Gun control advocates call for a ban on high-capacity firearms magazines, and the resulting bill by New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, won’t fly. If nothing else, the National Rifle Association is on the case, and they’ve got the winning hand inside the beltway (again still). Despite the media mania for gun control after the Safeway Massacre, anti-Jared Lee Loughner is centering more and more on . . . Jared Lee Loughner. Not his high cap mag. Still, gun control advocates know that they may not have as good a chance to get something done as right here, right now. In fact, they fancy their chances. Delusional? Here’s reasons to be cheerful parts one through three, via politicsdaily.com. We report, you deride . . .
1) These gunshots hit closer to home. “I can’t remember the last time a congressman was targeted here,” he says — not since 1978 and the death of California Rep. Leo Ryan in the Jonestown massacre. And the Tucson victims — a recently engaged 30-year-old, a beloved federal judge, a 9-year-old girl born on 9/11 — are such storied figures that unless someone were writing a movie script, they’d be accused of making this up, says Helmke.
2) The legislation that McCarthy is proposing in the House and Lautenberg in the Senate — a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips — is narrowly drawn and was once law as part of the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. “It was a law that worked, and it’s directly related to what happened in Tucson,” says Helmke. Loughner was tackled after firing 31 bullets as he stopped to put in a new clip. If magazine clips were limited to ten rounds, as McCarthy proposes, Loughner would have been shut down earlier and the damage lessened.
3) The fact the Loughner was able to obtain a gun legally shows how weak our laws are. The fact that he was dangerous enough to be rejected by the military and get kicked out of algebra class should prompt congressional hearings to investigate the background checks that are in place, and examine what events can be flagged to tip off potentially violent behavior. The current bar for the background check for the no-buy list is too low.
Question:
Would you be in favor of a ban on the manufacture of any pistol magazine that extends passed the end of the pistol grip, but not the sale or distribution of those currently in inventory or held in private hands so long as they are stamped with some future date of with a stamp that only the manufactures have possession of. As a compromise to have our concealed carry license, so long as it has a photo, your home address, fingerprints filed and checked by the FBI, plus one from any other state, that said licensee would be able to legally carry that pistol concealed any where other then secured areas with magnetometers and if said person brought one by accident to said area they would face no criminal charges? I know it’s a mouthful, just thinking out loud.
“As a compromise to have our concealed carry license,”
Not all states require a license.
I’ve seen enough politics over the years that I’m pretty much done trying to compromise with the likes of people trying to pass this bill. Once you give up a freedom, it’s hard to get it back. If they would show some factual evidence instead of just opinion that a 10-round limit would matter, then maybe I’ll start listening. But I haven’t seen any such facts.
Speaking of concealed and licenses, the NRA is going to help push for constitutional concealed carry in WI, and opposers are going to have to come up with some fancy rhetoric to stop it because you can Already open carry constitutionally in WI.
I’m with Wes. We shouldn’t compromise our civil rights. It only invites more chipping away by the opposition. A compromise here, a compromise there, and sooner rather than later, there’s nothing left to give up.
The manufacturers are the key here. We need to make it clear to the manufacturers that they need to take a public stand – ‘No standard caps for me, none for thee’.
You deny the law enforcement departments and any other exempted agency other than DOD / Military contracts anything that is prohibited to citizens.
in my opinion , the whole idea is a no starter.
laughner is a paranoid sczenophrenic, and many he had contact with knew it.
yet not a single one of them placed a call that would have had him brought in gfor a manditory evaluated and put on the inelegable list for a backgrond check.
Who is talking about that? Certianly not any of the media I hear. The college officials where he went and his parents both have blood on their hands for this. If they had gotten him a diagnosis and some help, the shooting would almost certianly have been prevented. If the proper reporting rules had been followed after his manditory evaluation, he would have been on the FBI’s “do not approve” list.
so what would a magazine restriction do? he would probably bought his equipment on the street like the drug dealers with a bunch of convictions in their past do.
the media hates gun owners above all other people, to them the answer is always to make life harder for is .
I have only one of those oversized mags (legal in MA if they are “pre-ban”) and can’t bear to use it since it’s so damn ugly.
A compromise between to parties or groups implies that both parties/groups are willing to give something up in order to get something else that they want. Along that reasoning I’m willing to compromise, I will give up magazines in excess of the existing standard size, for example greater than 15 round magazines for the Glock 19 and in return the Brady Bunch can give up the Gun Control Act of 1968, in it’s entirety. That seems quite reasonable and equitable to me. Since the magazine limit is supposed to absolutely end all violence forever and ever and the GCA of 1968 has obviously failed to do the same they should give up a failed law for one that works.
The Bradys will not give up anything. They don’t give, they take.
between TWO parties or groups. Spell check doesn’t catch grammar, dang it.
There is not one single gun control law that has (or likely CAN) be shown to have ever ‘worked’ to reduce any of violent crime, murder, suicide, nor accidents.
None of the US Department of Justice, CDC, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
Not even Brady/NICS background checks can be shown to have reduced any of this.
10 round mags? There never even was a ban, and it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
You would think that the gun control supporters are so willing to ignore what the United States Constitution protects in regards to civilian possession of guns as clarified by the Supreme Court less than 3 years ago – whatever is in common use at the time. There are probaly billions of firearms magazines that hold over 10 rounds and certainly many more than the 10 round magazines out there. So clearly magazines holding more than 10 rounds are in common use and therefore protected by the constitution.
Comments are closed.