PDA

View Full Version : Why do we insist on calling them hi-caps?


ironpegasus
01-14-2011, 10:34 AM
So in light of all the talk of banning high capacity magazines following this tragic incident in Tucson, I've come to the conclusion that we are perhaps letting the anti's control the agenda aa bit too much. Almost every post in this forum that I've read on the magazine capacity debate refers to anything holding more than 10 rounds as "high-capacity".
Those who control the language and terms often control the debate. We need to take this part of the debate back from the antis - these magazines - 30 round for an AR, 40 for an AK, 17 for any number of 9mm handguns are not, and never have been "high capacity" - these are standard issue in the majority of the 50 states and throughout the parts of the world that guns can be had. This makes them standard capacity magazines. Just because their capacity to hold a certain amount of ammunition is higher than the capacity of a 10 round magazine does not make them high capacity - it makes them standard capacity because it is the standard issue and most commonly found capacity. Why can't we instead start referring to our neutered 10 rounders as "lo-caps" - which they are. Let's take it back to the antis - let's call them on their lies - we are talking about limiting the availability of standard capacity magazines, not high capacity magazines here - let's hammer that point home. Once you do that, banning magazines of a standard capacity starts to seem a lot less reasonable.

Ed_in_Sac
01-14-2011, 10:36 AM
I don't know that it will change the tenor of the argument, but you have a good point!

ChrisTKHarris
01-14-2011, 10:39 AM
Standard-Caps :43:

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 10:56 AM
I agree with avoiding the term high-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, it is written into law so it is technically and legally appropriate to use the term.

rabagley
01-14-2011, 10:56 AM
Yup. I've been calling them "standard" and "neutered" magazines. I have standard 30 round magazines (AR) down through standard 6 round magazines (G36). I also some have neutered 10/20 magazines and neutered 10 round G19/G20/G21 magazines.

I don't agree with calling >10 rounds "high capacity".

putput
01-14-2011, 10:56 AM
Unfortunately the State of California has defined 10+ as high capacity.

We have to use it for now so that there is clarity for new shooters so that they understand the implications of manufacturing or importing a high cap...

After that prohibition falls, then you can call them by their proper name of fuzzy bunny woogum oogums.

ChrisTKHarris
01-14-2011, 11:02 AM
High capacity magazines are SCARY.

Librarian
01-14-2011, 11:25 AM
Unfortunately the State of California has defined 10+ as high capacity.

We have to use it for now so that there is clarity for new shooters so that they understand the implications of manufacturing or importing a high cap...

After that prohibition falls, then you can call them by their proper name of fuzzy bunny woogum oogums.

This.

In California legal contexts, any other terminology is just confusing.

And I will continue to point out the argument for 'standard' as the term is unhelpful, because 'standard' is weapon dependent. A 'standard' capacity magazine for a 1911 model pistol is 7 rounds - which doesn't even come close to California's 'large-capacity' definition of 11 or more.

Heatseeker
01-14-2011, 11:39 AM
I like the term "high capacity clips" even better. I've read several articles referring to "high capacity clips" this week...

ap3572001
01-14-2011, 11:42 AM
Beretta 92FS has STD capacity of 15+1
Browning High Power 9mm 13+1
Sig P226 15+1
AR15 in .233/5.56 20/30

These are STD magazines for those weapons.
Anything ABOVE that is HIGH capacity. And is very seldom used or needed.

PS. Glock 18 has STD capacity mags of 31/33 rounds.

todd2968
01-14-2011, 11:45 AM
A rose by any other name......
Lets call guns black powder propelled self protection devices

MudCamper
01-14-2011, 11:56 AM
Why do we insist on calling them hi-caps?

Because everybody understand what you mean when you say that.

Unfortunately the State of California has defined 10+ as high capacity.

Actually, that's not true. The CA PC defines them as "large-capacity magazines".

Librarian
01-14-2011, 11:56 AM
Beretta 92FS has STD capacity of 15+1
Browning High Power 9mm 13+1
Sig P226 15+1
AR15 in .233/5.56 20/30

These are STD magazines for those weapons.
Anything ABOVE that is HIGH capacity. And is very seldom used or needed.

PS. Glock 18 has STD capacity mags of 31/33 rounds.

My point exactly - 'standard' means different things for different weapons.

'large-capacity', while representing a foolish concept, is a legal term in California, with an exact definition that applies to any firearm.

ap3572001
01-14-2011, 12:13 PM
As an LEO I have very little use for a drum in my issue M4. or 33 round magazines for my G17. These things may be nice to have, but I feel just fine with the STD capacity mags that were made for my guns.

I feel just fine about the capacity of my 1911's , Walter PPK's and Smith and Wesson revolvers.

How would You like someone trying to say that 6 rounds in the revolver is too much and should only be 4 :)

PM. Also keep in mind that over the years, many, many people in the world who carried hanguns for protection , did just fine with a Colt Combat Commander or a Smith and Wesson 2 1/2 inch Revolver . And their 12 gauge pump shotguns and lever action rifles made them feel very safe at home or in the field.

While I really like many modern firearms that I own , the day when I feel unsafe and naked with my Remington 870 and Smith and Wesson 686 , I will start making plans for moving :)

Wherryj
01-14-2011, 12:26 PM
High capacity magazines are SCARY.

My wife recently bought a Vogue that had 300 pages and nearly collapsed the table in my entryway hall. Those things are scary.

Wherryj
01-14-2011, 12:29 PM
A rose by any other name......
Lets call guns black powder propelled self protection devices

I'd rather have "Smokelss powder propelled" weapons myself.

IrishPirate
01-14-2011, 12:39 PM
because +10 is LEGALLY DEFINED as High Capacity in CA so it's important to use terminology that coincides with legal terms so people understand the laws better.




but feel free to say neutered or standard capacity on forums if you really want to....

PsychGuy274
01-14-2011, 12:44 PM
I always call them standard capacity, because that's what they are...standard.

Now, a 100 round C Mag? That's high capacity.

It's not rocket science.

leelaw
01-14-2011, 12:53 PM
Why do we insist on calling them hi-caps?

They're not "hi-caps" they're "large-capacity magazines" and we call them that because they're defined, and if you want to make an argument with lawyers, legislators, and judges, you use the legally defined terms.

If you want to argue with your gun buddies, go ahead and use all the made up terms you want. Heck, you could call them "funky winkerbeans" for all it matters, but in the arena where you're trying to discuss something with policymakers, you use the lawfully defined terms, otherwise you look foolish.

yellowfin
01-14-2011, 1:01 PM
If we're determining standards for definition by lawmakers, first we should clarify that "legislators" shall be defined as small mental capacity.

Cokebottle
01-14-2011, 1:05 PM
Unfortunately the State of California has defined 10+ as high large capacity.
Fixed it for you

CAL.BAR
01-14-2011, 1:09 PM
You can call them banana peels for all I care. The State calls them "hi capacity" and thus makes a distinction. If we don't make reference to the difference, then we will be unintelligible. If you don't say "hi ca[" and only say standard cap or whatever it will be like "whose on first".

shooterdude
01-14-2011, 1:58 PM
Beretta 92FS has STD capacity of 15+1
Browning High Power 9mm 13+1
Sig P226 15+1
AR15 in .233/5.56 20/30

These are STD magazines for those weapons.
Anything ABOVE that is HIGH capacity. And is very seldom used or needed.

PS. Glock 18 has STD capacity mags of 31/33 rounds.

Since CA limits new guns to the diminished capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine shouldn't they be called "retarded capacity"...or is there a more PC term? :rofl2:

Crom
01-14-2011, 2:02 PM
There are standard capacity magazines, and legislatively reduced capacity magazines.

Cokebottle
01-14-2011, 2:08 PM
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.
California PC indicates "large", not "high."

ironpegasus
01-14-2011, 2:20 PM
Large-capacity is a legally defined term, I get that. Good luck us changing that one. But that still leaves my original point - many posters seem to have ceded the argument that 11+ rounds is high capacity - I think we should change that mindset. It may not help much at the state level because that's going to take some sort of act by the judiciary to fix, but at the national level we should control the wording of the debate because we are winning and to let them keep that obviously false term in the dialogue is to give them more influence in the argument than they deserve at this point. Reality is on our side. Let's drive that home. And if a few anti's get upset over that... too bad.

BAGunner
01-14-2011, 2:23 PM
High Cap Mag
http://www.betaco.com/img/ccm000-4.jpg
Standard Cap Mag
http://store.magpul.com/images/uploads/3_217_popup.jpg
Limited Cap Mag
http://www.kingdomarms.com/store/images/_products/ProMagArmag10.jpg

ap3572001
01-14-2011, 2:25 PM
Since CA limits new guns to the diminished capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine shouldn't they be called "retarded capacity"...or is there a more PC term? :rofl2:

Yes , they should be called that.

I see MANY times , that often , these CA magazines are NOT as reliable as the STD ones.

Exeption is a Beretta 92FS. CA ten rounders made by Beretta work GREAT in them.

Others SUCK!!!!

shooterdude
01-14-2011, 2:30 PM
California PC indicates "large", not "high."


By PC I meant "Politically Correct", not "Penal Code". Sorry for the confusion.

shooterdude
01-14-2011, 2:34 PM
I keep wondering how 10 rounds became the magic number? As someone here pointed out, for 100 years the magic number was 8 in a 1911 magazine and that has always been sufficient....

MudCamper
01-14-2011, 2:35 PM
... But that still leaves my original point - many posters seem to have ceded the argument that 11+ rounds is high capacity - I think we should change that mindset...

I disagree. High-capacity, or hi-cap, is well understood by most everyone, including laymen. Plus it's catchy and easy to say. Given that, it should be the term we use.

And why hide from it? Just defend it. Explain why hi-caps are a good idea. Explain that most LEO have moved to hi-caps. If hi-caps are bad, why do all the good guys use them? Explain that gun-control in all it's forms never works. Criminals and maniacs always break the law.

And for those insistent antis that always ask the question, "Why would you EVER NEED more than 10 rounds?!!" I like to answer with Oleg Volk's answer (and I paraphrase/modify a bit here):

Shooting under stress is EXTREMELY difficult. Most of your shots will miss. And unlike Hollywood movies, it usually takes several hits to stop an attacker. Add to that the fact that criminals often attack in groups. Now, given all that, how many rounds would you want to have? 1? 6? 10? 20? or 30?

furyous68
01-14-2011, 2:43 PM
How could you call a 30rd mag a standard mag if it's not what comes factory with the gun. In that case though, I guess anything more than 15rds (don't most handguns come with 15rd mags outside of CA?) would be considered high-capacity.

I don't think you'll ever convince anyone that a 30rd mag is standard. 10-15, sure, but not 30.

Decoligny
01-14-2011, 2:44 PM
I always call them standard capacity, because that's what they are...standard.

Now, a 100 round C Mag? That's high capacity.

It's not rocket science.

Believe it or not there are guns that have 100 round magazines as their standard magazine.

The Calico .22 for instance.

This particular 100 round magazine would be a "standard" magazine. But under the California Penal Code definition it is a "large-capacity magazine".

http://www.williamsandsonarms.com/calicoM100FS.JPG

Uriah02
01-14-2011, 2:53 PM
For the sake of clear communication we need to keep referring to them as "high capacity" until we regain that freedom. Of note though, I have seen more reference to "high capacity clips" than I have magazines...

MindBuilder
01-14-2011, 3:28 PM
I don't like calling them hi-cap either. Calling them standard capacity may not have caught on because if somebody doesn't know what you mean when you say standard capacity, they might think you are referring to smaller mags when you are actually referring to bigger ones. Perhaps "full capacity" would catch on better and be understood by people not familiar with the subject.

shooterdude
01-14-2011, 3:46 PM
What is interesting about the 10 round limit is that it forced manufacturers to change their products for our state. CA is a huge market and not being able to manufacture alternate magazines for guns shipped here has resulted in delayed or lost sales.

When I bought my CZ SP-01 2 years ago I had to wait for months after ordering it because CZ had run out of 10 round mags and was waiting for a shipment from their vendor. Gun stores were out of that gun all over CA for a few months. I am sure that not only cost sales as people just bought something else but it created perception issues for CZ.

gbp
01-14-2011, 3:57 PM
IBTL
same reason why some here call them assult weapons, sniper rifles, etc. etc.

done

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 8:22 PM
Stop using the lefty term high caps for standard mags. Why does everyone let the lefties create terms for our great American tradition? Since when did 10rds become the standard???

asme
01-14-2011, 8:31 PM
I say "full capacity magazines."

Maybe I'm special.

GOEX FFF
01-14-2011, 10:52 PM
Skimming past CNN the other day I saw a kyron on the screen that read -

"Banning Huge Ammo Holders??" :rolleyes:

Librarian
01-14-2011, 11:04 PM
Skimming past CNN the other day I saw a kyron on the screen that read -

"Banning Huge Ammo Holders??" :rolleyes:

Right. No more of these: http://www.historylink101.com/ww2_navy/org/misc/Supplies/images/16414.jpg

JeffM
01-14-2011, 11:08 PM
"high capacity ammunition feeding device" is a hold over from the 10 year prohibition on civilian purchase of new magazines holding more than 10 rounds in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Because this was a Federal ban, it has become a term that is universally understood throughout the country for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. CA calls them "large-capacity"

You might call a cigarette a ***, but most people in this country wouldn't understand you.

It's a label like any other. Using proper legal terms, and terms that are easily understood, does not diminish the use of the items, or those that use them.

Using confusing, ambiguous, and/or non-legal terms to describe an item because it makes you feel more powerful in a debate, is just foolish.

JeffM
01-14-2011, 11:09 PM
Wow, didn't know the British term for cigarette was a banned word here.

leelaw
01-14-2011, 11:33 PM
Stop using the lefty term high caps for standard mags. Why does everyone let the lefties create terms for our great American tradition? Since when did 10rds become the standard???

Stop using terms designed to confound the issue instead of using a clarifying, defined term.

Besides, what, exactly, is a standard capacity magazine size, and why do some of these apparent standard capacity magazines not even follow your own definition?

1911 - 7 / 8 rds
Sig P226 - 12 / 15 rds
CZ SP-01 - 18 rds
Beretta 21 - 7 rds
Sig P245 - 6 rds
FN 5-7 - 20rds
FN P90S - 50rds
Calico .22 - 100 rds
Walther P38 - 8 rds
Savage 93 - 5 rds

Using fake, underfined terminology only confuses those discussing the issues, and makes you look uneducated to the folks who review, create, and argue the law.

dirtydeedsdoneinthedesert
01-14-2011, 11:40 PM
It's such a huge bummer that Cali only allows me to have nut-less low cap magazines.

Maybe I'll start calling them banana clips like the did in the Rambo 1 era. Might give them a little more street credit.

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 11:56 PM
Stop refering to mags as high caps. That is progressive terminology that some beuracrat cooked up to scare the public.

HondaMasterTech
01-15-2011, 12:02 AM
I like the term high-capacity magazine. Do you prefer to buy a car battery because the amp/hour rating is "standard" capacity? Could you sit on a chair if you called it a clock?

Void their tactics by discrediting their claims that magazine capacity has anything to do with the ability of some nut-job to murder large amounts of people.

leelaw
01-15-2011, 1:16 AM
Stop refering to mags as high caps. That is progressive terminology that some beuracrat cooked up to scare the public.

It's defined, and almost a defacto standard terminology.

Stop making up some term that means one thing or another from one gun model to another.

Librarian
01-15-2011, 1:45 AM
Stop refering to mags as high caps. That is progressive terminology that some beuracrat cooked up to scare the public.

It's defined, and almost a defacto standard terminology.

Stop making up some term that means one thing or another from one gun model to another.

Slight difference here, I think.

I believe jpigeon is thinking about the demonizing of magazines by calling them 'high capacity', similar to 'assault weapons' always being 'high powered'.

leelaw
01-15-2011, 2:42 PM
Slight difference here, I think.

I believe jpigeon is thinking about the demonizing of magazines by calling them 'high capacity', similar to 'assault weapons' always being 'high powered'.

Nope, just giving another one-liner.

Originally Posted by jpigeon
Stop using the lefty term high caps for standard mags. Why does everyone let the lefties create terms for our great American tradition? Since when did 10rds become the standard???

Decoligny
01-18-2011, 10:14 AM
I think we should definitely stop calling them large capacity magazines. We should start calling them Barbara. Barbara is a nice non-threatening name. If we call them Barbara, then everyone will want us all to be able to own as many Barbaras as possible. :rolleyes:













They are by legal definition "Large-Capacity Magazines".

yellowfin
01-18-2011, 10:21 AM
Even repeating the so-called law is giving it credibility, however, which we could avoid doing. It's just useless trivia that if not brought to attention would cease to be relevant, like stupid laws that are still technically on the books but never had a ticket written in 60-100 years like carrying ice cream cones in a back pocket, women riding a horse on Saturdays, tax on possession of more than 4 live frogs, illegal to buy a pig on a Wednesday unless wearing a red shirt, etc. Seriously, does anyone, LE or otherwise, REALLY give a crap about someone else's magazine's capacity? The idea is more ludicrous than being ticketed for speeding on a pogo stick.

deadcoyote
01-18-2011, 10:27 AM
Yes , they should be called that.

I see MANY times , that often , these CA magazines are NOT as reliable as the STD ones.

Exeption is a Beretta 92FS. CA ten rounders made by Beretta work GREAT in them.

Others SUCK!!!!

I can actually speak to this. When I bought a CZ-75 I thought I'd gotten a lemon as it was having constant FTF issues. Called CZ, who openly stated they rushed to slap together some garbage 10 rounders for CA. CZ customer service advised to try standard mags. Fortunately Im exempt so I bought some standard 16 round mags, pistol ran fine. While that's swell for me but I'd hate to be some other poor bastard who just spent $450 on a pistol that wont function with the approved mags and has no option to buy the standard cap mags.

ulv
01-18-2011, 10:34 AM
But you guys are missing the point, the ONLY reason for a magazine to hold over 10 rounds is to kill as many people as possible! DUH.

Shooting/killing people with 10 rounds is okay, but don't cross that number.

I think I lost a few iq points just typing that out.....

Fozz
01-18-2011, 10:35 AM
It's been said time and time again many "High Cap" mags come standard with many firearms. That would make it a standard capacity in my book... When I bought my brand new glock 19 in VA years ago it came with two 15 round mags. They were made by the manufacturer for that gun, fit the gun perfectly and dont stick out past the grip. To me that would make them standard, thanks for wussifying my stuff CA!

kel-tec-innovations
01-18-2011, 10:41 AM
Far as i'm concerned they are standard capacity magazine as they certain rifles are designed specifically for 30rds.

ZombieTactics
01-18-2011, 10:43 AM
There is nothing to be gained by adopting an artificially-imposed term to describe something in a manner inconsistent with its design or function. If you let your opponent create all definitions and determine the language, you've allowed them to control the terms of the debate. This is known as "giving up before you start".

Calling a 12-round magazine "high-capacity" or "large-capacity" is exactly this kind of thing. 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 round magazines are typical, and the standard design for many pistols. 10, 20 and 30 round magazines are typical for many rifles. Calling them anything other than "standard magazines" without reference to capacity by number is therefore the only sensible thing to do.

Since any notion of "large capacity" is relative to the standard capacity for which a firearms was designed, assigning the moniker "large capacity" or "high capacity" based solely upon round count is both ignorant and illogical.

The term "extended capacity" makes sense, as it denotes a magazine with an extended round count relative to the standard magazine. Any magazine with a capacity lower than the standard design should always be referred to as "reduced capacity".

My opinion is that this approach figuratively disarms the anti-gunners position, as it forces the argument and discussion to the point where people must actively think about the terms being used.

Manic Moran
01-18-2011, 10:45 AM
I'll almost lay money that the manufacturers themselves were calling them high-capacity magazines.

Imagine the advertising literature when the first double-stack 1911 came out. "Our new design magazines give you higher ammunition capacity than the standard 7-rounds of older designs..."

NTM

stix213
01-18-2011, 10:45 AM
This.

In California legal contexts, any other terminology is just confusing.


This ^^^

California law specifically defines any magazine of capacity greater than 10 as a "large-capacity" magazine. When discussing California law, as is the usual context in this sub forum, its counter productive to use terminology other than large or high capacity. When you play word games you are just confusing people who are genuinely trying to learn the laws.

If you're in the handgun forum though and are referring to the standard mags that come with a new handgun in a free state, go right ahead and call them the standard capacity mags.

ZombieTactics
01-18-2011, 7:25 PM
... California law specifically defines any magazine of capacity greater than 10 as a "large-capacity" magazine. When discussing California law, as is the usual context in this sub forum, its counter productive to use terminology other than large or high capacity. When you play word games you are just confusing people who are genuinely trying to learn the laws.
I reject the notion that California or any other state entity has the power or the right to define terminology contrary to common use or industry practice. We've played this BS of letting the government define things out of existence with the sweep of a pen for far too long. We've seen the results of this historically, and they are never good. The first step of every slave master is to deprive his chattel their language. It is they who have chosen to "play word games". I refuse to submit my mind to this subterfuge.

Things are what they are, no more and no less. To state otherwise violates every rule of logic ... beginning with Aristotle's Law of Identity. I refuse to call BS and nonsense by any other name, as those terms have their customary meanings as well ... which the state cannot "define" as it chooses either!

"Assault Rifle" has no place in the mouth of a rational person, and neither does "large capacity magazine", as they are nonsensical terms defined solely for the purpose of framing the issue in a lopsided manner to serve depriving the people of their rights. Believing otherwise is the same as playing a card game with someone who gets to change the rules anytime they see fit at will. I don't choose to play rigged games, and I am not so feeble-minded as to allow anyone so predisposed to convince me other wise.

Use your masters' language if you choose to be "defined" a slave or subject. As far as I am concerned, the line is drawn, and none may pass.

Sniper3142
01-18-2011, 8:29 PM
People...

The term specified in California legal docs (as stupid as it is) is...

LARGE CAPACITY Magazines.

High Capacity was a term of the long gone FEDERAL ban.

:mad:

Librarian
01-18-2011, 8:32 PM
Use your masters' language if you choose to be "defined" a slave or subject. As far as I am concerned, the line is drawn, and none may pass.

OK, but you will always get pushback until we get the laws changed. Legal definitions are for legal usage in legal context; arguing about legal definitions is wasting everyone's time.

The Electrician
01-18-2011, 8:47 PM
Well said!!!

ZombieTactics
01-18-2011, 9:33 PM
OK, but you will always get pushback until we get the laws changed. Legal definitions are for legal usage in legal context; arguing about legal definitions is wasting everyone's time.
Pushback from whom, and for what rational purpose? Aside from appearing before the courts or legislature, I am under no stricture to use any terminology except that which represents good sense in any other context. Outside of California (or other restricted states), referring to a 17-round Glock magazine as "high capacity" or "large capacity" often gets you a look as if you stated the "moon is made of cheese" and "pi is equal to exactly 3". In others words, the "you must be an idiot or insane" look. I suggest that they have it right and California does not ... do you disagree? Our capitulation with this nonsense serves to make us unintelligible when speaking with normal people using ordinary terminology.

Is it your contention that the state's definition creates a case where we are forbidden to speak and think as we wish, or perhaps only with the very words they would choose for our mouths? If not, explain how then you use only the words they approve when common terms already serve?

Do as you wish, but I've a firm enough grasp of English to not require any such ridiculous 'remediation' or correction. I will speak and think as I choose, including noting (my opinion) the intellectual debasement of those who bow low their minds to a subservient position.

I ask you to simply make sense and defend your right to do so. You ask me to follow orders without resistance.

Librarian
01-18-2011, 9:59 PM
I ask you to simply make sense and defend your right to do so. You ask me to follow orders without resistance.

I don't believe that is at all what I suggest.

I have clearly stated what context seems to me to require the legal usage. Legal usage in legal context makes sense; other usage in that context does not make sense.

Outside that context, do as you will - you'll hear no complaint from me.

racerguy180
01-18-2011, 10:26 PM
we should just call cali-legal mags "diminished capacity" since the rest of the nation (with the exception of a few moronic states) can own them!

MSO4MATT
01-18-2011, 11:31 PM
Controlling the language is a huge element of a civil rights struggle. I believe the point is well made.

Words that are derived from an appointed arbiter are by definition arbitrary. It is one's opinion of how you should think, feel and live.

These are the ways terms like "reasonable" restrictions on gun purchasing, ammo "primarily" for the use in handguns, and "high" capacity come from.

I guarantee anyone who lived (in a lawful manner) through Katrina would NOTconsider 30 rounds excessive.

sorry

rromeo
01-19-2011, 6:26 AM
13 rounds in a handgun is high capacity, and has been for many years. Hell, there's even a gun named for it.

ZombieTactics
01-19-2011, 7:41 AM
I don't believe that is at all what I suggest.

I have clearly stated what context seems to me to require the legal usage. Legal usage in legal context makes sense; other usage in that context does not make sense.

Outside that context, do as you will - you'll hear no complaint from me.

Sounds good to me ... sorry for any misunderstanding.

motorhead
01-19-2011, 10:06 AM
just don't call 'em clips. we'll heap on the ridicule.

Redleg61
01-19-2011, 10:50 AM
Here is a question for you all, If I have a featurless rifle and have Marine issued standard capacity magazines. do those count as pre ban? Or can I only use those in performance of my occupation?

Librarian
01-19-2011, 11:27 AM
Sounds good to me ... sorry for any misunderstanding.

I think we are in violent agreement!

Librarian
01-19-2011, 11:37 AM
Here is a question for you all, If I have a featurless rifle and have Marine issued standard capacity magazines. do those count as pre ban? Or can I only use those in performance of my occupation?

There is no CA law prohibiting owning/using them by non-prohibited persons. You do not have to say or justify why you have them.

sigfan91
01-19-2011, 11:41 AM
I always refer to them as "magazines with greater than 10 round capacity" or "standard capacity magazines."

A 10 rounder on a 1911 is "high capacity."

A 10 rounder on a Sig P226 is "low capacity."

I've been using these terms for years.

Redleg61
01-19-2011, 11:55 AM
There is no CA law prohibiting owning/using them by non-prohibited persons. You do not have to say or justify why you have them.

Thanks for the speedy reply Librarian! I'll cease my thread jacking now.

wamphyri13
01-19-2011, 1:09 PM
I just refer to them as, "design spec."
Ryan

RGERBER
01-19-2011, 6:00 PM
It does not say separation of church and state in the constitution but it is what people say.
The O.P. has a point, but when the legal language is written that way that is what we tend to use.