magazine ban

Uncategorized

Never Letting A Tragedy Go To Waste

July 27, 2012 by 3 Comments

The gun prohibitionists never let a tragedy go to waste. A gaggle of Democrat Senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have proposed an amendment to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, that would ban all magazines, stripper clips, drums, and belts that would hold more than 10 rounds. They do carve out an exception for .22 LR.

This is similar to the bill that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy proposed following the shooting in Tucson in 2011. Like her bill, while you could possess a pre-ban mag, it doesn’t allow you to sell or transfer it.

Sen. Schumer defended the amendment on the floor of the Senate yesterday. The Hill has video of it here. He said in part,

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”

The only problem when gun prohibitionists like Schumer and others of his ilk say “reasonableness”, “rational”, and “common sense” is that they expect those of us who favor gun rights to give up something so that we don’t lose even more stuff. I never see them proposing the end to any of the 20,000 plus bills that are already on the books.

As Sebastian said last night, it is good that this fight is now out in the open. Moreover, now that it is, we need to counter it.

The full text of Senate Amendment 2575 is below:

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Definition.–Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

“(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device’–

“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

“(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”.

(b) Prohibitions.–Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

“(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

“(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to–

“(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

“(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such a licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

“(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or

“(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.”.

(c) Penalties.–Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”.

(d) Identification Markings.–Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: “A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.”.

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Uncategorized

A Study in Willful Ignorance

March 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Connecticut General Assembly is considering SB 1094, An Act Banning Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines. This bill would not only ban any magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds but would give owners of these magazines 90 days within which they must turn them in to the police. Failure to do so would be a felony. There would be no grandfathering of magazines that were possessed prior to the enactment of the bill. As usual in these bans, the ban would only apply to the general public and not to law enforcement officers.

The Joint Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly held hearings yesterday on SB 1094. As reported in the Hartford Courant, the hearings drew a great number of people both for and against the bill. Unlike in the old Bill Ruger days, the current President of Ruger Firearms, Michael Fifer came out strongly against the bill. James Debney, President of the Firearms Division of Smith and Wesson, reminded the legislature of the number of jobs that could be lost if the bill passed. He made special note that the state had a number of magazine manufacturers including C Products and MecGar.

However, it is the testimony in support of the bill which contains the wild statements, willful ignorance, and hyperbole. As I noted earlier, SB 1094 does not apply to law enforcement who would continue to have standard capacity magazines.

From Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett:

Just as you correctly realized there is NO REASON for the general public to possess Assault Weapons, that same basic logic must be applied to the large capacity magazines.

There is no reason whatsoever that hunters or sportsmen or collectors or the public at large should have large capacity magazines. Their purpose is singular and deadly, and makes no sense at all for general public use.

From State Senator Gary LeBeau, Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Senate:

High capacity magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and efficiently without reloading. They have been used in numerous mass shootings, including Tucson, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Columbine and last summer, Manchester, Connecticut. These high capacity magazines are simply not useful for hunting or self-defense

And from the mayors of Bridgeport (Bill Finch), Hartford (Pedro Segarra), and New Haven (John DeStefano) comes this screed. I should note that all three are members of Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors group.

Large capacity ammunition magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and efficiently without reloading.

As our work is not done, we must continue our efforts to keep these high-capacity magazines out of the hands of the general public.

The two phrases that come up continually in their testimony are “general public” and “enable shooting mass numbers of people”. When they say “general public”, it tells me the political class – and I add the police chief in this category – does not trust the people of their state. A political class that has so little respect for the people needs to be replaced.

The “enable shooting mass numbers of people” is just hyperbole and willful ignorance. It is right up there with saying a standard capacity magazine is not needed for self-defense because the only reason you need more is that you can’t shoot straight. If that was the case, then why do trained law enforcement officers need standard capacity magazines? Presumably they are trained and must pass marksmanship qualifications on a regular basis.

Uncategorized

Shocking Undercover Video Of A…….Legal Purchase

March 8, 2011 by 2 Comments

New York State Senator Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn)wanted to show how easy it was to buy “high-capacity gun clips” in New York State. He visited two gun stores in the Albany area where they were sold. However, these were pre-ban AK-47 magazines which are legal to sell in New York State. So, in his “undercover” investigation, he buys a legal product and based upon this he is proposing to ban all standard capacity magazines.

Somehow his logic just fails me.

Adams has introduced S. 3573-2011 for the purposes of making “all large capacity ammunition feeding devices, regardless of date of manufacture, subject to the provisions of the penal law.” In other words, outlawing any magazines with a capacity of greater than 10. This is not the only gun control measure he has introduced this session of the New York State Senate. He has also introduced a bill requiring everyone outside of New York City to register their firearms on an annual basis with their respective county clerks.

Cam Edwards does a fine job of deconstructing Senator Adams and his shocking undercover video.

Uncategorized

New HR 308 Co-Sponsors

February 14, 2011 by 2 Comments

HR 308, Carolyn McCarthy’s bill to ban standard capacity magazines and other loading devices, has 15 new co-sponsors which brings the total to 80. I still don’t see any Republicans as co-sponsors of this bill or of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s companion bill, S. 32.

Last week, this bill was sent by the House Judiciary Committee to their Subcomittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security which is chaired by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) who is A-rated by the NRA on gun issues. Two-thirds of the Democrat minority of this subcommittee are listed as co-sponsors of HR 308.

The new co-sponsors are:

Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 2/10/2011
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] – 2/10/2011
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 2/10/2011
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] – 2/10/2011
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 2/10/2011
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] – 2/10/2011
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 2/10/2011
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] – 2/10/2011
Rep Tonko, Paul [NY-21] – 2/10/2011
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 2/10/2011
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 2/10/2011
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] – 2/10/2011
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 2/10/2011
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] – 2/10/2011
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 2/10/2011

UPDATE: Four more fellow travelers have been added to McCarthy’s list of co-sponsors.

Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] – 2/15/2011
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 2/15/2011
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 2/15/2011
Rep Garamendi, John [CA-10] – 2/15/2011

Lisa Price, the wife of Rep. David Price, is the co-founder and long-time head of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence. Rep. Price is also a co-sponsor of McCarthy’s “gun show loophole” bill.

One name missing from this list is Rep. Nancy Pelosi. I doubt she has changed her stripes but it is interesting nonetheless.

UPDATE II:  Another four Democrats have signed on to HR 308 as of yesterday.

Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] – 2/17/2011
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] – 2/17/2011
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 2/17/2011
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 2/17/2011

UPDATE III: You can add two more Democrats to the list of co-sponsors of HR 308.

Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] – 2/18/2011
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 2/18/2011

Schiff lists himself as a Blue Dog Democrat but this doesn’t look like what I’d expect a Blue Dog to do. Maybe he is really a Purple Dog just like Rep. Jane Harman who is also listed as Blue Dog. Harman was on the original list of co-sponsors of this bill.

Uncategorized

The Gunny Won’t Like This

February 8, 2011 by 6 Comments

If you saw the movie Full Metal Jacket, you know that R. Lee Ermey played drill instructor GySgt Hartman and that Vincent D’Onofrio played Pvt. Pyle. Unlike Mr. D’Onofrio, R. Lee Ermey actually served in the Marine Corps and was a real-life drill instructor. The Gunny is also pro-gun rights.

The Citizens Crime Commission of New York City bills itself as “an independent nonprofit organization working to make criminal justice and public safety policies and practices more effective through innovation, research, and education.” It is also self-described as non-partisan.

To which I say bullshit.

Richard M. Aborn who appears at the end of this little lesson in propaganda is not just some civic minded do-gooder. Read what an organization for whom served as President from 1992 until 1996 says about him:

Mr. Aborn was President of Handgun Control, Inc and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence from 1992 to 1996.

Richard was one of the principal strategists behind the passage of the landmark Brady Bill and the federal assault weapons and large capacity clips ban. He has testified on Capitol Hill and in numerous state and local legislatures and worked closely with the White House, the Justice Department and the Treasury Department. As one of the chief spokespersons for Handgun Control, Mr. Aborn appeared on numerous national and local television and radio shows.

Currently, Richard is a partner of Constantine Cannon and has over two decades of experience in litigation, public and government affairs, program analysis, management, issue advocacy, and social sector enterprises.

That organization is, of course, the Brady Campaign which was formerly know as Handgun Control, Inc. and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Mr. Aborn is also on the Board of Directors of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence which is actively promoting the video above.

Mr. D’Onofrio is just another actor who has willingly let himself be used by an anti-gun organization.

Uncategorized

Who Needs “Extended” Magazines?

February 7, 2011 by

Just as Stephen Hunter said in an op-ed in the Washington Post, defenders needed standard (or large) capacity magazines.

For them, the Glock with a 33-round magazine is the weapon of maximum utility. You can load it on Sunday and shoot it all month. (Nobody wants to reload a gun while being shot at.) It’s light and easy to control. You don’t have to carry it or conceal it; it’s under the bed or in the drawer until needed. When the question arises of who needs an extended magazine, the answer is: the most defenseless of the defenseless.

Those who would ban extended magazines, will say that although hundreds of thousands are in circulation and thousands more will surely be sold before a ban is enacted, it will be worth it if it saves just one life. But the other half of that question must be asked, too: Is it worth it if it costs just one life?

As one would expect, the comments are full of derision for Hunter and his stance. From reading them, you would think all anti-gunners had the shooting skills of Annie Oakley and thus didn’t need more than one or two rounds.

To confirm the need for protection against home invaders comes this video from WSAZ in southern Ohio. The area has seen a large increase in home invasions and residents are stepping up to protect themselves. When even the former Sheriff has to fight off home invaders, you know the thugs don’t care who they attack.

H/T Buckeye Firearms Assoc.

Uncategorized

Magazine Ban In FAA Bill?

February 2, 2011 by 1 Comment

There have been emails and blog posts racing across the Internet today about an attempt to slip Carolyn McCarthy’s magazine bill into a non-controversial FAA Modernization Bill.

I got the email forwarded to me by Grass Roots North Carolina. I have seen other versions sent out by the Virginia Citizens Defense League on the War On Guns. Even Instapundit has it.

The source of the rumor is the National Association for Gun Rights.

Checking the amendments submitted for S. 223, FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, as published in the Congressional Record, I don’t find anything remotely concerned with a magazine ban.While Senator Frank Lautenberg does have three amendments submitted, they deal with smoking, the time for the improvements to take place, and staffing at Newark Airport.

This is not to say that there won’t be an attempt to insert the language banning standard capacity magazines but rather that no attempt has been made that is verifiable as of now. The Senate is in session today and the topic is debating S. 223.

UPDATE: Checking the Congressional Record for February 2nd which contains the debate on S. 223 and all the newly introduced amendments, nothing related to firearms or a magazine ban was introduced. The only mention of firearms was by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) who was discussing a budget rescission of unspent monies by the Department of Justice and he referenced Project Gunrunner as an example.

The Senate will continue debating S. 223 today. Of course, more amendments could be proposed and passed.

Uncategorized

Grandfathering and HR 308

January 19, 2011 by

HR 308, Carolyn McCarthy’s bill to outlaw standard capacity magazines and other feeding devices, does not allow any currently owned magazines above 10 rounds to be transferred. The Assault Weapons Ban (sic) of 1994 did allow for existing magazines to be sold, traded, or transferred. The new bill makes it a felony.

Sebastian at Snow Flakes in Hell has an excellent analysis of this provision. To understand just how radical a bill this is, you must read it. As he notes:

McCarthy’s bill contains no such exemption (as in AWB of 1994 regarding proof of ownership), which puts the burden on you to prove you fall under one of these two exemptions. Carolyn McCarthy has been on NPR saying that the things bloggers have been saying about her bill aren’t true. She knows damned well they are true, and so do the anti-gun groups. The purpose of this bill is to try to get more of us thrown in federal prison.

I am not naive enough to believe that they merely don’t know how to draft laws. Dennis Henigan is not a fool or an idiot. He knows federal guns laws, and I would be very surprised if McCarthy’s staffers didn’t consult with the Brady Center on this bill. By removing the original grandfathering and protections that were in the original 1994 ban, the effect is vastly different than what we lived under with that regime. Under this law, you may really only possess 11 round or greater magazines, unless you have proof you possessed them prior, at the arbitrary discretion of the authorities. How many magazines do you have documentation for?

 When you have RINO dinosaurs like Dick Lugar coming out in favor of a ban as well as the comments by Dick Cheney, it tells you two things: most don’t understand the difference between the law in 1994 and what McCarthy proposes AND we are going to have a fight on our hands to stop this monstrosity.