Confiscation of mags

[2nd Mass]

Originally Posted by Sluggz

Yes. If the body of the magazine was ever large enough to hold more than 10 rounds, even if it's permanently blocked, it's considered a large capacity magazine under this new law.

True, and that's why we need to stop the law.

[chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Noonanda

We'll those are comments that if were said to my face, well we might have a disagreement.
Spit on any veterans lately have you? Liberal Media Perception doesn't make it right, and reality can be painful when it hits you in the mouth.

Dear Noonanda: While you are certainly free to beat up people who disagree with your viewpoint, I would like to request that you refrain from beating me up.

Here's why. It's about being the bringer of bad news. If you read what I wrote above, it is a statement about how the various "modern" wars are seen, and about public perception of these wars, and how that reflects into public perception of the military that fought these wars. Go back and read what I wrote: It is a description of what a large fraction of the people in the US think. Nowhere have I told you what my personal opinion is, and whether I agree with that majority or not. You have no idea what my personal opinion of active members of the military and of veterans is, nor whether it agrees with the perception of the majority.

You are free to disagree with those views. That doesn't change the fact that they are held by a majority. You are free to threaten to beat up the majority, but that is not practical, and I would submit that it is not even the right thing to do.

Just because the liberal media spins it one way does not make it true, but yet you are propagating that by parroting it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not parroting these opinions. I am reporting that they are held by many. It's understandable that you don't like to hear that.

Let me give you a concrete example. If I tell you that the weather is awful, would you beat me up because I have made it rain? Does it imply that I endorse the rain, and can you infer from it that I also want snow and wind to happen? No, I'm just telling you that it is raining.

Getting angry at reality doesn't make reality go away.

So I bet you support airstrikes in Syria because the president and John Kerry say we should.

You would completely lose that bet. It turns out that I'm very much opposed to airstrikes in Syria. I'll actually tell you what my personal opinion of the foreign policy of the current administration (President Obama, and Secretaries Clinton and Kerry is): They are awful at it. They suck. They got it all wrong. The US has occasionally has foreign policy that is somewhere between competent (under Acheson, Shultz, Christopher) and genius (Hull, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Albright), but we haven't seen any of that in over a decade.

[Noonanda]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Dear Noonanda: While you are certainly free to beat up people who disagree with your viewpoint, I would like to request that you refrain from beating me up.

After I got home last night I was going to edit this to not sound so "threatening, but I didnt thik you actually would take it that way. I do take offense to your comments and the conversation would not go very far but I doubt I'd punch you in the Grill. Probably just tell you to GFYOF (think of Tom Cruise in tropic thunder "Take a step back and Literally"

You are free to disagree with those views. That doesn't change the fact that they are held by a majority. You are free to threaten to beat up the majority, but that is not practical, and I would submit that it is not even the right thing to do.

Well according to the same Majority we should not be allowed to own guns. Yet you fight those facts with logic and take the emotional rhetoric out of the equation. Iraq is the same way, I countered your ill conceived parroting of what the lame-stream media told you with facts. yet you dont like the facts.

I'm sorry, but I'm not parroting these opinions. I am reporting that they are held by many. It's understandable that you don't like to hear that.

See Above

Let me give you a concrete example. If I tell you that the weather is awful, would you beat me up because I have made it rain? Does it imply that I endorse the rain, and can you infer from it that I also want snow and wind to happen? No, I'm just telling you that it is raining.

No you are parroting exactly what you heard on MSNBC/CNN because you never were in country and saw what reality actually looked like. And when someone tries to tell you the truth you disregard those facts because "that is not what the Majority Believes"
You are a leading Actor in "The Emperors new Clothes" because even though you have been told what Blue looks like, You still call it Green because "thats what the Majority Thinks"

[steel]

Originally Posted by Sluggz

Yes. If the body of the magazine was ever large enough to hold more than 10 rounds, even if it's permanently blocked, it's considered a large capacity magazine under this new law.

How about the current Glock factory 10-rounders for, say, a Glock 17?

[Fill]

Chainsaw, you are a GD liar. You opened your mouth to give your shotty opinion when you shouldn't have. And now you are backpedaling trying to hide behind a fictitious "majority" or "reality" statistic that holds no water. Learn how to talk to people, particularly a combat veteran, and you won't have to be put in your place.

[REH]

Chainsaw

While I agree with you to a point, I don’t believe military personal are looked down on today as they were before the first gulf war. Drafted in 1968 I wore the uniform during that time. I believe most see military personal today as honorable persons serving their country.

It is the government that sends our military into these conflicts that the people don’t trust. The public sees the coffins and wounded veterans returning and ask why? The people who disagree with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan question the decision to go there, not with the people who served. Please leave the vets out of your arguments.

[Nate74]

Originally Posted by steel

How about the current Glock factory 10-rounders for, say, a Glock 17?

Yeah, that's come up quite a bit. So much so that I pulled out all my 10 round pistol magazines. In every single case, they are the same length as their higher capacity counterparts. Example: I have several Beretta 92 10 round magazines that are the same length as the 15 round versions. I have 2 10 round magazines for my Glock 21SF, but they are the same length as the 13 round version. Heck, IIRC Ramline used to make a 13 round magazine for the Ruger Mark II and it would have been the same length as the factory 10 rounders.

Of course the vague-ness is what they want. If it's unclear, it maybe makes some of the "on the fence" gunowners say, "to hell with it, it's not worth the risk I'll just sell all my guns."

This maybe the worst of the lot, though it's a close race to say the least.

[Californio]

The only legal magazines I would have, if it passes, would be M&P 9 magazines that have solid plastic at the bottom to take up the room to fit correctly in the magazine well.

Originally Posted by Nate74

Yeah, that's come up quite a bit. So much so that I pulled out all my 10 round pistol magazines. In every single case, they are the same length as their higher capacity counterparts. Example: I have several Beretta 92 10 round magazines that are the same length as the 15 round versions. I have 2 10 round magazines for my Glock 21SF, but they are the same length as the 13 round version. Heck, IIRC Ramline used to make a 13 round magazine for the Ruger Mark II and it would have been the same length as the factory 10 rounders.

Of course the vague-ness is what they want. If it's unclear, it maybe makes some of the "on the fence" gunowners say, "to hell with it, it's not worth the risk I'll just sell all my guns."

This maybe the worst of the lot, though it's a close race to say the least.

[prometa]

the proposed law as currently written:

16740.
(a) As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Based on my reading of that, a magazine that came from the factory with a 10 round capacity never had a capacity of more than 10, even if the body could be used in a larger capacity magazine. CADOJ or local LEOs may disagree with me.

[jwkincal]

I believe that the language in prometa's quote was specifically tweaked to allow "factory" 10-round mags with "larger" bodies to be excluded, but the DIY-pinned jobs to be banned.

P.S. does anyone know the "pro tip" for AR-pattern 30-rounders? On this "last day to amend on the floor" we'll leave it unpublished. Perhaps tomorrow...

[rugershooter]

Originally Posted by Michaellee223

The scary thing about this is they're trying to test out the response of people if the government CONFISCATES, TAKES AWAY something from you whether you like it or not... If you don't want to, it seems they can respond violently. If you willingfully do, the next step is... you know what.

This is not to:
Take away a MAGAZINE that can be converted back to 30 ROUNDS.
Rather this is them trying to prop the door open to:
Take away a _________ that can be converted back to ___________

.... I'd be scared more of this law than any others being passed.

Every single f**king gun law -federal, state, and local- is unconstitutional. No branch, agency, entity or agent of government can constitutionally ban, restrict, or regulate guns. Period. The fact that we even have gun control as an issue in the government shows have much the government hates the Constitution.

[chris]

chainsaw = Booshanky?

[chris]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

The US military and its civilian leadership have made the bed; they now have to sleep in it.

I have to say no I do not sense wrongly your last statement in the first post I quoted gives me all the reason I have to sense that you neither respect or regards to those who serve. if want to be pissed off at someone get mad at those who make the policy that we are to carry out.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Apologies to the fine citizens of Kuwait. It was my sloppiness and carelessness that caused the name of their great country to be mis-spelled. Mea culpa.


You sense wrongly. I know quite a few current and former (*) members of the armed forces, andI hold them in high respect. But that does not prevent the US military as a whole having an image problem.

we do not have an image problem at all. thousands of people view us in a very positive light and regard unlike the liberal base and anti war people. which they have a right to their views. although I do not suggest ever trying to spit on one you will get your A&& beat badly. I would gladly join in a stomping of some punk trying that.

(*) Yes, I know there are no "former" marines ... but the correct way to describe a marine who is no longer on active duty is too long for a pithy sentence.

I'm no Marine but I have served with and worked with them in my career and you have no idea how to even use it correctly.

[Darryl Licht]

Originally Posted by Bluesami

LEO's support the 2A....

Kind of closed minded there Blues... LEO's have different opinions on the subject too, while many do support the 2A, some do not!

As for the state outlawing these amgs, I think many here are over-reacting! If they do outlaw, then don't take them out, don't post pics online, don't brag about it, and don't get into trouble with LEO's.

-OR - Get a pelican case and a shovel, dig a hole and bury them just in case!

-OR - Move to a more gun friendly state like Arizona!

[titan]

Sad times indeed.

I sent letters, made phone calls, and sent emails. Not sure if it will do any good.

I just had a interview today and may have a nice six figure job in AZ waiting for me, I hate leaving the state I was born on and grew up in but I planned on retiring in AZ in 15 years so I guess I may be leaving early. Very sad times

[totus44]

Originally Posted by Sluggz

Yes. If the body of the magazine was ever large enough to hold more than 10 rounds, even if it's permanently blocked, it's considered a large capacity magazine under this new law.

Ah....do they know what the word 'permanently' means? This makes no sense grammatically.

[POLICESTATE]

I've been thinking about my 10/30 pmags and then I've been thinking about a dremel and a cutting wheel. Not the only means of cutting down a body, and it wouldn't be pretty, and the floor plate would probably have to be super-glued on but it would get it down to a 10 round body.

I could take the cut-off part of the body and give those to the coppers. Maybe they can take a few and cobble them together into new magazines that they can use.

[norcal13]

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE

See our forebears ****ed up a few generations ago when they didn't stand against the passage of the National Firearms Act back in 1934, that essentially opened the door to all sorts of laws that have withstood judicial scrutiny that have become part of the due process.

the president of the NRA testified FOR the NFA in front of congress.

i assume he misguidedly thought he was stopping criminals.....

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm

[POLICESTATE]

Originally Posted by norcal13

the president of the NRA testified FOR the NFA in front of congress.

i assume he misguidedly thought he was stopping criminals.....

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm

Yep! Nearly 80 years ago, that's where we went wrong. Look back over the last 79 years to 1934 to today. It's done by degrees. Not just for gun control either, but it scales over time as well. The longer it goes without being stopped the quicker it starts to get. Making a nice concave curve if you were to chart it out.

I remember reading an article by a math nut a couple of years ago talking about how everything in life follows power law dynamics, wars, economies, forest fires even. It sounded a little far-fetched because I couldn't follow the math as well but I do see the logic of it.

Authoritative government seems to follow it as well.

Here's the article I just looked it up:
http://netwar.wordpress.com/2007/08/...r-laws-of-war/

It's too late to look at, my eyes will fall out.

[norcal13]

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE

Here's the article I just looked it up:
http://netwar.wordpress.com/2007/08/...r-laws-of-war/

It's too late to look at, my eyes will fall out.

little thick for me at this hour as well.

[ibanezfoo]

Originally Posted by dwightlooi

It's not as clear cut as that...

According the 4th Amendment, and the SCOTUS rulings pertaining to it, the government cannot constitutionally "confiscate legally acquired property without compensation". In otherwords, they cannot take your land without compensating you for it. In eminent domain cases, they CAN seize your landed property, they just have to pay you the fair market value for it. In the case of taking your newly banned magazines, they have to offer fair compensation, but they CAN take them.

Here's where it gets grey... what's fair compensation. By the anti's reading of the 4th Amendment and rulings it simply means that you must be given the resale value and/or the opportunity to sell it out of state. So something like $5 per magazine, or a few dollars in tax credit or an amount to time to liquidate them outside California. In our reading, the value of the magazines are "priceless" because they can no longer be legally acquired. Hence, no monetary compensation is ever deemed fair.

It'll be fought out in the courts I am sure... but that can take years unless an injunction is sort and granted. If one is not granted, it'll expose all mag owners to felony charges if they do not comply in the interim.

Even when they compensate you its BS. My uncle is having his commercial building taken from him by the state in Fullerton. At first they offer you more or less fair value. Then they drag the process out and cost you a lot of time and money. Then when it's time to pay up they give you half of what was promised due to whatever made up circumstances. Then they don't even give the money directly to you. It goes to some holding court that costs you a crap ton more time and money to get access too. He's been fighting it for over 2 years now.

So yeah.. . Fair compeation my ***. They will stay just enough inside the Constitution to make your life difficult and make you pay out just as much as they give you. So sure, they might give you 15 bucks for your confiscated mags but charge you a $20 fee plus time, a stamp, envelope, you have to pay to ship the mag to them etc.

[dawgcasa]

Originally Posted by Sluggz

Yes. If the body of the magazine was ever large enough to hold more than 10 rounds, even if it's permanently blocked, it's considered a large capacity magazine under this new law.

Well this sucks since the only 10-round magazine I can purchase currently for my SCAR-17s is a 20-round body that's been permanently plugged. This means I can't shoot my SCAR without risk of arrest until FNH or some entrepreneur makes available on the market a true 10-round magazine body.

[Hoop]

Originally Posted by chris

chainsaw = Booshanky?

Seems like it.

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

Well this sucks since the only 10-round magazine I can purchase currently for my SCAR-17s is a 20-round body that's been permanently plugged. This means I can't shoot my SCAR without risk of arrest until FNH or some entrepreneur makes available on the market a true 10-round magazine body.

That sucks on a personal basis, but it would be beautiful for lawsuit purposes!!!

If the GTRM ban goes through you should talk to someone like Sean Brady or Clint Monfort with Chuck Michel's group and consider being a plaintiff.