Magazine Restrictions

[GenSeneca]

There are laws that limit a guns magazine capacity and they vary state-to-state.

As an avid collector and shooter of firearms, I find these laws (especially in my state of Ohio) to be ridiculous, there simply are no legitimate reasons for these laws to exist.

What I would like to hear is a rational argument in favor of limiting the magazine capacity of a firearm... Can anyone make the case for why there should be laws restricting the capacity of a magazine?

 

[BigRob]

There are laws that limit a guns magazine capacity and they vary state-to-state.

As an avid collector and shooter of firearms, I find these laws (especially in my state of Ohio) to be ridiculous, there simply are no legitimate reasons for these laws to exist.

What I would like to hear is a rational argument in favor of limiting the magazine capacity of a firearm... Can anyone make the case for why there should be laws restricting the capacity of a magazine?

You won't get one from me.

 

[Apathy]

Why on earth you would need a lot of rounds in your magazine? When I hunt I usually only fire a single shot the entire time if im lucky enough to spot something. But then again why must they regulate it? They are indeed silly laws.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

100 round clip..go for it, so long as its not also full auto..

I really don't care, though question the need...if you need that many rounds for "self Defense" maybe you are doing something wrong in your life.

If you want to know who is against it most, go to your local police station, find out how many cops are for your view...bet not many...and what politician wants to be against the cops?

 

[Rick]

There are laws that limit a guns magazine capacity and they vary state-to-state.

As an avid collector and shooter of firearms, I find these laws (especially in my state of Ohio) to be ridiculous, there simply are no legitimate reasons for these laws to exist.

What I would like to hear is a rational argument in favor of limiting the magazine capacity of a firearm... Can anyone make the case for why there should be laws restricting the capacity of a magazine?

Look at california's silly-ass "assault gun" prohibition, with "assault guns" defined as:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

Oh my stars and little planets, the dreaded pistol grip and telescoping stock - a threat to western civilization!

 

[GenSeneca]

Apathy, I don't hunt and viewing the second amendment as a "right" to hunt is not at all the intention of that amendment although that is exactly how most "pro-gun" politicians view it. They only seem concerned about pissing off hunters, to hell with the rest of the law-abiding gun owners. And yes, their laws are indeed silly.

Pocket, the full auto vs semi auto might be a whole other topic but I also think laws regarding full auto's are ridiculous. It is your natural and constitutional right to own "arms", and the definition of that word is not just limited to semi-automatic rifles and pistols.

As for Cops, if you think they can come up with a rational explanation for why magazine capacity should be restricted then post their answer here... Saying they "prefer" to limit magazine capacity is not a rational argument for why such laws should exist. I'm sure cops would also "prefer" to not have to bother with things like search warrants and miranda rights but their personal preferences do not override our constitutional rights.

As I said, I am a collector as well as a shooter. My favorite guns are the ones from WW2 as I'm also a WW2 buff. Here are some of the guns I would like to purchase with a lifting of restrictions:

PPSH 41 chambered in 7.62X25, accepts 71 round drum magazines and 36 round stick mags:

DP-28 Machine Gun chambered in 7.62X54R, only accepts 47 round pancake mags:

There are also quite a few "modern" firearms that I'd like to add to my collection but cannot because of Ohio's laws restricting magazines (above .22 cal) to 30 rounds or less:

The FN P-90 chambered in 5.7X28, accepts 50 round stick mags:

And one that has a name too great to pass up... The Calico Liberty III chambered in 9mm, accepts 50 and 100 round Helical magazines:

The 1994 gun ban affectively put that American weapon manufacturer out of business by eliminating their ability to sell to the public.

Well those are just some of the firearms that I'd like to purchase but cannot due to Ohio's magazine restrictions. If anyone has a rational argument for why we need such laws, I still have yet to hear one.

 

[Apathy]

Apathy, I don't hunt and viewing the second amendment as a "right" to hunt is not at all the intention of that amendment although that is exactly how most "pro-gun" politicians view it. They only seem concerned about pissing off hunters, to hell with the rest of the law-abiding gun owners. And yes, their laws are indeed silly.

Pocket, the full auto vs semi auto might be a whole other topic but I also think laws regarding full auto's are ridiculous. It is your natural and constitutional right to own "arms", and the definition of that word is not just limited to semi-automatic rifles and pistols.

As for Cops, if you think they can come up with a rational explanation for why magazine capacity should be restricted then post their answer here... Saying they "prefer" to limit magazine capacity is not a rational argument for why such laws should exist. I'm sure cops would also "prefer" to not have to bother with things like search warrants and miranda rights but their personal preferences do not override our constitutional rights.

As I said, I am a collector as well as a shooter. My favorite guns are the ones from WW2 as I'm also a WW2 buff. Here are some of the guns I would like to purchase with a lifting of restrictions:

PPSH 41 chambered in 7.62X25, accepts 71 round drum magazines and 36 round stick mags:

DP-28 Machine Gun chambered in 7.62X54R, only accepts 47 round pancake mags:

There are also quite a few "modern" firearms that I'd like to add to my collection but cannot because of Ohio's laws restricting magazines (above .22 cal) to 30 rounds or less:

The FN P-90 chambered in 5.7X28, accepts 50 round stick mags:

And one that has a name too great to pass up... The Calico Liberty III chambered in 9mm, accepts 50 and 100 round Helical magazines:

The 1994 gun ban affectively put that American weapon manufacturer out of business by eliminating their ability to sell to the public.

Well those are just some of the firearms that I'd like to purchase but cannot due to Ohio's magazine restrictions. If anyone has a rational argument for why we need such laws, I still have yet to hear one.

Im well aware of the intention of the 1st amendment I was just saying myself personally do not have the need for large magazines.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The right to bare arms , will have limits always...arms could mean a tank, a f14, and a ICMB...I think logic will always prevail and say you know what, there are limits...

Or we could just take the literal interpretation and say, your arms, like body parts you are free to bare those

 

[Apathy]

The right to bare arms , will have limits always...arms could mean a tank, a f14, and a ICMB...I think logic will always prevail and say you know what, there are limits...

Or we could just take the literal interpretation and say, your arms, like body parts you are free to bare those

of course there should be limits only a fool would advocate absolutes in any subject. But clearly these laws are absurd and scarcely comparable to not allowing every citizen to have a fully operational tank.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

of course there should be limits only a fool would advocate absolutes in any subject. But clearly these laws are absurd and scarcely comparable to not allowing every citizen to have a fully operational tank.

ok draw the line..see how many say yes thats clearly the line..some say semi auto , some full auto, maybe RPG's? maybe its a Hummer with a 50 cal mounted? there is not a clear line...

 

[Apathy]

ok draw the line..see how many say yes thats clearly the line..some say semi auto , some full auto, maybe RPG's? maybe its a Hummer with a 50 cal mounted? there is not a clear line...

I am not sure I am qualified to draw a hard line on the second amendment. I just know letting citizens own tanks is a wise thing. Nor does having all these silly restrictions on guns.

I really dont like guns the only reason I own one is so I can go hunting, its not like I can go to the store and get dear meat.

 

[Rick]

The right to bare arms , will have limits always...arms could mean a tank, a f14, and a ICMB...I think logic will always prevail and say you know what, there are limits...

Confiscationists use that ol' chesnut as a wedge to establish that "there are limits", and then they extend (eventually) the "limits" to near-total bans on weapons, as eg in canada.

The underlying logic of the first amendment is that people should be able to defend themselves. In the 18th century, the most likely thing to be defended against were indians, foreign invaders and insurrections, hence the entirely incidental mention of "a well-organized militia" - the best defense against the likely threats BACK THEN. With the huge crime rate now compared to then, and little likelihood of invasion or insurrection, the most likely threat is ordinary violent crime. The best defense against that is personal weapons, not tanks or artillery which have no use in pursuing the raison d'être of the second amendment.

Bottom line: there are no "limits" beyond what are implied by the amendment itself.

 

[dogtowner]

there is a limit somewhere on how much weight is too much to reasonably operate the weapon. apart from that, its just a matter of the bad guys needing to reload more often. or maybe sell more magazines ?

 

[GenSeneca]

The right to bare arms , will have limits always...arms could mean a tank, a f14, and a ICMB...I think logic will always prevail and say you know what, there are limits...

Clearly it is not logic but emotion that has prevailed, otherwise you could offer a rational explanation for why there should be limits placed on a firearms magazine capacity.

I own an M-11 (Mac-10 in 9mm) and a Tec-9, both with 30 round clips... Can you make a rational argument for why it should be illegal to have 31 round clips? Can you make a rational argument for why there should be any restrictions at all on the number of rounds in a magazine?

...So far you have not.

There is only one "limit" placed on rights, you do not have the right to violate the rights of others. Whether you own a tank, machine gun, F-14, or an ICBM it makes no difference to me or anyone else, so long as you are not violating the rights of others, it is your right to pursue your own happiness.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

 

[steveox]

I Own this!