What good would a high (standard) capacity magazine ban do?

I'm still trying to get my head around this one. The number of AR's out there now number conservatively at 5 to 6 million with 10 to 12 more likely and growing. With that there are hundreds of millions of magazines to feed them. Plus, that doesn't include the numbers of other weapons out there like AK clones and the numerous other semi-autos. With pistols the numbers are even more skewed. Most/many handguns come with at least one if not two spare mags. Many weapons come with coupons to buy additional mags. After the Klintons, no one is ever going to be caught short again. There are enough mags out there to last for decades. What are the libs really trying to ban here?

 

Magazine capacity restrictions may be right at the top of the list of idiotic proposals gun control advocates have ever put forward; at least on the surface. Except it creates an arbitrary standard that makes people accept capacity restrictions, so "standard capacity" becomes "high capacity" - as if the standard, designed capacity for the weapon is somehow unreasonable - and then 10 rounds becomes what is "allowed". Then, when that doesn't work, it'll become 6 rounds. It's all about making people feel blase about bans and restrictions upon their rights.

 

They can ban high cap magazines making them illegal to own, requiring surrender. You do know that right?

 

You got it in one for regarding "idiotic." However, lets not forget the Bill Ruger was involved in the first one. Ruger was very good at reading the tea leaves and saw that AR's were increasing and preferable to his own Mini-14 with sales were increasing. It was a way of destroying his competitors with the ultimate plan of having the Mini as the only semi-auto for sale complete with a 15 round magazine. He also was positioned in the civilian market with the P series. I'm really surprised his company survived and that he wasn't drummed out of the business. Thank goodness he was removed from Ruger management.
However that situation is now changed. We'll never get caught like that again. What I think that the banners want is to create by fiat a whole new class of criminals.

 

Take the option away from law abiding citizens, that’s all. Criminals don’t care about bans.

 

And will always get any gun or weapons even machine guns and grenades / rocket launchers, scuds etc...
And even if every legal gun is taken away from law abiding people, criminals will import guns with already illegal drugs or make them or stealing them from Military sources.

Gun control is just a complete waste of time.

 

And compliance when this has occurred in other states was exactly what? I'll answer that for you. A few %. Also many LEO's have refused to enforce it.

 

When full of ammo, "high cap" magazines sink in tragic canoeing accidents.

 

Only if they pay fair market value for them.
Else, they violate the constitution.

 

Actually, they can't.

 

Would not magazines, legally purchased and owned, remain legal for the original owner to keep and use if he chooses to do so? Ex post facto would protect legal purchasers and owners from any confiscatory actions or criminal charges associated with possessing these magazines.

 

See post #2 for an explanation of why the magazine ban is not ex post facto.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=712154

 

False. They can ban them, but they cannot make them illegal to own. Ex post facto law. They CAN render them illegal to buy, sell, transfer, etc. The existing ones that were owned legally before your ban, are still legal after your ban, and will remain so.

 

Good info. Thanks.

 

We had a hurricane down these here parts. 34 inches of water in my house. All my guns and ammo were tragic losses
It was turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible officer!

 

Wrong kid, in the last ban they made them unavailable, but Congress can pass any law that they choose including making high cap mags illegal. You are referencing the last ban, the next ban can be different, the fact that existing mags were not made illegal was written into the last law. Trust me the next law can be different, all it takes is enough agreement among the officials

 

Congress cannot, in fact, pass any law it should choose. There are numerous and sundry restrictions on what they may and may not do.

 

What existing law would make it illegal for Congress to ban high cap mags?

 

Well?

 

Amendment II.
To ban possession of the standard capacity magazines commonly used in firearms protected by the 2nd is an infringement on the RKBA, just as a ban on words commonly used in expressions of opinions and by the free press is a violation of the 1st amendment..

 

No one has called me a kid for 50 years... thanks for that.

Whatever they do, it must adhere to the Constitution. No power has been delegated to Congress by the Constitution to regulate firearms, as is required by the 10th amendment. Further, a specific restriction against them doing so is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Please note: the enactment of past encroachments on your right to keep and bear arms, that have been tolerated by The People thus far, is no indicator that they were enacted constitutionally, and therefore no precedent for further similar encroachments.

 

Nonsense as there were no mags when the second amendment was written. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, it makes no mention of automatic weapons. Are you claiming that the second amendment also gives you the right to own an M1 tank and stinger missiles?

Grow up

 

Actually, Congress can amend the constitution at any time they choose, they just have to agree which they do not. But if they did agree they could ban the second amendment all together. I am not for that, or suggesting that this should be done, but they have the right to do that.....................Trust me, the constitution was written with the ability to be amended and or changed at any time

 

Tanks are legal to own. Missiles could be covered under the NFA 1934.

Caetano v Massachusetts addresses the technology advancements of weaponry, and notes that all bearable arms are protected, as Heller protects those "in common use for lawful purposes" and Miller protects firearms useful to a militia.

 

Have you been monitoring my canoe trips?