Lautenberg amendment (S.A. 2575) (Large capacity magazine ban.)

[Gunfighter-AK]

Him being a scientist has no particular merit when we're discussing political opinions. At best, he has the ability to cast a more informed vote on a topic within his field of expertise. Such a false equivalence has no place in informed debate.

Furthermore, if he's so "courageous" in attempting to bring such controversial topics to the center of debate, why, tell me, is he attempting to hide his little present in a bill on an entirely different subject? Riders are done for two reasons:

1. To pass a piece of legislation that would likely fail or be damaging politically if it were presented on its own
2. To slow or delay the passage of another bill by making it untenable for its supporters

I'm not seeing courage here. Shrewd political sense, possibly, but courage? No, he's attempting to hide his proposal. Luckily, it appears he's failed at doing so.

Also, shouldn't Lautenberg, a scientist, be concerned with data when formulating positions? If he were, he'd note that this sort of measure has been tried in the past here -- and has been demonstrated to have no effect on the violent crime rate. Mass killings didn't suddenly stop after 1994 either; the Jonesboro school shootings, Columbine, and Oklahoma City (not a shooting, but certainly more deadly than any shooting we've had in this country thus far) are among many examples of mass killings that occurred under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which included a 10-round capacity limit).

Yup! And don't forget! Many PDs, specifically those with people who reported to the Senate, told the liberals that it wouldn't lower the crime rate! They also issued an "I told you so", of sorts, in 2004 when what they had said came to pass. It didn't work. In fact, if nothing else, crime with the use of those "awful" weapons got worse.

[NeedsABetterName]

Yup! And don't forget! Many PDs, specifically those with people who reported to the Senate, told the liberals that it wouldn't lower the crime rate! They also issued an "I told you so", of sorts, in 2004 when what they had said came to pass. It didn't work. In fact, if nothing else, crime got worse.

I wouldn't say that, at least at a national level. As a whole, the national trend at the time was that violent crime declined from about 1990 onwards with some states hitting their peak years a little later (1993-1996). It continues to do so, despite the worst recession in recent history and nearly eight years of buying fully-automatic AK 47 assault machine shotguns from vending machines, the type that fire armor-piercing heat-seeking Glock assault clips.

[Gunfighter-AK]

I wouldn't say that, at least at a national level. As a whole, the national trend at the time was that violent crime declined from about 1990 onwards with some states hitting their peak years a little later (1993-1996). It continues to do so, despite the worst recession in recent history and nearly eight years of buying fully-automatic AK 47 assault machine shotguns from vending machines, the type that fire armor-piercing heat-seeking Glock assault clips.

This! Made me laugh so hard. Too right!

[ljrmisty]

I wouldn't say that, at least at a national level. As a whole, the national trend at the time was that violent crime declined from about 1990 onwards with some states hitting their peak years a little later (1993-1996). It continues to do so, despite the worst recession in recent history and nearly eight years of buying fully-automatic AK 47 assault machine shotguns from vending machines, the type that fire armor-piercing heat-seeking Glock assault clips.

Thanks for those stats. I challenge Gunfighter to produce the stats that support his postulate. From Fox News to MSNBS and even CNN, the National trend has been downward. Fact. Gun sales are way way up because so many people think they are going to have their guns taken away, but if anything it has leveled the playing field. This year alone, and in the last 4 weeks, I've read of legally armed citizens blowing fu3kers away in the commission of a crime. Hoorah!!

[NeedsABetterName]

Thanks for those stats. I challenge Gunfighter to produce the stats that support his postulate. From Fox News to MSNBS and even CNN, the National trend has been downward. Fact. Gun sales are way way up because so many people think they are going to have their guns taken away, but if anything it has leveled the playing field. This year alone, and in the last 4 weeks, I've read of legally armed citizens blowing fu3kers away in the commission of a crime. Hoorah!!

His perception may be affected by his location.

Take my state for example. Violent crime has not followed the national trend of decline; rather, it began leveling off around 1995. It has turned into a roller coaster. never rising above the 1997 rate, declining until about 2003, and beginning another decline (that's continued) in 2007. In addition, a major city that I'm near has creeped its way up to the point where it's consistently in the top five/ten most violent cities in the US. While at a national level the trend has consistently gone down, our state is an exception to the rule.

From stats such as these, I've personally drawn the conclusion that gun laws in this country don't make a difference either way. You see states such as mine with liberalized gun laws (we have shall-issue CCW, no assault weapons ban, no licensing/registration, no waiting period for purchase, a few stupid bans on things like switchblades, and full NFA allowance) that haven't seen a drop since CCW was passed, nor have they seen a drop during the 1994 AWB. You have other states with liberalized gun laws that have followed the national trend of decline. You have states with restrictive gun laws where crime has either risen or leveled off, and you have states with restrictive gun laws where crime has also followed the national trend.

However, since they've been demonstrated to be irrelevant (in my opinion), the excuse of "well, at least they're not hurting anything" does not stand; gun control advocates are claiming that infringing upon my rights is necessary for (insert reason here). Ignoring the fact that civil rights aren't subject to a majority vote, if that's their claim, they are the ones who need to justify such infringements. If their justification is crime control, the data says "no, it hasn't been attributable to any meaningful decline." The converse (a liberalization of rights) requires the opposite in my opinion; unless there is a demonstrable reason against such liberalization, I see no reason not to. In the case of CCW, we have simply not seen such reason to deny it in this country (no meaningful increase in murders/violent crime).

[ljrmisty]

His perception may be affected by his location.

Take my state for example. Violent crime has not followed the national trend of decline; rather, it began leveling off around 1995. It has turned into a roller coaster. never rising above the 1997 rate, declining until about 2003, and beginning another decline (that's continued) in 2007. In addition, a major city that I'm near has creeped its way up to the point where it's consistently in the top five/ten most violent cities in the US. While at a national level the trend has consistently gone down, our state is an exception to the rule.

From stats such as these, I've personally drawn the conclusion that gun laws in this country don't make a difference either way. You see states such as mine with liberalized gun laws (we have shall-issue CCW, no assault weapons ban, no licensing/registration, no waiting period for purchase, a few stupid bans on things like switchblades, and full NFA allowance) that haven't seen a drop since CCW was passed, nor have they seen a drop during the 1994 AWB. You have other states with liberalized gun laws that have followed the national trend of decline. You have states with restrictive gun laws where crime has either risen or leveled off, and you have states with restrictive gun laws where crime has also followed the national trend.
"
However, since they've been demonstrated to be irrelevant (in my opinion), the excuse of "well, at least they're not hurting anything" does not stand; gun control advocates are claiming that infringing upon my rights is necessary for (insert reason here). Ignoring the fact that civil rights aren't subject to a majority vote, if that's their claim, they are the ones who need to justify such infringements. If their justification is crime control, the data says "no, it hasn't been attributable to any meaningful decline." The converse (a liberalization of rights) requires the opposite in my opinion; unless there is a demonstrable reason against such liberalization, I see no reason not to. In the case of CCW, we have simply not seen such reason to deny it in this country (no meaningful increase in murders/violent crime).

"From stat such as these, I've personally drawn the conclusion that gun laws in this country don't make a difference either way." Truer words never spoken. You speak of better knowledge of the stats in your state then I can in mine. Point is that in spite of my disagreement with Lautenberg or others for gun control, I want the question asked, so that the statistical facts can be heard. We have far more important things to resolve than mag size, full auto, or the value of a BOFOR in my neighbors back yard, hooked up to his dually, waiting to go have some fun this weekend

[Dan2004]

Even if the magazine capacity limit had been in place at the time, due to the panic and confusion I doubt anyone would of even noticed if the guy was reloading. Pointless law seeing as someone could buy many 10rd mags and practice reloading/tape two mags together.[/QUOTE]

Also, anyone with some basic metal working and machining knowledge could make one. Magic fairy dust doesn't make these work; It's a sheet-aluminum box with a spring in it. I can go into any machine shop and come out with one that's 20, 30 or 40 rounds capacity (AR mags at least). Yes, that would be illegal, but at this point, I probably wouldn't care much. I doubt too many folks would either.

[LineDoggie]

I know someone who father made him a Tokarev magazine. It was a 9 shot Tok from Hungary not the usual 8 and to buy a mag would've cost 120bucks from Marstar in Canada. His dad said **** that and made a few himself. They work quite good.
EDIT: he also made a ten round mag for his Yugo Mauser

[Dan2004]

I know someone who father made him a Tokarev magazine. It was a 9 shot Tok from Hungary not the usual 8 and to buy a mag would've cost 120bucks from Marstar in Canada. His dad said **** that and made a few himself. They work quite good.
EDIT: he also made a ten round mag for his Yugo Mauser

My uncle, who taught me alot of what I know about metalwork, made his own 20 and 30 round AR mags to spec during the AWB. He also made CETME/G3, FAL, and M1 carbine mags that were dead nuts reliable for a price.

[Ought Six]

Dem lawmakers to announce bill limiting online ammo sales

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...e-sale-of-ammo

[911]

The White House gave a cool welcome on Monday to Democratic legislation that would effectively ban online or mail-order purchases of ammunition in the aftermath of the mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.
"I haven't seen the specific piece of legislation that has been offered up today," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the daily press briefing. "But as that and other pieces of legislation make their way through the legislative process, we'll evaluate them."
The proposal, crafted by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg and Democratic Representative Carolyn McCarthy, aims to restrict Americans' ability to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition over the Internet, or by mail order, anonymously.

President Barack Obama has called for a "common sense" response to the slaughter in Aurora. But the White House has played down his appetite for new legislation as opposed to tightening or toughening existing measures — such as background checks — to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. And the president has underlined his support for the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
"He believes in the second amendment of the constitution, in the right to bear arms," Earnest said again Monday. "But he also believes that we should take robust steps, within existing law, to ensure that guns don't fall in the hands of criminals or others who shouldn't have them.
The new legislation, dubbed the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, rests on four pillars, according to Lautenberg's office:
It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.





http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=16888281

[Ought Six]

**deleted**

[LineDoggie]

They sort of have to. Without a concentrated Democratic majority in the House theres no way this crap will pass. McCarthy been a one trick pony in congress elected on the body of her husband.

[Parx400]

I have never fired a 30 plus mag that didn't jam all over the place. What's the point of banning a ****ty product like that.

[NeedsABetterName]

Didn't we already try making dealers keep records of ammo sales? FOPA 1986 got rid of that as I recall, mainly because it was insanely burdensome on dealers for little actual benefit.

Also, places like AIM Surplus require you to fax a copy of your ID to them prior to ordering. Am I to assume that such an action wouldn't be "enough" for this... "enlightened" legislator?

Why "any quantity over 1,000?" Can I just place several orders of 980 rounds (rifle ammo is usually in 20-round boxes) for the same practical result? Or is it cumulative? Once I hit the magic "I've bought 1,000 rounds" mark from a dealer, is every future purchase going to be flagged/reported?

Also, are we still in the "let's blame the tool" phase, or have we moved on to taking practical steps to prevent such measures, like intervention in certain cases (psych help, etc.)?