HB2524: New bill would ban 'High' capacity magazines

Repeater · Jan 21, 2011

Just introduced:

Patrons-- Carr, BaCote, Englin, Hope, James, McQuinn, Surovell and Toscano

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-309.1, relating to prohibition of sale of certain firearms magazines.

----------
Patrons-- Carr, BaCote, Englin, Hope, James, McQuinn, Surovell and Toscano
----------
Committee Referral Pending
----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-309.1 as follows:

§ 18.2-309.1. Sale of certain firearms magazines; penalty.

Anyone who sells, barters, or transfers any firearms magazine that is designed to hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Oh, but okay to possess? What a relief!

The testimony from the patrons and witnesses could be interesting.

Repeater · Jan 21, 2011

Rorschach test, Part II

Illegal to sell in Virginia?

As Peggy Noonan bleats, what 'normal' person would want such a thing?

Well, then!

curtiswr · Jan 21, 2011

Repeater said:
Illegal to sell in Virginia?

As Peggy Noonan bleats, what 'normal' person would want such a thing?

Well, then!

I bought two when I first heard of Lautenberg's plan to introduce legislation banning high cap mags on a national level. Even bought a Glock 17 to go with them.

This crap is gaining steam throughout the country I believe. Dick Cheney came out and said he was okay with a high cap ban. Congressfolk from both sides are starting to roll with it, it seems.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) issued a statement regarding Cheney's comments: "A ban on high-capacity gun magazines would save lives, plain and simple. When a strong gun advocate like Vice President Cheney talks about bringing back this ban, it is a clear sign that protecting the safety of innocent people should trump the special interest gun lobby."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...azines_in_wake_of_giffords_shooting_video.php

As Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY) prepares to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity magazines ... she is finding some very unexpected support. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Fox News contributor Bill Kristol and Cato Institute scholar Robert Levy have all suggested revisiting assault weapons restrictions such as the high capacity magazine ban.

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201101210004

ocholsteroc · Jan 21, 2011

I thought about buying one. But I think its ugly, but no reason to ban it.

Banning high magazines is just a moron thing.

People will just buy rifles, and scopes and "mass shootings" will happen from out of no where. Just look at the DC snipers. Then they will ban scopes and rifles. Just because someone abuses the 2nd amendment and harm someone doesn't mean we have to change it to form fit our safty. We need to have PERMITLESS carry through the whole country.

I heard Classic arm is planning to have a sale due to their site being down for a while/inventory stuff.

peter nap · Jan 21, 2011

Curtis said:
I bought two when I first heard of Lautenberg's plan to introduce legislation banning high cap mags on a national level. Even bought a Glock 17 to go with them.

This crap is gaining steam throughout the country I believe. Dick Cheney came out and said he was okay with a high cap ban. Congressfolk from both sides are starting to roll with it, it seems.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...azines_in_wake_of_giffords_shooting_video.php

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201101210004

I bought one a long time ago for some reason that I can't remember. I've never shot it though.
It's bad enough chasing cartridges much less 30.

TFred · Jan 21, 2011

Philip just put out a VCDL Alert about this. Apparently they snuck it in under the wire. Probably hoping nobody would notice.

TFred

peter nap · Jan 21, 2011

TFred said:
Philip just put out a VCDL Alert about this. Apparently they snuck it in under the wire. Probably hoping nobody would notice.

TFred

Yep!
At least this should be the end of them. Now to try to keep them in committee.

Repeater · Jan 22, 2011

Really dangerous -- for future reference

Creating a new Code Section for gun control is dangerous because of what Delegates or Senators can do in the future. Consider the old lesson of boiling a frog. To succeed without the frog noticing, you bring the pot to a slow boil:

So, in the future, the gun-haters lower the bar:

§ 18.2-309.1. Sale of certain firearms magazines; penalty.

Anyone who sells, barters, or transfers any firearms magazine that is designed to hold [strike]20[/strike] 10 or more rounds of ammunition is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

This could be followed by going lower, say to 6. So, everyone carries a 1911? Not very pro-choice or progressive; rather it becomes regressive and repressive.

But hey, if it saves even one life, isn't it worth a little inconvenience?

Thundar · Jan 22, 2011

Does not correspond to assault firearm

Assault firearm:

C. For purposes of this section, "assault firearm" means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock

This is stupid.

Assault firearm =21 or more

Link: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C01

New proposed legislation = transfer ban on 20 or more?

Thundar · Jan 22, 2011

I could make and sell magazines if this comes to pass. They would not be designed to hold 20 or more rounds, but they certainly could be modified to do so.

Repeater · Jan 22, 2011

Are you 'undocumented' -- just kidding

Thundar said:
Assault firearm:

C. For purposes of this section, "assault firearm" means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock

This is stupid.

Assault firearm =21 or more

Link: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C01

New proposed legislation = transfer ban on 20 or more?

Yes, this is stupid.

Using the ever popular euphemism, it applies to those persons who are undocumented immigrants (illegal).

Say, here's a thought: repeal that code section.

Tess · Jan 22, 2011

Repeater said:
Just introduced:

Patrons-- Carr, BaCote, Englin, Hope, James, McQuinn, Surovell and Toscano

Oh, but okay to possess? What a relief!

The testimony from the patrons and witnesses could be interesting.

I wonder if Delegate Surovell realizes how many rounds were sitting in his office when I, my husband, and our two children were there on Monday.

longwatch · Jan 22, 2011

No transfer eh? What are our families to do when we die, drop them in our coffins?

USNA69 · Jan 23, 2011

Tess said:
I wonder if Delegate Surovell realizes how many rounds were sitting in his office when I, my husband, and our two children were there on Monday.

I wonder if Delegate Surovell realizes that banning high capacity magazines is a useless gesture that will only impress those who know nothing about guns and certainly NOT the BGs.

Using my now-infamous Glock 19 as an example: Banning the 33-round magazine does nothing, when the BG can still show up with ... oh, say ... five 15-round mags hanging on his belt. Even a klutz can reload in seconds.

This has nothing to do with being safer and everything to do with incrementalizing gun control. Regulate mags, regulate ammunition ... then there is no need to regulate the guns.

marshaul · Jan 23, 2011

Curtis said:
and Cato Institute scholar Robert Levy have all suggested revisiting assault weapons restrictions such as the high capacity magazine ban.

Not quite. He says it's probably Constitutional, and I'm inclined to agree that current precedent (e.g. Heller) poses no explicit threat to such a ban. Levy also says:

Gun Control Measures Don't Stop Violence
...We should also resist seemingly measured gun controls such as raising the age limit from 18 to 21, requiring background checks at gun shows, and reinstating the assault weapons ban...

...Expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004 did not — contrary to popular belief — legalize automatic firearms. Those weapons have been banned since 1934 for all practical purposes. The ban covered semi-automatic weapons, which are used by tens of millions of Americans for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, and even Olympic competition. Take it from The New York Times, written a few months after the ban expired: "Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, expiration of the assault weapons ban has not set off a sustained surge in sales (or) caused any noticeable increase in gun crime."

The U.S. Constitution imposes no obstacle to more thorough screening of gun applicants for mental impairment. Nor does the Constitution likely preclude reasonable background checks, or even tighter constraints on high-capacity magazines. Those proposals, which may reflect the common-sense views of many Americans, must be tempered by this reality: Experience indicates that gun restrictions have minimal effect on access to weapons by criminals and deranged people.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12715

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. He sounds more resigned to the inevitable (as he sees it), to me.

The part I'm actually most inclined to question is his assertion that "The U.S. Constitution imposes no obstacle to more thorough screening of gun applicants for mental impairment". I'm inclined to think a right requires due process, which requires something more complex than just "more thorough screening".

77zach · Jan 23, 2011

Setting any limits on magazine capacity is a horrible violation of your property rights and self-defense rights. It could be the case that 21, 36, or 73 before rounds is necessary to defend yourself. Of course, those wearing government issued uniforms will be exempt from any restrictions. Are their lives worth more? I guess so.

If they can do something stupid like ban certain accessories, the stage is set for further infringements. I hope people in VA call or email the sponsors of this bill and let them know what petty tyrants they are.

Walt_Kowalski · Jan 24, 2011

This needs to be added to the VCDL tool to email your legislators. This is total crap bill and it needs to be put down.

The Wolfhound · Jan 24, 2011

Oh, but it is only REASONABLE....

I am so tired of the ANTIs claim for compromise. In a true compromise both sides give up something. In their version, they win, we lose. If they want to talk real compromise then I am ready, Their view is that slingshots are too dangerous to be in the hands of the public. My view is that the Second Ammendmment allows for ARMS up to and including Thermonuclear weapons and Plasma Cannons. If we begin with those starting points, I MAY be able to compromise. Starting where we currently stand and giving up current rights is no compromise, it is simply letting the spoiled children who think they run the government have their way to shut them up. As with children it will never work permanently. Because it worked once, they will be back for more and never be satisfied.

wylde007 · Jan 24, 2011

The Wolfhound said:
My view is that the Second Amendment allows for ARMS up to and including Thermonuclear weapons and Plasma Cannons.

In the Revolutionary War and "Civil" war the people and the government had similar weapons at their disposal.

Now the government has weapons far beyond and above those of the people and the balance of power is grossly out of level.

Only a fool would believe that this has not been the goal all along.

ed · Jan 24, 2011

Postcard Sent

HB2524: New bill would ban 'High' capacity magazines

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator