High Capacity Magazines

Illegal, top, legal, bottom

Illegal, top, legal, bottom

While I had my camera out, I thought I’d show readers unfamiliar with the issue what a “high capacity” magazine looks like compared to a seven-round one. The seven round is (still) legal in New York, the ten round one is not. Connecticut lawmakers want to follow suit.

Which is the high capacity magazine in the picture to the left? The one next to the smaller .22 cartridge. The perfectly-legal seven rounder below it is for the .45. A bullet from either could kill you, theoretically, but does limiting the size of the magazine make you safer? I think not.

15 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

15 responses to “High Capacity Magazines

  1. RL

    as Forrest Gump says STUPID is as STUPID DOES !

  2. David Smith

    Hey Chris,

    Two items of interest you might want to check out and include here:

    The list of sheriffs who will not enforce unconstitutional laws grew by 40 this week – Now 380.

    At least 6 firearms companies have announced they will not sell to New York government agencies/employees. Some won’t sell at all, some only the stuff the commoners are allowed to keep. They have expanded to California and are encouraging more companies and a review of the status of all states to identify more for the boycott list.

    • Artie

      Admittedly, I don’t know much about this stuff. I don’t own a gun, and sometimes have a hard time seeing why anyone would.
      I read the articles attached and was left with some questions.
      It seems that you’re saying that since criminals and illegal gun owners won’t abide by laws, that laws are unnecessary. I don’t think it works that way. How about making the penalty much more severe. I don’t know what the penalty currently is for using an illegal firearm during a crime. How about we make it 25 years in jail for first time offenders. Would that discourage their use? No? How about 50?
      Next, the only reason that you can think of not to put a limit on capacity is to help someone protect themselves in the event of, in your example, a home invasion. You just went through an explanation of how easy it is to reload (including a video). Why can’t someone protecting their home reload as quickly? What other reason is there for a legal gun owner to have these super-capacity magazines?
      In a similar vein, I would think that having to continually reload (as in the example of a mass murder-type incident) would increase the possibility of jamming. Is that true? I honestly don’t know, but it seems that it would. Also, if someone has to reload repeatedly, where do they keep all of these extra magazines? Does that become a hindrance to committing these horrible crimes? Does the fact that it is difficult to hide all of those magazines help warm people to a possible problem?
      I appreciate your response.

      • Artie

        I’m not sure if you wrote those articles, but the questions remain.

        In addition, I learned that someone can purchase ammo without showing a gun license. Does it make sense to legal gun owners to change that?

        Does it make sense to gun owners that every weapon should be registered in some way? Does it make sense that every transaction involving a registered gun be captured? So if CF wants to sell his pistol to me, I would have to go re-register the gun & have it inspected. Is that too much inconvenience? Would it make sense that CF asks to see my gun license before the transaction?
        It seems like a little regulation might help those legitimately involved.

        • What would you want to inspect the pistol for? And why does your proposal call for an annual “safety” inspection, if not to harass gun owners? Are you so concerned about gun barrels blowing up (they don’t) and injuring their users? One less shooter off the street, no?

          Why should you ban interstate ammunition sales to target shooters, the only folks who need, want or use large quantities of ammunition? Do you understand that a gun in untrained, unpracticed hands is more dangerous than one possessed by someone who’s practiced and can hit what he aims at?

          “a little regulation”? Guns are one of the most heavily regulated items in everyday ordinary use – you in your 1,000 pound Prius pose far more potential harm yet are far less regulated. You, for instance, can own and operate a car even if you’re a felon or have been dishonorably discharged from the military, beat your wife or are just leaving a mental asylum. The ones who aren’t regulated are the criminals and again – and again and again and again – if they’re willing to break the laws against murder, assault and possessing an unregistered firearm, they are just as unlikely to obey the laws you want to pass.

      • You want the death penalty restored – and actually enforced – ‘sfine with me.I’d start with tailgaters, but that’s just me.
        Slapping a new magazine into a gun take’s just a second or two – not necessarily enough time for even the bravest kindergarten teacher to throw herself at an attacker and disarm him, but not the pause that refreshes when there are couple of intruders in your house, each intent on causing you harm.
        Semi-automatics jam when a cartridge hangs up in the magazine, not because one magazine is exchanged for another, usually.

      • Krazy Kat

        Artie – The issue is avoiding the passage of ineffectual laws that will have NO deterrent effect on the law-less (criminals, psychotic) while HAVING a detrimental impact on law-abiding citizens. Any honest gun law will seek to have an impact on the most frequent causes of gun injury/death. Given suicide is a one-shot event and makes up 55%+ of gun deaths, magazine limits have no bearing. Given accidents are one-shot events, capacity is not an issue. Given domestic shootings are one-to-seveal shot events, capacity will have no impact. Given criminal use of handguns is responsible for 80% of non-suicide, non-domestic s and the psychotic are law-less by definition, they will ignore capacity laws. Thus, mag capacity limited

        Thus, the only ones who WILL be impacted by such a law are the law-abiding owners of self-defense firearms. Worse, Connecticut as a state has untaken releasing felons EARLY and you think stronger sentences is going to have an impact? Mandatory sentencing for gun-use in a crime has been tried elsewhere with mixed success but such a view is incompatible with reducing sentences for felons.

        The issues is not “what-if” in the case of a rampage shooter, the issue is whether any law will have a major impact on the overall causes of gun injury or death. If you want to “what-if” like that, then we should limit all motor vehicles to no more than 70MPH and also install breathalyzer-ignitions in every vehicle as well. That way we can limit the CHANCE of high speed vehicular collisions as well as drunk driving. Artie, why don’t we do that, because it will impede all of the law-abiding, non-speeding, non-drunk driving drivers.

        As for the number of rounds that are “enough” for self-defense, who are you or anyone else to determine that number in advance? Many anti-gun folk suggest that law enforcement should be the only ones to carry handguns because of their “training” and “expertise” with firearms. On that first note, as the head of the police chiefs association was forced to acknowledge to the gun violence task force, the minimum requirement for practice range time for a LEO to re-certify is THREE HOURS A YEAR. Artie, you are clearly not a shooter so you would not know that shooting accuracy and firearms handling is a perishable skill. I know many civilians who spend three hours a week or a month at the range. Three hours in a year is NOT training, it is getting away with the bare minimum and many cops do only that. How’s your faith in police “training” now?

        How about “expertise” with handguns? Various studies suggest that police, in stress shooting situations, only hit their intended target 25-38% of the time, let’s call that one-in-three. So the average LEO carrying a Glock 17 with 17 round of 9mm will, ON AVERAGE, only impact their target with less than 6 of those rounds. IF they are “average” and some are obviously below average. Now, if the average civilian using a self-defense handgun is as good as the average LEO, then a 7-round limit means that civilian will hit with about two rounds per magazine. Do you know how many people can be shot with two rounds and still be a threat? Plenty, including that guy in Atlanta a month ago who was shot 5 times by a woman at nearly point-blank range and he still managed to walk away from the scene.

        As for “can’t civilians reload frequently since it takes a few second” – why must I bear that burden? It is my right to “bear arms” for self defense, not to bear the number of rounds someone with no firearms training thinks seems reasonable. If I hear a crash in my house a 3:30 am and I get my Sig P226 our of my bedside Gunvault, I want all 15 rounds in that gun, not 7, not 10 because I wear boxers to bed that provide no pockets in which to carry around extra magazines.

        The possibility of “jamming” on a mag change is another “what-if” upon which we do not enact laws. But let’s say you had that scenario – it takes less than five seconds it clear a Type 1, 2 or 3 malfunction with minimal training. Yes, Artie, we train to clear malfunctions because they do happen. But let’s say there is a malfunction, do you think children or teachers cowering behind tables in fear of their lives are going to realize there is a “jam” and it is time to run? Do you think an able bodied person will have the presence of mind to rush the shooter at that point? The only reason Jerold Loughner was tackled when his gun jammed was because he was too close to multiple adult men and Loughner did not know how to clear a jam. Again, we do not pass laws on such “what-ifs”.

        As for how does one carry “all those extra magazines” there are many options. The Sandy Hook killer wore a vest with pouches to carry many mags. The Columbine killers carried soft bags on their shoulders with dozens of mags. But your fallacy there is thinking that the crazed gunman is going to give a shit about the law and actually limit himself to neutered mags – aint gonna happen. And even if it did, see the shooting at Oikos University last year where the guy used perfectly legal mags (10) in California and was easily able to kill 7 students.

        Please Artie, you can not admit on one hand no knowledge of a matter and then pontificate on what you think is “reasonable”.

        • Artie

          Does pontification begin with: “I read the articles attached and was left with some questions.”?

          I don’t have time to respond at the moment to both you and CF, but I will…

        • Krazy Kat

          Sorry Artie, that was a bit severe because you were quite reasonable in both your questions and your disclaimer. I guess I am too conditioned to folks who do pontificate and yet do not know a “clip” from a “mag” from “high capacity ammunition”.

  3. D

    Didn’t Barrett start this trend when CA stupidly banned the 50 cal? Like any criminal is going to use a $5K 20lb rifle to commit a crime. Idiots. Anyway, admirable idea.

  4. David Smith

    Just for the heck of it, I sat down w a pencil and an engineering degree and designed a fully functional (if WEIRD looking) weapon that is NOT an assault weapon by Feinstein’s definition(s) but would bang out 700 rounds a minute (ON MANUAL – NOT FULL AUTO) until the 200 lb backpack of ammo ran out or the water jacket boiled dry.