78°Light Thunderstorms and Rain

Moran Co-Sponsors Bill to Ban High-Capacity Ammo Magazines

by ARLnow.com — January 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm 1,409 177 Comments

Rep. Jim Moran (D) was among the gun control advocates expected to join New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D) this afternoon at a news conference introducing a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

McCarthy and Moran are sponsoring the bill in the wake of the shooting in Tucson, Ariz. that left six people dead and 13 wounded, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The bill would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Such magazines were banned from 1994 to 2004, when Congress let the Clinton-era assault weapon ban expire.

Moran’s office issued the following press release today.

U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, will join Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY04) and advocates for reducing gun violence to discuss the formal introduction of – and a plan to advance – legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines such as those used in tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ.

The bill will be formally introduced when the House of Representatives reconvenes later in the evening. The bill brings the nation to the same 10-round-maximum standard used in at least six states today, as well as nationwide for the decade when the previous federal assault weapons ban was in effect. It also closes a gaping loophole in the previous ban in which magazines manufactured before the law went into effect could still be traded by private sellers.

Print
  • Westover

    Too many high capacity magazinrs already are out there for such a ban to do any good, and they are not that hard to manufacture in ones basement with simple sheetmetal tools. Kind of worthless effort at this point. Instead why not make Mental Health at least as big of an issue as the regular Healthcare Bill. That is where our real threat lies, and includes folks who might really have an excuse for not taking care of their own health.

    • RF

      Isn’t it already illegal to kill someone ? What does 10 or 20 rounds more have to do with it. What about about more severe punishment ! Immediate trail and death upon conviction would stop most of it! And what about making mental illness appear on background checks ! That would have stopped the Tucson shooting!!!

  • Lou

    Reactionary much?

    • Maria

      Well, they have to ban things like this… I mean, what else is going to prevent incidents that already happened??

      Wait…

  • JTC

    Yes, Lou – total knee-jerk reaction that is epidemic among those who need a good sound byte for the folks back home to “know” that they’re earning their keep in DC. I agree with Westover – let’s institute a ban on and implement confiscation of defective and low-capacity brain-cases. THAT will prevent a lot of senseless acts.

  • JML

    Folks, folks, folks … guns don’t kill people, high capacity magazines do.

  • KalashniKEV

    While I’m sickened by the thought that a member of Congress would introduce a piece of unconstitutional legistlation, I actually welcome the bill on the following grounds:

    1) Our rights are safe- this thing is going NOWHERE.
    2) It’s always good to get a show of hands as to who the enemies of freedom are.
    3) We need a little weak opposition from time to time, just to stay strong.
    4) This will be a victory of rationality over emotion.

    • Maria

      Enemies of freedom? Really?

      • KalashniKEV

        I take threats to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights very, very seriously.

        • Maria

          Cool, so you must be really against things like, say, the Patriot Act.

          • Kalashnikev

            I do!

        • LVGuy

          Cool. So what about my plan to ban the sale, manufacturing or importation of ammunition?

          • Maria

            America-hater.

        • The Pope of South Arlington

          “I take threats to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights very, very seriously.”

          Then maybe you should print a couple thousand copies in Spanglish and hand ‘em out at DMV. Make ‘em pine scented, they like that. ;)

    • Sam

      Unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional? Because you don’t agree with it? When you’re appointed into the judicial system, you’ll have the right to interpret the law. Until then, let the legislative branch legislate.

      • Kalashnikev

        “When you’re appointed into the judicial system, you’ll have the right to interpret the law.”

        First I’ll clue you in by telling you that the Second Ammendment was ruled NOT to be “the only non-individual right” in the BOR.

        Second, I’ll just say that it’s every American’s duty to know and understand the rights afforded by the Constitution. That way:

        1) You don’t break the law.
        2) Others don’t violate your rights.

      • Patriot Henry

        “Unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional? Because you don’t agree with it? When you’re appointed into the judicial system, you’ll have the right to interpret the law. Until then, let the legislative branch legislate.”

        It’s unconstitutional because it imposes harsh, cruel, and unusual punishments for peaceful citizens exercising their rights. As a citizen it is not only my right but also my duty to “interpret” aka “read” and uphold the law.

    • T

      Unconstitutional how? You still have a right to bear arms. You just can’t load a large clip into someone when you fight in whatever militia you plan on forming.

      • Zoning Victim

        You can if you hurry up and buy a high capacity clip before the bill passes.

        • KalashniKEV

          It isn’t going to pass. Our rights are safe.

          Still… it couldn’t hurt to have a few extra…

  • Arrrrrlington

    Because banning high capacity magazines will stop mass murders from happening. What about a guy with two guns? Or a guy with more than one regular capacity magazine and cat like reloading speeds?

    Why the hell do we keep voting for Moran in this district? The guy seems to support bills that are “in style” at the moment.

    • KalashniKEV

      What if you’re a criminal, or planning a crime, and you already don’t care what the law says?

      Or rather, on the way to your big crime, you don’t care about speeding, putting money in the meter, or having a “legally compliant murder weapon?”

      • mehoo

        So we need hi-cap magazines because the criminals have them?

        What if the criminals get surface-to-air missiles? Can I have one? It’s my constitutional right you know.

        • Charlie

          Why do we have to prove we need things? The government should have to justify its case, not the people.

          • mehoo

            When the government makes its case, then you have to make yours if you don’t agree.

  • Newt

    The back-lash from trying to bring back a piece of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban will be the end of Dems….Bring it on!

    • KalashniKEV

      That’s exactly what I’m talking about- nothing gets “average Americans” writing, opening their wallets, and letting their voices be heard like an assualt on their rights.

      • Newt

        +1

      • LVGuy

        That didn’t really work. That’s why slavery lasted as long as it did.

        • Kalashnikev

          -and yet you seem so enthusiastic about bringing it back…

    • Kalashnikev

      +1 I’ll bet a whole lot of Moran’s own constituents who previously had no idea who he was are now fired up to send him back to his own welfare line.

      I should sent him a “Merry Quitsmas!” card!!! lol :)

  • http://media-addict.blogspot.com/ Daniel

    This is DOA…. Another reason I did not vote for this vile congress-critter…
    I like that they tried to remove the Grandfather clause, trying to ban transfer of already legally owned magazines.

    I am sure the gun merchants are quite appreciative of this bill… their magazine sales in Jan/Feb are going to spike….

  • Newt

    I consider myself average amongst my peers. I vote, I am active in my (Arlington) community, and I always try and take others into consideration when making everyday decisions. I also have five tours in OEF and one in OIF and have seen my fair share of knee-jerk reactions. This will just be one thing in a long list of knee-jerk reactions for sometime to come.

  • PikeHoo

    Is more than 10 rounds in a clip necessary? Even a million bullets won’t kill your paranoia.

    • KalashniKEV

      You’ve exposed your ignorance. It’s a magazine.

      • PikeHoo

        Is more than 10 bullets in a MAGAZINE necessary? I’m covering my ignorance back up.

      • Westover

        Magazine, Clip, my Drill Instructors and PMI at Parris Island used them interchangably. Fact is that no civilian needs the ability to fire 30 rounds without reloading. Fact is that these things are out there already and you are not going to be able to recall them all even if it was legal to do so. These is a worthless feel good bill, that said I still don’t see why the NRA does not admit that having them in the hands of the average Joe is not a good idea. Identify and take care of the mental ill, and the last two attacks with firearms on Congress would have been avoided.

        • T

          It may be late but why is it pointless? You could say that about any crime bill made as a reaction to something that went wrong and it seems like a weak copout.

          • Westover

            It is pointless becasue there are so many out there already that you will not really limit the ability of anyone to get there hands on them, except maybe for newer models.

          • KalashniKEV

            Glock mags would be come the industry standard, just like STANAG M4 pattern mags. Newer models would just use them.

        • Patriot Henry

          “Fact is that no civilian needs the ability to fire 30 rounds without reloading. ”

          I need that ability. I’m a former Marine, but now I am not a “civilian” – I’m a citizen, and citizens need as much firepower as they desire.

  • LVGuy

    Knee-jerk reaction? Violation of rights? Please. There’s a reason these are called cop-killing bullets.

    Good for Moran for co-sponsoring this legislation. I’m still waiting for bill that would identify the purchaser of every bullet, though.

    • KalashniKEV

      “I’m still waiting for bill that would identify the purchaser of every bullet, though.”

      lol

      • LVGuy

        I’m not kidding.

        • PikeHoo

          Agreed. Register the ammunition. How could any law abiding citizen have a problem with that?

          • LVGuy

            Yes, registering the ammunition is much more eloquent than what I said.

          • Lou

            Would you like to have every liquor purchase you make tabulated and registered with the state?

            You’re just throwing out ill conceived arguments for the sake of arguing.

          • PikeHoo

            Why are you scared of having ammunition tied to your name? Given the passion gun people have for their guns, I would think you’d be proud. “Lou’s bullets”.

            And, I have news for you. When you use a credit card at an ABC, the state government knows when, what, and how much you’ve purchased. Who cares?

          • G

            Yeah, registering each bullet really isn’t practical. Plus, someone could just claim that their bullets were stolen.

          • LVGuy

            Identifying the purchasers of alcohol won’t generally solve a crime. Death by alcohol is usually the result of self-intoxication or drunk driving. In the case of drunk driving, there are other identifying factors, such as cars (which are also registered with the state). Bullets kill 12,000 people a year in the United States, and if we can find identify the purchaser of the bullet, we can maybe catch a killer.

            We already register to purchase several products. Purchasers of pseudoephedrine have to present ID just to help rid their congestion. When you buy a plane ticket, your name goes through a central database. Matching a name to a box of bullets it’s hardly overkill.

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            Register illegal aliens. How could any law abiding citizen have a problem with that?

          • Lou

            Yeah, but the question is not about solving crime, it’s how could any law abiding citizen have a problem with it.

            Might as well throw in 6-packs and cigarettes. Just in case they end up in the hands of a minor, you know. How could any law abiding citizen have a problem with that?

          • LVGuy

            At this point you’re being childish, but that’s hardly a surprise.

            I’ve made my point.

          • Lou

            It wasn’t a practical point. Nor were mine. They are non-practical talking points and hypotheticals that do not work in the real world.

          • PikeHoo

            Your “talking points” fail to further a dialogue about guns/ammo when they only consist of irrelevant comparisons to booze, beer, and cigarettes.

          • Zoning Victim

            I’ll give you a good reason and it’s the same reason I don’t want a national gun registry. In large part, the police want to be the only people who own guns. I am not anti-police by any means, but I know many of them would prefer not to have an armed citizenry and have no problem capitalizing on a disaster to go door to door confiscating guns.

            I know I know, “that will never happen in America; you’re being alarmist you silly gun nut!” The problem is that it already happened in America in the wake of Katrina. Do a search and you’ll find many credible arguments and a lawsuit by the NRA where they had to take the NOPD to court and get an injunction to get them to stop. Now, imagine that instead of going door to door and asking if you have a gun and then barging in and taking all of your weapons if you answer “yes,” they have a national registry of everyone who purchased bullets and they can simply target everyone who owns a firearm. Of course, once the police know someone is armed, they’re going in strong to ensure they can display an overwhelming show of force in the hopes that they will not meet armed resistance. But, some people resist, anyway, because they feel in the right to protect their rights by any means from anyone and good people, including the police, get shot and killed.

            All that said, everyone who says that it is not necessary for citizens to own 30 round magazines is correct, but this isn’t about necessity; it’s about rights. What the Second Amendment means to each individual in terms of what ownership rights it protects is open to interpretation and it is vague enough that any number of opinions can be gleaned from the text. Telling someone it does or doesn’t protect high capacity magazines, machine guns, bazookas or any other ordinance is kind of silly since it’s just an opinion and at any given moment there are only nine people whose opinions count (at least since 1869). One thing that I feel certain of is that necessity is not the measure of what the Second Amendment protects.

            All this bill is doing is causing everyone to purchase stacks of high capacity magazines much like all the assault weapons ban did was create a run on AK-47s and AR-15s. I’m sure the weapons and weapons accessories wholesalers and dealers would call and thank Moran if they didn’t hate him so much. In other words, there will be more of these in the market now simply because a bill to ban them was introduced.

          • Zoning Victim

            I meant to say “many credible articles,” by the way.

          • Patriot Henry

            “Register the ammunition. How could any law abiding citizen have a problem with that?”

            It gives great powers to the state with no gain to the law abiding citizen, removes privacy, costs a lot of time and money, and is intended to intimidate the populace. How can a law abiding citizen not have a problem with that?

    • Dave

      LVGuy, who said anything about “cop killing bullets”? The shooter in Arizona got his ammo at Walmart, which as far as I know only sells cheapo full metal jacket 9mm ammo. Maybe it’s different down there, I don’t know. That aside, all this talk of how many rounds his magazine could hold, is irrelevant (and often misstated anyway). The psycho at Virginia Tech killed 32 people and as far as I know he didn’t have any special high capacity magazines that held 30 rounds. The only common denominator is they both needed mental health services, and didn’t get it.

      As for registering ammunition, for those who keep throwing out the Patriot Act in this thread, that seems like a pretty big invasion of privacy doesn’t it? Thousands of people are killed with knives each year, should the cashier at Target have to run a background check on you before you can buy that new meat cleaver? Then enter you into a federal database?

      • Maria

        Um, I would be the one who kept “throwing out the Patriot Act,” and if you read what I wrote, you would have seen that I was asking one specific person one specific question about one specific thing he said. It actually had nothing to do with this proposed law. So yeah. Just saying.

        • Dave

          Gotcha, I don’t really read the names on comments unless I’m replying to someone. So then you agree registration would be an invasion of privacy?

          As for the 1,000 feet bill Rep. King introduced, that is the stupidest.thing.ever. Does this mean you’d have to vacate the premises if you’re carrying and a government official walks into whatever business, park, etc. you are visiting? What if a government official pulls up next you at a stop light? What if a government official moves into a home within 1,000 feet of your own? Do you have to get rid of your personal property or move?

          • Westover

            King knows that Bill would never pass, it is the same as Rangel’s Bill to back the Draft. It makes a political point.

          • Maria

            I can’t really comment on the invasion of privacy aspect of registering ammunition. I don’t know enough about guns. I thought all guns had to be registered to specific people, so if that were the case, I couldn’t see what difference it would make for ammunition to be registered too. However, I may be wrong about the gun thing, so I have no clue. Besides, I feel as though some people like to pick and choose their “this is an invasion of privacy” battles, so I try not to get involved because I’m not sure there is a right or wrong answer to any of it.

            However, I do agree that the 1000 ft legislation is one of the more ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

          • KalashniKEV

            Maria, only full auto weapons are registered.

            Are firearms registered in Virginia?
            With the exception of machine guns, firearms are not registered in Virginia.

            http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm

      • KalashniKEV

        Walmart stocks all types… when they have stockage. Ever since Obama took office the shelves have been bare. Most stores are placing their own limits on # boxes just so everyone can have a chance. Burke didn’t though and I managed to score a full case recently.

        BTW: There are no such thing as “Cop Killer Bullets” it’s an invention of the media.

  • Banksy

    I’m glad Moran is co-sponsoring this legislation. Makes more sense than trying to put more guns on the streets as some loony members of Congress are trying to do.

    “The genie is already out of the bottle…” “But my constitutional rights…” blah, blah, blah…The gun-nut arguments are BS.

    • Zoning Victim

      I actually keep mine inside; the street is a terrible place to store a weapon. I like the way that everyone who has a different opinion than you do is a nut. 67% of Americans have fired a gun, so are the majority of Americans “nuts?”

  • G

    I feel plenty safe with my rifle and two, 10 round magazines. I think the gun-nuts get so bent out of shape because they feel that this is simply the first step (or any step for that mater) of a continuum of steps that may eventually lead to banning guns all together.

    • Westover

      A fear that has proven false, over and over again.

      • G

        Agreed. I support gun rights, but I think it makes sense to have some sensible gun control laws too. Recently someone in New Carrollton defended himself and his parents during an attempted break in. Supposedly things like this happen all the time, but they rarely make headlines.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011205914.html

        • Dave

          It happens all the time, but you’re right, you rarely see it outside of local players. The NRA-ILA keeps an archive of many of these stories: http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/

      • Charlie

        Westover, when exactly has it been proven false? If you mean they’ve tried to ban them all, that hasn’t happened yet. However, gun laws have pretty much been a one-way street, and anyone who doesn’t want things to go a mile down the road would be well served to fight 100yd advances, so to speak.

        The expiration of the AWB is the only instance of things moving the other direction I can think of at the federal level.

        • Westover

          How about the DC gun ban essentailly coming to a slow end? Chicago’s will be over turned soon too. The slippery slope arguement is played out, and really has done nothing but made some NRA executives very very rich.

          • Charlie

            DC and Chicago got those shoved down their throats by the courts and immediately passed new laws inching right up to the line of what they could get away with. It’s kind of like saying the people of CA had a change of heart and repealed prop 8.

            The fact remains quite clearly that major changes in gun law (1934, 1968,1986,1993) have always gone in the direction of more government involvement and control. I really don’t see BB/FOPA/GCA/NFA ever getting overturned even in part, do you? Each of those was supposed to be a “compromise” and fix things and be wonderful, but after each one 1) criminals still didn’t care and committed crimes 2) 20-30 years later, the gun control crowd comes knocking asking for another common sense compromise. Stuff like national parks following state law is nice but kind of a red herring. It has nowhere near the kind of far reaching effect the passage of the new magazine bill would. If 10 becomes the new upper limit, 20 years from now we’ll be hearing how civilians have no need for 10rd mags, because people have gotten used to the new rules and someone will figure they can be tightened.

            Honestly, if there were some enforceable way for GC advocates to say “OK, we promise, this is the last time.” if this bill passed, I’d almost say go for it just to have the debate be over. Any rational person, however, knows there are large elements within the movement who won’t be happy until private posession of anything but single shot firearms is banned (or firearms altogether) The longer they have to fight for each step of the way, the better for those of us like myself who disagree.

            And mehoo, Obama blew all his political capital on PPACA. Him coming out openly for more gun control at this point is not feasible.

          • Westover

            Well, how would laws provide more gun rights than is already there? But look at what you do have locally. It was practically natural law and against the rules of a gentleman to have a on ban concealed weapons for the last 2000 years, yet in the last 15 year concealed carry laws have popped up across the country. The laws of 1934, 1968,1986,1993 were as much of keeping a check on the advanceing technology of firearms as they anything else. Thomas Jefferson did not have to deal with possible assasins taking him out with a .50 from a mile away, or have a guy come into Constitution Hall spraying 300 rounds a minute, even on the battle field Gen George Washington only had to deal with a enemy that could load and fire a round a minute, if they were really really good.

            Face it, the slippery slope of gun control has not happaned. Sure there are a few pockets in the country where things are strict, but that too is American in letting the locals set there own rules.

        • mehoo

          Well, let’s take Obama (the alleged gun grabbing commie). Since he took office, the only federal action has been to ALLOW guns in national parks and AMTRAK luggage. Two more small ways things have moved TOWARD increased gun rights.

          And none of the dire predictions that Obama would take our guns, etc. The Brady Center just gave Obama a grade of F on their issues. But that won’t stop the NRA’s direct-mail fundraising writers.

          • Westover

            Obama has been great for gun shop owners.

  • johnny b

    So when the next wacko decides to drive a truck thru a crowd, do we then ban all vehicles over the size of a Smart car?

    To those who don’t see a need…Why should the law abiding defender of one’s family and friends be denied the best tools?? The criminal doesn’t obey laws (that’s why they’re called criminals), so why should he be able to use something to an advantage over me??

    • Kalashnikev

      It’s about two things for the Left:

      1) A failure to identify proximate cause- i.e. “The gun caused this tragedy”
      2) Failure to place accountability. [this is related to their own failure (in life) to take responsibility for their actions]

      • Maria

        I’d just like to point out that it is a *Republican* Congressman who is introducing a law that makes it illegal to bring a gun within 1000 ft. of a government official. So let’s please not pin “failure to place accountability” and reactionary laws on the Left alone.

        • Kalashnikev

          Yes… the very same one who nominated me for USMA in ’99. It’s disgusting. I guess he wants to be true royalty?

          BTW- I’m not a Republican… so that stuff doesn’t work on me (Patriot Act, etc). I just believe in Freedom.

          • Maria

            I wasn’t trying to make anything “work” on you. I mentioned the Patriot Act because, let’s face it, many people who say things like you do are people who can’t help but contradict themselves about “freedom” every chance they get. If you don’t, I respect you that much more.

            As for this particular instance, you specifically targeted the left in your comment, so I was pointing out just one example of the way the right does the very same thing, and, in this case, reacting to the very same incident. That’s all. Not trying to trick anyone.

          • Kalashnikev

            That’s cool… I mistook your comment as well, thinking it analogous to the “Well Bush…” response to any criticism of the Great 0ne.

            I’ve been specifically identifying the “Authoritarian Left” for a reason… they seem to have a bit of an identity crisis over there. I’m with anyone who stands with Freedom and the principles of the Framers.

          • Maria

            I tend to think every politician has an identity crisis… daily.

            As for the “Well, Bush”-type comments, since I’m really bothered by hypocrisy, I would be the first to say it, if it was honestly warranted. However, I think there are legitimate criticisms on all parts of the political spectrum, so it’s not a knee-jerk reaction. I think carefully before I compare! :) As for that reaction in general, I think that just comes with the political/presidential territory. Bush people said, “Well, Clinton,” and while I was a little too young and not paying much attention to politics during the Clinton years, I’m going to assume Clinton people said, “Well Bush and Reagan” and so on down the line.

            Personal aside, you went to West Point? I grew up not far from there. So beautiful, right? …not that you went there for the scenery.

          • mehoo

            Kev,

            Perhaps you should just say “authoritarians” then, because there are plenty of authoritarians on the right, and libertarians on the left (though it’s probably accurate to say gun control is the province of the authoritarian left).

      • mehoo

        If insanity is outlawed, only outlaws will be insane.

    • Maria

      You’ve hit the nail on the head, I think. Look, I’m as liberal as they come, and I am the first to admit that I don’t personally understand why anyone aside from military and police personnel need guns other than those used for hunting, but, while I know some would argue with me, I don’t think bans like this are even about the 2nd Amendment. They are emotional reactions to isolated incidents which wouldn’t have been prevented by the bans in the first place. I wonder if these lawmakers considered that, you know, murder is illegal already, but that didn’t stop the guy, so why would a law like this?

      Further, just because something like this is illegal doesn’t mean people won’t find ways to get it (drugs anyone?), so this is pointless… well, it’s pointless for the reasons it was introduced, anyway.

      • Anon

        I agree with everything you said regarding this bill..it’s totally pointless, and will do nothing to stop crimes like this from happening again. If a criminal really wants one, he/she will get a hi-cap magazine to do their dirty work, Congressional ban or not…

      • Kalashnikev

        “Further, just because something like this is illegal doesn’t mean people won’t find ways to get it (drugs anyone?)”

        Exactly right. And drug use is not even a part of “American Culture.”

        Alcohol is a part of American Culture… and look at what prohibition did- turned a bunch of normal folks into criminals… sometimes violent.

        Guns are definitely a part of American Culture. I fear that a prohibition of arms would be even more violent.

  • Just the Facts

    One must wade through all the silliness in these comments (“enemies of freedom”, hehe!) to get to the real issue: would a restriction on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 cartridges pass Constitutional muster?

    The U.S. Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never ruled on whether firearm accessories are afforded the same Constitutional protection as firearms themselves. It would be an interesting case…and likely cause a large number of pro-gun folks to suddenly become far less supportive of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. (Kind of hard to find a right to high-capacity magazines in the 2nd Amendment when it was written before such things were even invented!)

    • Kalashnikev

      That would constitute an “infringement.” Note that it does not say “taken away.”

      It’s right there in the language, and very simple to understand. The Founders weren’t stupid… they really did think of everything.

      • Just the Facts

        Kalkev, you missed my point. There is no question that banning something is an infringment of the right to own that thing.

        The question is whether accessories (as opposed to firearms themselves) get the same protection as firearms. Would a ban on certain types of holsters or scopes or grips or sights trigger 2nd Amendment issues? I don’t think so. The right to keep and bear arms can still be very reasonably exercised even while limited to 10 round or smaller magazines.

        I don’t think we’ll get a Supreme Court answer anytime soon since I think such legislation will never pass the current Congress but it’s an interesting question to ponder.

        • Zoning Victim

          Actually, we already know that even banning certain types of firearms passes constitutional muster because Congress has already done it. In fact, Congress has already done it with this exact same accessory. That doesn’t mean I think they should pass this, just that it would not be unconstitutional if one is going off of precedent.

          • KalashniKEV

            AWB ’94 was unconstitutional legislation. Many Americans practiced “Civil Disobedience” during it’s reign and would have welcomed the test. :)

            The DC Handgun ban was a law recently ruled unconstitutional as well. It took a brave American to put it on the line first.

          • mehoo

            Kev is right – Congress passing a law isn’t a precedent for constitutionality. Congress has passed many laws that were later ruled unconstitutional by a court, or expired before they could be challenged.

          • Westover

            Yet the courts never overturned it.

          • Zoning Victim

            I’m not buying that the NRA felt they could have defeated the law in the Supreme Court but let the law stand for a decadefor no reason. They didn’t challenge it because they didn’t feel like they could win. As a matter of fact, the SC ruled the ban on shotguns with barrels under 18 inches was not protected and may very well do the same with a ban on clips with capacities over 10 rounds, at least with regards to pistols. They may very well rule the opposite way on AR clips since the military routinely uses 20 round clips. Furthermore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ATF does not have to license fully automatic weapons for private use. Either of those things are probably seen as a ban by you and violation of the 2nd Amendment, but not the SC; therefore, I see no reason banning 30 round pistol clips would. Additionally, the term ‘ban’ is incorrect to use here; they are simply making it unlawful to sell them.

          • KalashniKEV

            1) Stop saying clips.
            2) M4 mags hold 30 rounds.
            3) Have you seen the new Surefire Quad-Stack?

          • Charlie

            I don’t understand the fascination with 10 rounds. They’d probably face a lot less opposition if they actually looked at what was common in the marketplace and only really went after extended capacity mags. 10 just seems a silly number when your average full-size handgun (assuming it’s not a 1911 clone) has 15-17rds from the factory and typical rifle magazines are often in the 20-30 range.

          • Westover

            One sign of a gun nut, as opposed to an enthusiastic gun owner, is someone who gets upset over the use of the word clip versus magazine. For the purpose of the discussion, they are interchangeable. Freaking Marine Corps Drill Instructors use them interchangeably! And I defer to them as the ultimate authority on these things in my world. ;)

          • Westover

            Charlie, I agree with your view of the randomness of the 10 round limit. Shoot, five would make more sense if you could really recall them and limit what went back out if the purpose is to cut down on what happaned last week. An extension beyond the grip would make far more sense.

          • KalashniKEV

            “Freaking Marine Corps Drill Instructors use them interchangeably!”

            I gasped audibly when I read this. Seriously. I would say that you’ve had some garbage quality training.

          • Westover

            Can probably show you a thing or two. Never shot below Expert, even in practice.

          • mehoo

            CLIP
            A device for holding a group of cartridges. Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for “detachable magazine.” For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military.

            -from the NRA Firearms Glossary
            http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FirearmsGlossary/

          • KalashniKEV

            That was written by an NRA lawyer who probably doesn’t even shoot. A mag and a clip are two different things.

          • mehoo

            Wow, you’ll make up any kind of crap to avoid admitting you’re wrong, won’t you? Pathetic.

          • Westover

            He has a West Point education, now if he had been taught at Annapolis, he would know better. ;)

        • mehoo

          I think that if a ban on firearms is unconstitutional, most courts would say a ban on accessories such as ammunition would be unconstitutional too. Only an extreme strict constructionist would say that because the 2nd amendment says arms, it doesn’t including ammunition. (And a really strict constructionist would say it means you have a right to your own two arms, but not your legs).

          Ironically (i.e. hypocritically) I’ll bet many conservative gun rights supporters are strict constructionists when it comes to the rest of the Constitution.

          • brif

            since 1st ammendment freedoms can be restricted based on what you say and where you say it, stands to reason that 2nd ammendment freedoms can be restricted based on what you’re carrying and where you’re carrying it.

          • mehoo

            Well, no, the First Amendment pretty much can’t be restricted based on what you say. Where you say it? Rarely, and only if there’s a logical reason.

          • brif

            Actually yes, there are numerous First ammendment restrictions based on what you say and where you say it.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Special_exceptions

          • mehoo

            But those exceptions are much more specific than “based on what you say.” That’s way too general. If that were the standard, there wouldn’t be freedom of speech at all. What else is there about speech than what is said, and where?

            The exceptions are mostly based on whether something really is speech, or is only speech.

          • brif

            no, those exceptions are not way too general. there are place, manner, and content based restrictions to the first ammendment regardless of whether something really is speech, or is only speech.

          • mehoo

            I didn’t say the exceptions are too general, just the opposite. I said saying that they are based on “what you say and where you say it” is way too general. Those exceptions are MUCH more specific and limited than that. You stated a general principle that doesn’t exist.

  • Joe

    Anyone else wish they could exchange Jim Moran for a new Congressman?

    • Just the Facts

      No need to wish for it, you get your chance every two years. It’s an uphill battle, though, with 60+% of voting Arlingtonians supporting him every election. It seems your neighbors are quite satisfied with his performance.

      • DT

        That’s assuming they look at anything but the “d” next to his name. I wouldn’t make that assumption. I’ve done what I can to educate those ignorant of his ignorance.

        • mehoo

          It’s so easy to simply accuse everyone you disagree with of being shallow and thoughtless in their decisions.

          • Zoning Victim

            Not to mention the fact that Democrats could put that “D” by someone else’s nameduring the primaries if they wanted rid of him. While I don’t like his politics, it’s no mistake born of ignorance that he keeps getting elected.

      • KalashniKEV

        “It seems your neighbors are quite satisfied with his performance.”

        What about all the Arlingtonians I FWD’d this to? You know what they said? “Who’s Jim Moran?”

        As I said above, Moran basically quit his job by co-sponsoring this rubbish. Call “Joe Sixpack” ignorant, but when you start to mess with his constitutional freedoms he WILL take notice. Moran just woke up a sleeping bear in Arlington… an overweight, male-pattern baldness, light beer drinking, bear… sleeping on the couch, watching a sportsgame. ;)

        • Maria

          Is that what you guys look like? No wonder I’ve never dated a gun owner ;)

          • KalashniKEV

            Actually no, I was just trying to create an image that would stir some emotion… the kind of guy who lives right here, doesn’t vote, doesn’t know what “Artisphere” is, but really wishes we didn’t spend all that money on it…

            And I’m actually pretty decent looking, or so I’ve been told. Also, you raise an interesting point- you probably HAVE dated a gun owner. We just don’t talk about it. I have a LOT of guns including plenty of NFA items… it’s just not usually something you offer up… even after a couple months.

            We can go on a range date sometime, maybe… <3

          • Maria

            You’re right; I have. I was just making a hilarious joke! Duh.

          • KalashniKEV

            Me too. I’m actually really ugly.

          • Maria

            Aw, I was looking forward to that date. Forget it then.

          • KalashniKEV

            We can still go shooting… it just wont be a date.

          • Maria

            Sure, call me.

          • KalashniKEV

            You can hit me up on the Yahoo.

          • http://arlingtondirt.blogspot.com/ TGEoA

            Get a room

          • Maria

            I was wondering when someone would take it there. Nice job, TGEoA.

        • mehoo

          Sure, Kev, thousands of bald couch potatoes in Arlington are outside Moran’s door protesting as we speak.

          • KalashniKEV

            Gainfully employed people don’t have time to protest. You know that. Just look at the scum that show up regularly on the Mall.

            When election day comes around though, there might be a surprise…

          • mehoo

            “overweight, male-pattern baldness, light beer drinking, bear… sleeping on the couch, watching a sportsgame”

            Yeah, right, gainfully employed.

          • mehoo

            I like how you describe people exercising their First Amendment rights on the Mall as “scum” – nice touch. Of course, that includes a few pro-gun Teabaggers…

          • Maria

            I’ve drank (light) beer, slept on my couch, watched sports, AND gathered on the Mall (twice!), all while being gainfully employed. Just saying.

          • mehoo

            It’s the standard rightwing line that anyone who doesn’t agree with them doesn’t have a job, or any time the other side gets a better turnout at an event it’s because they don’t have jobs, etc. I’ve even seen them say it about posters on boards like this – where they are posting too.

          • KalashniKEV

            mehoo- Manual labor makes you tired. And yes, anyone who has time to get on board the Tea Party Express for a week or however long needs to get a job.
            Maria- That’s because we live a mile away.

          • mehoo

            Ah, so now the libs all have jobs, but they’re comfy elite office jobs while real men do the hard work. You think fast!

          • Maria

            Speak for yourself; I live 5 miles away! It is an epic journey to protest.

            And I unintentionally lied… one of the times I gathered was actually when I was in college in NY, and I traveled down for the day. So I wasn’t gainfully employed at the time :(

          • KalashniKEV

            I told you… gainfully employed people don’t have time for such things. I don’t even have time to tape a sign to my window facing the Capital much less stand around on the Mall with a bunch of kooks.

            Oh, and besides, standing around in large crowds is just begging for the Mujahideen to strike…

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            “Oh, and besides, standing around in large crowds is just begging for the Mujahideen to strike…”

            Or you could just slide over to South Capitol St. for some Glock-around-the-clock…

          • KalashniKEV

            That’s Un-possible… DC (Just like NYC) has no handguns and that’s why it’s so safe compared to Arlington… where our streets are awash in blood. (and overgrown fratboy urine)

          • mehoo

            Yeah, you never see a gun owner out protesting, or protecting us from terrorists.

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            “Yeah, you never see a gun owner out protesting, or protecting us from terrorists.”

            I never see a bicycle owner out protesting, or protecting us from terrorists either. Cant you carry throwing stars in the basket on your handlebars?

          • mehoo

            Um, sarcasm, dude. Let me spell it out for you. Gun owners protest too, so all this silly immature crap about “only the unemployed protest” is just that. As for terrorists, gun owners are supposed to be packing for self-defense, like in case a terrorist comes along, so why worry about it?

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            I’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan and came back with nightmares…. about Goldman Sachs!!!

  • The Noze Bros

    The NRA is funded by the gun shop owners and gun manufacturers. Their goal is to sell as many weapons and accessories as possible. They also (successfully) lobby to reduce the liability of gun shop owners as low as possible.

    The NRA also lobbies (successfully) to keep the ATF in existence but with minimal funding so that they can use it as a foil for their marketing.

    What I am struck by in the Tucson tragedy is how Loughner was disarmed and restrained by citizens (including one who was armed but didn’t draw his weapon) when he stopped to reload.

    • Dave

      Don’t forget the around 4 million members. Find me another civil rights/lobbying organization with that many people where membership is 100% voluntary.

      • Maria

        My old roommate (who doesn’t own any guns and hasn’t shot any, as far as I know) got a membership to the NRA for her birthday one year.

        • mehoo

          I knew a guy who hated the NRA’s political stances but joined for access to shooting ranges.

  • Relax Preppy

    glad i got some 31rd magazines for my glock this christmas

  • Christopher Fotos

    “The bill would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Such magazines were banned from 1994 to 2004, when Congress let the Clinton-era assault weapon ban expire.”

    Nope, they were not banned. New manufacture was banned. They were more expensive than otherwise, but you legally buy them and IIRC were not too terribly hard to find.

    • KalashniKEV

      +1 That’s not “media bias” that’s an outright LIE… and yet it’s repeated over and over in the hopes that it will become truth.

      All AWB ’94 did was turn all my mags in to solid GOLD. 5x appreciation overnight. I sold a USP40 w/ a bunch of standard capacity mags and took a whole vacation, lol.

      • mehoo

        What did the person who bought it need it for?

        • Westover

          Hopefully they did not NEED it for anything. But it gave them a kick to own such a thing.

          • mehoo

            Then that would throw the self-defense argument out the window, which it should.

            There may or may not be a constitutional right to own a given firearm or accessory, but the idea that the average person might need it for anything more than the thrill of it is a stretch.

          • Westover
        • KalashniKEV

          Freedom needs no justification… and certainly not to you.

          • brif

            apparently freedom needs no regulation either.

          • mehoo

            I’m not debating the constitutionality of it here, nor have I made up my mind about that. If your position is “I have a right to it, debate over” then why do you respond to other points? Just cut and paste the 2nd amendment into every post and you’re done.

  • roger

    What’s up with the 30round magazines law, again? How bout we eliminate criminals? It’s actually easier, and more efficient to do that. So we make possession of those awful pieces of metal illegal. How, exactly, does that get the Giffords’ shooter to stop? It doesn’t.
    The Constitution is based on freedom of the people along with punishment for evildoers. Since 1900, the punishment has been put on hold in favor of rehabilitation. We should return to punishment. Rehabilitation doesn’t work.

    • brif

      except that we never left punishment and never had rehabilitation

      • Zoning Victim

        Sure we do. We arrest people and throw them in jail for non-violent crimes. Put that on their public record, sell off/destroy all of their stuff so they have nothing, train very few of them in anything that will make money while the other criminals in jail train them in breaking the law, release them with a set of clothes and a bus pass into a world where they are unemployable and wait for them to return. How much more rehabilitation do you want?

  • The Pope of South Arlington

    Gun control is cat-nip for patriotards and Fox-voids – they sniff it, roll around in it and end up big-eyed and paranoid under the table.

    • The Dope of South Arlington

      I’m high right now. Can you tell?

  • Brady

    Moran springs into action to exploit a national tragedy to further his own radical agenda. Shocker.

    Yeah, extended magazines probably aren’t necessary for just about anything, but the timing of all this rubs me the wrong way.

    • Westover

      While my dislike of Moran is high, I am actually more OK with this as a reaction than I would be if it was part of a thought out campaign. Since obviously it was not very thought out.

      • Brady

        Why though? Shouldn’t all legislation be discussed with a clear mind and not tainted by a recent tragedy?

        Moran would push forward a vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment if he could right now.

      • KalashniKEV

        McCarthy had this one on the shelf just waiting for the next tragedy to strike… it’s purely revenge focused though, so that’s why it’s not well thought out.

        She needs a fully qualified person to tighten it up before she can introduce it.

        • Westover

          Revenge on who?

          With McCarthy’s history, I can’t blame her for her stance on the issue. I disagree with her, but I sympathize with her.

          • KalashniKEV

            Sympathy is what got her elected. What happened to her is very sad, but unfortunately it’s not a qualification to hold public office.

            She’s a very unbalanced person bent on revenge- against Winchester, LIRR, MTA, the gun industry… anyone with deep pockets. She fails to identify the proximate cause of her loss- something the Colin Ferguson’s own defense termed “Black Rage.”

            This is exactly the type of person who you don’t want making the rules!

            Unfortunately, she’s a one trick pony, and couldn’t convince Schumer to team with her on this evil legislation in the past. Now, after waiting for so long, she has her chance.

          • Westover

            Her constituents continue to vote for her, even with real competition, at least compared to what Moran gets to skate by with. She is an easy target to hit with propoganda, but she puts up a good fight back with facts. She is a worthy opponent on the issue of firearms.

    • mehoo

      “Moran springs into action to take sensible steps to save lives while others ignore a national tragedy to further their own radical agenda.”

      The spin is everything, isn’t it Brady?

      • Brady

        All I’m saying is Moran and his compatriots (the far left of the Democratic Party) of course go to blaming the guns (or clips) first. If this was legislation to tighten up the restrictions on the mentally ill obtaining firearms, I’d be reacting differently. The first thing that killed those people was the crazy person pointing the gun with the extended clip, if one wants to argue the extended clip is to blame (I’m not against that argument), that’s obviously secondary.

        So I would argue while this may in fact be a “sensible step,” it is a step nonetheless toward Moran’s radical agenda of eliminating all guns in this country. And Moran is co-sponsoring this bill because he saw an opportunity, which I take as exploiting the situation.

    • The Pope of South Arlington

      Ive got an idea, lets make the capitol building a “wife-beater” free zone! ;)

      • Brady

        A Congressman is not allowed to beat up his fellow members either, but that hasn’t stopped him (or the residents of the 8th District from voting for him).

  • http://aol ronald gochenour

    i vote for jim.ban guns in the usa

×

Subscribe to our mailing list