The Idiocy of Legislatively Reduced Magazine Capacity

[JJVP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oURZ3LxY ... r_embedded#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;!

[karl]

Videos like this serve no purpose but to fuel a fire that is already burning. It attracts no positive support from anyone who was not previously in agreement with the issue. Stripping the video of the insults and partisan commentary would prove more effective.

[Beiruty]

It suffice to say that a ban on more 10 rds mags is unnforceale. There are maybe more than 100 milliions magazines that hold more than 10 rds. No one is ever able to collect all those Magazines. Moreover, who is going to disarm US guns owners without inducing incalculable consquiences?

[G.A. Heath]

It suffice to say that a ban on more 10 rds mags is unnforceale. There are maybe more than 100 milliions magazines that hold more than 10 rds. No one is ever able to collect all those Magazines. Moreover, who is going to disarm US guns owners without inducing incalculable consquiences?

There was a ban for 10 years, in some states it never ended. True it wasn't a confiscation ban, but it did make it things difficult. In fact inserting a pre-ban magazine into a post ban gun was also considered to be a crime. I have some Sig P226 mags marked with the le/mil use only language as a result of that ban.

[Beiruty]

It makes no sense, if someone defended himself with use of banned magazine? what they gona do charge the homeowner with commiting a crime?

I believe such ban can be proved unconsitutional. Catching a felon with a firearm is already a crime. Why criminalize the good law abiiding citizens?

[G.A. Heath]

Why criminalize the good law abiiding citizens?

Because that is the whole point of gun control.

[Beiruty]

I hear that states have came up with laws stating firearms and whatever related to it if made in the state, sold in the state, and never exported outsie the state are not subject to Federal regualation, if such laws survive a supreme court ruling, than the whole federal gun control is muzzled. The principle reasoning is that Federal gun control is only due to interstate commerce regulation.

[jcarp02]

Videos like this serve no purpose but to fuel a fire that is already burning. It attracts no positive support from anyone who was not previously in agreement with the issue. Stripping the video of the insults and partisan commentary would prove more effective.

At the end of the video he talks about showing this to a legislator, but the first "left" comment that legislator hears, he will dismiss the entire argument. One comment even alluded to the left as being targets. Not good, especially after AZ.

[RPB]

One recent example in the news:
(My own summary)
Houston, Texas
Ramon Castillo and Eva, his wife of 30 years, Jewelry Store owners face-off with three armed men who were going to tie them up and shoot them in the head. Four bullets pierced Castillo's body six times because he had to run around getting 3 different "low capacity" guns to fight back.
Castillo's condition was upgraded to fair Wednesday, and he is expected to recover fully. The family has set up a website to help with medical bills.
---------------------------------------

at http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co ... clips.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kory Zipperer]

I hear that states have came up with laws stating firearms and whatever related to it if made in the state, sold in the state, and never exported outsie the state are not subject to Federal regualation, if such laws survive a supreme court ruling, than the whole federal gun control is muzzled. The principle reasoning is that Federal gun control is only due to interstate commerce regulation.

Check out Gonzales v. Raich. As much as I would like these bills to be found constitutional, I just don't think they'll make it through the SC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beiruty]

If you see, this quote:

In 2009, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines allowing for non-enforcement of the federal ban in some situations:
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal."[13][14][15]

What does one define:
Selective enforcement of Federal law?

Why this does NOT apply for state gun control or lack off?

[RPB]

post deleted, posting as new thread

AntiGUN nut arrested for death threats, mental evaluation pending

[VMI77]

It suffice to say that a ban on more 10 rds mags is unnforceale. There are maybe more than 100 milliions magazines that hold more than 10 rds. No one is ever able to collect all those Magazines. Moreover, who is going to disarm US guns owners without inducing incalculable consquiences?

They won't collect them, they'll just put you in prison for 10 years and destroy your life if you're caught with one, and there will be numerous ways for you to be caught --from being turned in by a disgruntled family member, neighbor, or coworker, to having your home searched after you use a gun in self-defense. Most people will probably turn them in once a few such life destroying events are publicized.

And as the Coast Guard does when they cite you for something, then search your boat, the police will probably search any place where a firearm has been used in self-defense. The feds may require local police to do this or do without any of the federal money they are eligible for, and most will comply.

[VMI77]

It makes no sense, if someone defended himself with use of banned magazine? what they gona do charge the homeowner with commiting a crime?

I believe such ban can be proved unconsitutional. Catching a felon with a firearm is already a crime. Why criminalize the good law abiiding citizens?

Yes, that's exactly what they'll do, just like they do in places like the UK, where they have charged homeowners with a crime for "threatening" home invaders with a toy gun. In the blue states they already charge home owners with crimes for defending themselves with improperly registered weapons, and we've all read about the guy in New Jersey who got seven years in prison for absolutely nothing. This isn't just about guns: the people behind these laws see gun ownership and self-defense as ideological crimes and the larger objective is to terminate your right to self-defense.

[Kythas]

I hear that states have came up with laws stating firearms and whatever related to it if made in the state, sold in the state, and never exported outsie the state are not subject to Federal regualation, if such laws survive a supreme court ruling, than the whole federal gun control is muzzled. The principle reasoning is that Federal gun control is only due to interstate commerce regulation.

Doesn't really matter, anyway. In Wickard v Filburn, the Supreme Court stated that producing something for your own use affects interstate commerce in that what you are producing for your own use would have otherwise been purchased via interstate commerce, and therefore Congress has the power to regulate it.

Therefore, if a company is providing a product or good solely within the State, it still affects interstate commerce since the residents of that State who are purchasing said product or good would otherwise have purchased it on the open, interstate market. Therefore, Congress has the right to regulate it via the Commerce Clause.