent, we are governed with coercion.

Letting people vote is no consolation for the reasons which led the founders to form a republic instead of a democracy.

In sum, Orwell was right. People will agree night is day because the apparatuses of the state say so.

I can't help but wonder if Plessy v. Ferguson and other notorious decision lingered for decades because people thought themselves too practical and realistic to stand against them.

2A is far from absolute we all know that. The NFA has been around since 1933 and is not going anywhere. 10 rounds is no different than drawing arbitrary lines about MG's vs rocket launchers vs. "sporting rifles". "Reasonable restrictions" are just that "reasonable" in the minds of those making the rules.

nick
01-13-2011, 9:31 PM
Your math is incorrect. "We" also have a majority of pro-gun senators. Just because some of them say (D) behind their name doesn't mean they'll vote for gun control.

-Gene

A point many people insist on overlooking. The moron who wants to introduce the "gun-safe politician zone" bill is a Republican from New York. Some of the people who block the anti-gun bills are Democrats. The letter doesn't mean as much as the person and whom he represents do.

kcbrown
01-14-2011, 12:05 AM
Your math is incorrect. "We" also have a majority of pro-gun senators. Just because some of them say (D) behind their name doesn't mean they'll vote for gun control.


And just because they're "pro gun" doesn't automatically mean they'll vote against gun control. Everything depends on the political situation at the time.

I don't have any specific reason to believe that a "pro gun" senator (D or R) will not vote against a gun control bill, but that can change in a heartbeat.

In the U.S. Congress, everything is for sale.

hoffmang
01-14-2011, 12:48 AM
And just because they're "pro gun" doesn't automatically mean they'll vote against gun control. Everything depends on the political situation at the time.

Are you aware of how close the vote on the original AWB was and I do hope you understand why that is extremely relevant to your prognostication.

Senators like their jobs. Many democratic senators would lose their jobs if they voted for gun control. It really is that simple and it means that no gun regulation bill that doesn't have the support of the NRA/CCRKBA etc will pass the Senate.

-Gene

pitchbaby
01-14-2011, 1:03 AM
We all agree hi-cap mag bans are a dumb idea, but what if there was a carrot attached... ya' sure... this is a pipe dream.... but what if national reciprocity was passed for any permit holder with a permit res/non-res from any state in the same bill?

Do we all suddenly embrace the ban? I may catch flack for admitting it... but I would.

Just sayin'.

elSquid
01-14-2011, 1:19 AM
We all agree hi-cap mag bans are a dumb idea, but what if there was a carrot attached... ya' sure... this is a pipe dream.... but what if national reciprocity was passed for any permit holder with a permit res/non-res from any state in the same bill?

Do we all suddenly embrace the ban? I may catch flack for admitting it... but I would.


Make it full 'constitutional carry' that states/counties/cities can't override. Toss out the GFSZ, full carry on public property ( open or concealed ), allow private entities to restrict on their property enforced with a civil penalty, "sensitive" gov't buildings can restrict inside said structures... and I'm interested.

You might want to roll that past Brady first though. I doubt that they'd be willing. :D

So it's really academic...

-- Michael

pitchbaby
01-14-2011, 1:23 AM
Make it full 'constitutional carry' that states/counties/cities can't override. Toss out the GFSZ, full carry on public property ( open or concealed ), allow private entities to restrict on their property enforced with a civil penalty, "sensitive" gov't buildings can restrict inside said structures... and I'm interested.

You might want to roll that past Brady first though. I doubt that they'd be willing. :D

So it's really academic...

-- Michael

Implied... but yes... I am glad just the same that you spelled it out for us... it is a VERY good point!

kcbrown
01-14-2011, 5:29 AM
Are you aware of how close the vote on the original AWB was and I do hope you understand why that is extremely relevant to your prognostication.

Senators like their jobs. Many democratic senators would lose their jobs if they voted for gun control. It really is that simple and it means that no gun regulation bill that doesn't have the support of the NRA/CCRKBA etc will pass the Senate.


A congressman needn't vote for gun control in order to avoid voting against a gun control bill. Said congressman need only avoid voting on it at all. He can, for instance, be "conveniently unavailable" at the time the vote is taken, perhaps by doing something "more important" at the time.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 5:55 AM
A congressman needn't vote for gun control in order to avoid voting against a gun control bill. Said congressman need only avoid voting on it at all. He can, for instance, be "conveniently unavailable" at the time the vote is taken, perhaps by doing something "more important" at the time.

But, they're so far from a majority as it is. You'd better believe that anything anti-gun would be filibustered in the Senate. If you read Dave Kopel's analysis:

http://newledger.com/2010/11/the-second-amendments-great-election-night/

He thinks we now have enough votes to beat an anti-gun filibuster on pro-gun bills (i.e., there are 60 or more pro-gun Senators). Now, I'm quite willing to believe some of those are fair-weather friends, who wouldn't actually support us on anything controversial. I think it's a far step from that to "The Senate is going to pass anti-gun legislation". Much less the House.

I'll tell you flat out, I'll bet $50 to anyone that there will not be any Federal legislation banning any-capacity magazines passed and signed in 2011. You can talk to hoffmang about how wise it is to bet against me, generally. ;)

pitchbaby
01-14-2011, 6:47 AM
But, they're so far from a majority as it is. You'd better believe that anything anti-gun would be filibustered in the Senate. If you read Dave Kopel's analysis:

http://newledger.com/2010/11/the-second-amendments-great-election-night/

He thinks we now have enough votes to beat an anti-gun filibuster on pro-gun bills (i.e., there are 60 or more pro-gun Senators). Now, I'm quite willing to believe some of those are fair-weather friends, who wouldn't actually support us on anything controversial. I think it's a far step from that to "The Senate is going to pass anti-gun legislation". Much less the House.

I'll tell you flat out, I'll bet $50 to anyone that there will not be any Federal legislation banning any-capacity magazines passed and signed in 2011. You can talk to hoffmang about how wise it is to bet against me, generally. ;)

How about I bet your right? HAHA

B Strong
01-14-2011, 6:55 AM
This is a perfect example of what i just posted about in BillW's thread about speaking to the media - anything you say can be used against you!

I believe we are much better off making our arguments in a court of law, and unless we're in a situation where we can control the messge, speaking with the media does us more harm than good.

Patrick-2
01-14-2011, 8:26 AM
These are perennial bills sent to Congress. The only difference here is that they are trying to use recent events to "sell" the proposals. They know it won't pass, or even get out of committee. They admit it in the papers by saying the "NRA won't let it even be discussed in the House|Senate". Perhaps true, given the fact Harry Reid still runs the Senate and he owes the NRA big time for helping him squeak through his last re-election (they endorsed him over Angle and the results were close enough that the NRA endorsement could have been a deciding factor).

So these anti-rights legislators are people swimming upstream even though they know they are not going to make it. You can be cynical and call it a ploy to get support from the left, but the fact is they already have that. You have to give King, et al some credit: they believe they are right.

The biggest difference this year are other perennial proposals; things like the Thune Amendment. That might actually sprout wings and take off.

9mmdude
01-14-2011, 9:20 AM
We all agree hi-cap mag bans are a dumb idea, but what if there was a carrot attached... ya' sure... this is a pipe dream.... but what if national reciprocity was passed for any permit holder with a permit res/non-res from any state in the same bill?

Do we all suddenly embrace the ban? I may catch flack for admitting it... but I would.

Just sayin'.

Would you give up your right to free speech to be allowed to say something? Don't bargain your second amendment rights. The CCW tide is turning in California, let the process continue.

pitchbaby
01-14-2011, 9:34 AM
Would you give up your right to free speech to be allowed to say something? Don't bargain your second amendment rights. The CCW tide is turning in California, let the process continue.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm proud of it, I'm just saying I would give in.

Having said that, what you are suggesting is a backwards move. At least to get total unconditional reciprocity is a major leap forward over the amount of bullets I can have in my magazine. Example being... Once free speech is banned, you can't carry more words to make your point. However,if I have reciprocity while visiting Chicago (as an example), I can always carry more magazines full of bullets!

mblat
01-14-2011, 9:51 AM
We all agree hi-cap mag bans are a dumb idea, but what if there was a carrot attached... ya' sure... this is a pipe dream.... but what if national reciprocity was passed for any permit holder with a permit res/non-res from any state in the same bill?

Do we all suddenly embrace the ban? I may catch flack for admitting it... but I would.

Just sayin'.


Tempting...... but thanks but no, thanks.
As I mentioned. I happend to agree that nobody actually "needs" 33 round magazines. But who can guarantee that they will stop at something reasonable? Like 32, for example? :D

On serius note: what about 20? That is standard capacity for XDm. Or 16? That is "standard" capacity" for cz75.

Or even 10, for that matter?

Patrick-2
01-14-2011, 12:50 PM
I have the 33 round mags in question, and a Glock 19. I bought the mags for the goof factor. They are factory Glock. They work fine, but I'd hardly call them a pleasure to shoot. They were originally designed for the Glock 18 (full-auto version of the 17).

But it's personal choice. I think if folks want to buy them, go for it.

No ban will even get floor vote this year. So no worries.