Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McCarthy Bill Would Ban Common Self-Defense Magazines (More than 10 rounds? Fuggetaboutit)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:42 PM
Original message
McCarthy Bill Would Ban Common Self-Defense Magazines (More than 10 rounds? Fuggetaboutit)
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 04:42 PM by shadowrider
Friday, January 21, 2011


On Tuesday, Jan. 18, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 308, the "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act." The bill would ban the manufacture and importation of new magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Unlike the magazine ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, her new bill would also make it illegal for the tens of millions of Americans who already own these magazines to sell or otherwise transfer them, even through inheritance.

In a letter to her colleagues, Rep. McCarthy claimed, "The only reason for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as quickly as possible." Yet her bill would allow the continued acquisition and possession of these magazines by law enforcement officers, who carry firearms to defend themselves and the public. It would even allow these magazines to be transferred to law enforcement officers upon retirement, even though a retired officer's right to use firearms for self-defense is the same as any other private citizen's right.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6139

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. She does more to further 2A rights than the NRA could ever do n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. That reminds me, need to renew my NRA membership.. done. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I would like to see a negative count when I post a pro-RKBA post ...
that way I can visualize how many heads exploded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Christine O'Donnell thanks you!
For contributing to her next senate run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. She should be thanking mccarthy. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. did mccarthy
contribute to O'donnell's campaign? I know the NRA did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That would be the NRA ILA, different organization
By law the NRA itself can't contribute to candidates. That's the role of the NRA/ILA which runs on donations and has no access to the dues that many of us pay to be NRA members. But you knew all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Now don...
You know better than to challenge the "factose intolerant" (I LOVE that) with facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. oh my
So you just pay dues and offer your support to the organization that ENDORSED Christine O'Donnell. What a distinction!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. They are a single-issue organization, and endorse per their own rules
You might also note that the NRA gave more to Democrats than all gun control orgs combined.


Considering the alleged popularity of gun control, the gun controllers display a strange inability to direct campaign

donations towards the politicians who share their views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. LOL.
"Considering the alleged popularity of gun control, the gun controllers display a strange inability to direct campaign donations towards the politicians who share their views."

You can't donate what you don't have. Its hard to donate when your outfit and its 18 members are operating in practical bankruptcy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. They endorse candidates on gun issues only
Christine O'Donnell was outstanding on gun issues, and her opponent, Ken Coons, is terrible on it. Who did you expect them to endorse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. No.
But she does have a strange obsession...a habitual tendency...to poke 800 pound gorillas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. If the ACLU treated the second the way they treat the first, the NRA would lose my money..
Until then? I'll write two checks.

I put my money where my rights are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
5.  So how would that affect 22 cal tube fed rimfire rifles, Henry Rifles, M66 and M76 rifles? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. They're excluded..
`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.308:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
13.  That means that the Henry rifle in 44-40 (repo), 44 Henry Flat(original)
would then be illegal. Also the M1866 in 38WCF( 38-40 Winchester), 32WCF(32-20 Winchester), and 25WCF(25-20 Winchester) would also be illegal, as would the M1873, 1892, and all of the repops of these rifles. ALL of them are chambered for centerfire cartridges and have tube magazines holding from 12-15 rounds.

If they are banned then there will be a LOT of money paid out.(5th Amendment)

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Yup.. sad, really.
We need to make sure the FUDs know about this :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. So I guess they didn't know that the .17 HMR and .17 HM2 are out there.
Yanno, .22 magnum rimfire and .22 LR cartridges necked down to accept .17-caliber spitzer bullets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Well, in Chicago my Marlin Model 60 is an assault weapon
Even .22 semi auto tube feds are classed as "assault weapons", per Mayor Daley in his infinite wisdom. Ain't gonna get any better with Rahm either I'm guessing. The last thing he wants is a bunch of armed serfs.

Hey, you cheese heads are going to get CCW long before we do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18.  I am in Texas, we have had CHL's for 15 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. And unlike the previous non-ban, this one would put the burden of proof on the owner
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 07:55 PM by benEzra
to prove that you owned a magazine as of the date of enactment. Can't prove it = felony, from what I understand.

Given that we're talking about standard factory magazines for some of the most popular civilian firearms in the United States, and that she's trying to make potential felons of, oh, 40 million voting-age adults, this is politically a really dumb idea.

And IMO, there should be no exception for bodyguards, non-SWAT LE, and corporate security from such magazine capacity limits. If a civilian gun is "supposedly only useful for mass murder", then LE, corporations, and security shouldn't use them either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I entirely agree
The consistent inclusion into gun-banning legislation of exemptions for law enforcement is all the evidence you need to demonstrate that congresscritters like McCarthy, Lautenberg and Schumer don't even believe their own rhetoric.

And yeah, exemptions for any private entity should be out entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. "In 2003, 2005 and 2007, Rep. McCarthy introduced bills..."
"...bills that, like H.R. 308, would have banned magazines that hold more than 10 rounds."

You notice even McCarthy is careful not to introduce such legislation in an election year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
26. Criminalizing the inheritance of 10+ magazines will not go over well among legislators and voters

I know people who are generally opposed to magazines with 30+ capacity who will be against this bill because of not allowing inheritance of already owned magazines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I know that, you know that
But we need to encourage her to continue on with this measure. The more she opens her mouth, the more 2A wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC