Standard Capacity Magazines: Why Calling them “High Capacity” is Semantic Sophistry..

[eswrite]

Read more

[ARDude]

Yep, I used to have some of those "high capacity" clips.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Overall a good article. At the end, the author asks, "What are they really trying to accomplish?"

Instead of beating around the bush, the author should have just answered the question. Or is he going for part 2?

The answer is, ultimately the liberals are trying to ban guns using the "cook the frog" strategy. Turn up the heat slowly to lull us into submission.

[eswrite]

Overall a good article. At the end, the author asks, "What are they really trying to accomplish?"

Instead of beating around the bush, the author should have just answered the question. Or is he going for part 2?

The answer is, ultimately the liberals are trying to ban guns using the "cook the frog" strategy. Turn up the heat slowly to lull us into submission.

Sometimes a rhetorical question is more effective than bashing over the head. At least the author thinks so... [emoji6]

[jeremiah12]

Here is the problem, when dealing in the legal realm their is a legal definition of a large capacity magazine in states that have banned large capacity magazines. In some states those are magazines that hold over 10 rounds, in some states those are magazines that hold over 15 rounds, and I believe one state the definition is a magazine that holds over 20 rounds (I came across this when looking at magazine size restrictions by state from an online retailer).

When discussing gun laws, one has to use the legal definitions because that is what matters. When filing lawsuits to challenge laws, the legal definitions have to be used.

Now, as for standard capacity magazines, what is the definition? It varies by the gun. To complicate things more, gun manufacturers sometimes sell the same gun with with different standard size magazine capacities. I own a C&R hand gun that originally came with either 8 or 9 round magazines, depending who the manufacturer was making them for and what the country who ordered them wanted. Some ordered the 9 round for military use and 8 round for police use. Others just ordered 8 round mags for all. The mags always had feeding issues and the best solution turned out to be using he 9 round mags but only load 8 rounds.

I purchased a G30 years ago. When I did I had a choice between the 9 round or 10 round mags. Go online to buy G30 mags and both are listed as the standard capacity mags.

Out of state, I have seen the G26 for sale with a standard capacity mag of either 10 round or 12 round magazine. Look online and Glock sells either one as standard capacity.

When I take a camping road trip out of state, my G17 is my SD for use inside the travel trailer at night. When I first went out of state, I stopped at Scheels in Reno to buy a few standard capacity magazines for it. I had a choice, Glock OEM 17 round or Glock OEM 19 round mags. Both are listed as OEM for the G17.

I have a G29 for my backcountry bear gun. When I am in a free state I use a G20 mag and an X-grip sleeve. This gives me 15+1 rounds of 220 grain underwood +P 10mm ammo to deal with grizzlies, black bears, or any other predators that might try to have me for dinner. That should be more than enough to deal with any threat without needing to reload in a nice, relatively compact package. One might argue that is a high capacity mag for that gun because the mag sold with the gun hold 10 rounds. On of the advantages of the Glock platform is the interchangeability of magazines. The mag from the same caliber of the larger frame can be used in the smaller framed gun. Since it was purposely designed that way, then is using the G20 mag in my G29 changing it to a large capacity mag or is it just another optional version of a standard capacity mag.

Using your gas tank analogy is a bit off also. I am also old enough to remember when many cars and trucks had an optional larger gas tank. My first Toyota pickup came with the optional 16 gallon gas tank rather than the standard 13 gallon gas tank. My dad liked the extra 90 mile range I had with mine so he bought a 16 gallon tank from a junk yard and replaced his 13 gallon tank in his Toyota truck.

Ford trucks came standard with a 20 gallon tank and you could buy the optional 2nd 20 gallon tank. Every Ford truck our family owned always had the dual tank option.

So, if we say the definition of a standard capacity magazine is what ever the size the magazine the gun was sold with or the gun was originally designed to work with, we are painting ourself into a corner. Every magazine that hold more is by definition a large capacity magazine and we play into the hands of the antis. They can say at a minimum there is such a thing as a large capacity magazine and have a legitimate argument at least discuss a proposition to ban them.

So, the 10 round mags I carry for my G42, one of my guns I use for CCW could end up being banned because it was originally sold with 6 round mags. My 10 round mag is not a Glock OEM mag. ETS makes a 12 round mag for it but I do not own one because of CA mag size limit. If I can find one when out of state, I will buy a couple for use when I am out of state. If 10 rounds is better than 6, 12 is 2 better than 10. It gives me more options. If we allow a definition for standard capacity magazines become established, the antis will be able to push for a law to ban magazines larger than standard capacity for the gun or those that hold more than 10, which ever is smaller.

By keeping the legal definition of a large capacity magazine to one that holds over a certain number of rounds, we do not paint ourselves into a corner. We can logically argue how ridiculous any number chosen to be the maximum number is. Why is 10 the magic number, why not 9, or 8 or 7? New York tried 7 and that exploded in their face and they ended up having to back track and admitting they could not enforce it. By default they went back to 10 before they were able to change the law (I am not sure if it has been officially changed).

Part of the reason New York lost the battle is because manufactures told them they refused to make compliant magazines. The drew the line at 10 round mags. The majority of gun owners openly defied the law and dared the state to arrest them. There was no way the state could prosecute over 100,000 people, they did not have the time, money, and other resources to do so. The legal system would have grounded to a halt.

Do not give the antis a definition of standard capacity magazine that can be used against us to legislate more restrictions. We have to use large capacity because it has a legal definition and it has a legal meaning. We use it because it has a meaning even though they are no more dangerous than any other magazine of lesser capacity. We know it is not the capacity of the magazine. Most of us can change a magazine faster than any anti could ever imagine. We also know that it is not the number of bullets fired but shot placement that matters. Finally, when the SHTF, and it is 4 BGs and 1 GG with a gun, even the 1 second needed to change a mag can be the difference between life and death. We all know the BGs have no problem violating the law and using large capacity magazines. So those laws are useless and only hinder the law abiding.

So when discussing magazine capacity with antis, I always tell them I do not worry about it because I use the New York reload method. A wait a few moments for them to ask what that means then I explain it. Since I can only have 10 rounds in my gun, I have gone out and purchased 10 guns, all loaded with 10 rounds so when the BGs break down my door I do not worry about reloading. I just shoot until empty and pick up the next gun and repeat until all the BGs are down or have left the premises.

I then say that is one reason why gun sales have reached record highs lately, the easiest way around limited magazine capacity is to buy more guns. The looks on their face says it all. It is great to get them to think that the more gun control laws they get passed the more guns I will buy so I can get around their intended purposes. They will never win because I will always have access to my guns.

[IVC]

In legal context, we use definitions that are in the penal code.

In your article, if the legislators changed the Vehicle Code to define "high capacity gas tank," that's the definition that we would use if challenging it in courts. We might dislike the term, but we cannot challenge the terminology itself in the court.

Outside the legal context, using "high capacity magazine" is akin to using "assault weapon" or even "assault rifle." Instead of getting upset about those terms being used incorrectly, we need to get court victories that prevent bans, so we can say: "yes, it's a high capacity magazine and the court has ruled it's protected by the 2A so live with it."

Have you ever seen anyone swayed by the argument such as "this is not an assault rifle?"

[IVC]

So when discussing magazine capacity with antis, I always tell them I do not worry about it because I use the New York reload method. A wait a few moments for them to ask what that means then I explain it. Since I can only have 10 rounds in my gun, I have gone out and purchased 10 guns, all loaded with 10 rounds so when the BGs break down my door I do not worry about reloading. I just shoot until empty and pick up the next gun and repeat until all the BGs are down or have left the premises.

I then say that is one reason why gun sales have reached record highs lately, the easiest way around limited magazine capacity is to buy more guns. The looks on their face says it all. It is great to get them to think that the more gun control laws they get passed the more guns I will buy so I can get around their intended purposes. They will never win because I will always have access to my guns.

That's a funny and a good way to make the point. I'll use it the next time I talk to someone about magazine capacity.

(Also, you beat me by a few minutes about the "large capacity magazine.")

[eswrite]

Good point on the legal definition... for those states that have made it so. But this is also a Federal debate where the use of stilted terminology is still semantic gamesmanship.

[jeremiah12]

Overall a good article. At the end, the author asks, "What are they really trying to accomplish?"

Instead of beating around the bush, the author should have just answered the question. Or is he going for part 2?

The answer is, ultimately the liberals are trying to ban guns using the "cook the frog" strategy. Turn up the heat slowly to lull us into submission.

About 30 years ago, I was in the gun control camp for many reasons. I did grow up shooting guns but did definitely believe in gun control and magazine capacity limits.

Listening to or reading arguments from the other side did very little to change my mind and mostly convinced I was right.

It was my own research and life experiences that changed my mind. It was pro-gun people that said go ahead and believe what you will, I do not care, but consider this, and then give a statement that was impossible to dispute such as what law will prevent a criminal from getting a gun?

The majority of debates or arguments are based on emotions because people experience life at an emotional level. We rarely change anything unless we experience a significant emotional event. Very few are open minded and willing to listen to the other side and consider what they say. They are too busy and too smug defending what they believe is true. I am right and the other side is wrong and there is no common ground.

These things end up being a waste of time.

Having been on the other side, I also have experience in taking their arguments and turning them around to use against them. I did this with my dad effectively. I did this because it pissed him off. He was a jerk that physically beat me as a kid. He put my mother in the hospital because he beat her. That is why they divorced. As an adult he hit me every time he got angry at me. I eventually liked to provoke him so he would hit me and then call the police so he would get arrested. He finally was charged with assault and became a prohibited person and lost his FFL. He should not have had guns anyway, he was beating his girlfriend and he still does to this day.

I am not proud of how I provoked him now. I should have just cut off ties with him like I eventually did. But I did attend the local NRA meetings with him because I had great fun trolling his friends and getting them upset because I used their arguments against them to prove my side. They could never prove me wrong.

I am now a NRA life member. I know first hand that many of the antis these arguments are for do not want to hear it because they have made up their minds. They have heard them before and already have their pat answers ready. It is a religion for them. The worst thing you can do to them is marginalize them. Do not give them any ammunition to use against them and ask them to solve the problem in a way that actually solves the problem. Murder is already illegal, so how many more laws do we need to pass to make murder illegal before murders stop murdering?

Have you looked at the history of prohibition? Did it work? It was repealed because it was the most ignored law of its time and resulted in organized crime and open gang warfare. It resulted in the Tax stamp act for machine guns making them extremely expensive for the average person and yet the gangsters still got all the machine guns they wanted without getting their tax stamp. So how did that work in solving violent crimes? Read up on history and come back to me and propose a law that will stop people from buying guns from their local drug dealers that also supply them with drugs. We all know the war on drugs have been so effective in stopping the illegal use of drugs.

I end it there. If they want to talk further, they have to do their research rather than parrot back worn out tired stuff that is not true. They have to give me their sources to prove me wrong. I have my sources to back me up. Most give up. The few who take me up on the offer actually have a change of heart because they see for themselves that things are not as they have been told. Nobody has been able to come up with a law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals other than keeping them locked up. The only way to keep society safe from criminals is to keep them locked up until they no longer pose a danger to society.

That is the one thing some European countries do better than us.

[Fastattack]

Our language has been hijacked by the always-inventive left for purposes of thought control. You only touch upon the tip of the iceberg. Illegal aliens are now the much friendlier migrants or refugees. Addicts are chemically dependent. Racism can mean almost anything now if it serves a purpose.
Privileged means being a white male.
I could go on. Assault rifles, automatic weapons, the old Saturday night specials. They've been at this game a long time.

[IVC]

But this is also a Federal debate where the use of stilted terminology is still semantic gamesmanship.

We've had many threads on the similar issue of using the phrase "assault weapon" (or even "assault rifle"). I'd rather have an "it's an assault weapon and it cannot be banned" than "it's not an assault weapon and therefore it cannot be banned." The latter allows for future bans based on linguistic sophistry, the former doesn't.

These days I don't really care about "assault" anything and will freely use the term. I want legal cases to get to SCOTUS and to proclaim that "assault weapon bans are unconstitutional" so I can keep making the point: whether it's an assault weapon/rifle or hunting rifle, it's off limits for bans.

The attempt by the gun control groups to use vilifying language will backfire when courts affirm such language as irrelevant. The time of using language to scare politicians and score public points is gone. The two camps are pretty firmly established now.

[eswrite]

We've had many threads on the similar issue of using the phrase "assault weapon" (or even "assault rifle"). I'd rather have an "it's an assault weapon and it cannot be banned" than "it's not an assault weapon and therefore it cannot be banned." The latter allows for future bans based on linguistic sophistry, the former doesn't.

These days I don't really care about "assault" anything and will freely use the term. I want legal cases to get to SCOTUS and to proclaim that "assault weapon bans are unconstitutional" so I can keep making the point: whether it's an assault weapon/rifle or hunting rifle, it's off limits for bans.

The attempt by the gun control groups to use vilifying language will backfire when courts affirm such language as irrelevant. The time of using language to scare politicians and score public points is gone. The two camps are pretty firmly established now.

Okay, I haven't done up to now, but I'm going to throw the conflation flag. Assault and capacity are not the same thing. Don't interchange them, please. A gun that was designed for a sixteen round magazine has a standard, as-designef magazine. We can discuss what in excess of that is "high capacity," but moving the goal posts to an arbitrary number does not make it "high capacity."

DO NOT CONCEDE THIS POINT, PEOPLE. That's how you lose debates.

If you want to talk about assault weapons, make that a separate discussion.

[eswrite]

And by the way: concocted legal definitions should not be taken at face value either. We used to legally define black people as 3/5 subhuman.

[Cokebottle]

Good point on the legal definition... for those states that have made it so. But this is also a Federal debate where the use of stilted terminology is still semantic gamesmanship.

The problem with using "standard" vs "large capacity" is what defines the standard.
"Standard" for a 1911 is 7rds, most people use 8rd mags.
"Standard" for an AR15 is 20rds... not 30.
I'm pretty sure "Standard" for a Ruger 10/22 is 10rds.

[IVC]

A gun that was designed for a sixteen round magazine has a standard, as-designef magazine. We can discuss what in excess of that is "high capacity," but moving the goal posts to an arbitrary number does not make it "high capacity."
...
If you want to talk about assault weapons, make that a separate discussion.

I'll stick to magazines.

I'd rather make a statement: "This is a high capacity magazine and they are constitutionally protected," than "this magazine is standard capacity and therefore it's protected."

The former establishes magazines in general as just ammunition feeding devices necessary for operation of a firearm, while the latter creates a conditional protection based on what is perceived as "standard."