- Messages
- 12,947
- Reactions
- 47,252
Don't show that to my wife or she will start putting doilies on mine...
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
magazine ban
- Thread Starter gunfreak
- Start date
- Messages
- 790
- Reactions
- 494
Yes. We can no longer buy used booluts from mass shooters.
- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
Anti-gunners file federal magazine capacity limit measure
Anti-gun Congressional Democrats, led by Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), yesterday filed what she described as the "eminently reasonable and incredibly important" federal legislation to limit magazine capacity.
<broken link removed>
Anti-gun Congressional Democrats, led by Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), yesterday filed what she described as the "eminently reasonable and incredibly important" federal legislation to limit magazine capacity.
<broken link removed>
look how that worked out for owning a full auto...
- Messages
- 825
- Reactions
- 1,526
Hang the bastards for Treason.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED................................................................................................
Is stated pretty clear in the original document.
I stole this BTW.
The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' Justice Antonin Scalia (b. 1936) District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783,
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials....fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
The Supreme Court of the United States of America recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Constitution by stating that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution ... neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 -552 (1876),
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not
such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or
broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be
so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men
with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
[Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]"
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED................................................................................................
Is stated pretty clear in the original document.
I stole this BTW.
The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' Justice Antonin Scalia (b. 1936) District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783,
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials....fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
The Supreme Court of the United States of America recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Constitution by stating that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution ... neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 -552 (1876),
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not
such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or
broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be
so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men
with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
[Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]"
- Messages
- 527
- Reactions
- 377
kcimags.com has their 17 round glock mags for $6.99 if you're into those like I am.
Actually, I believe they could pass this law if they had the votes. I'm not a legal scholar, but my understanding of ex-post facto is making something that was done in the past, which was legal at the time, illegal.
For example, since normal capacity magazines are currently legal, an ex-post facto law would ban those magazines and make you a criminal for owning one in the past, while it was legal. This is different from passing a law saying normal capacity are now banned and you have thirty days to turn them in, which wouldn't be ex-post facto (although, in my opinion, it would be unconstitutional!)
- Messages
- 839
- Reactions
- 1,746
If I understand ex post facto laws correctly, the requirement to register "assault weapons" in the State of Conneticut is unconstitutional. It was legal to own them unregistered before, so how could it be illegal to own them unregistered now?
Again, I'm not a legal scholar (I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night though) but I believe it is legal, in terms of ex-post facto. Again, I believe it is unconstitutional for other reasons. It would be ex-post facto if they said you must register your "assault weapons" and because you didn't register them in the past you are now a criminal.
- Messages
- 909
- Reactions
- 937
This bill, if passed, WOULD NOT make normal capacity mags that you owned before the implementation date, illegal. See highlighted section.
SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
13 FEEDING DEVICES.
14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United
15 States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (u)
16 the following:
17 ''(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,
18 sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting
19 interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammuni-
20 tion feeding device.
21 ''(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession
22 of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise
23 lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of
24 the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of
25 2015.
SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
13 FEEDING DEVICES.
14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United
15 States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (u)
16 the following:
17 ''(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,
18 sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting
19 interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammuni-
20 tion feeding device.
21 ''(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession
22 of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise
23 lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of
24 the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of
25 2015.
- Messages
- 12,947
- Reactions
- 47,252
Who would have the burden of proof? Me to prove I owned them pre-ban, or the state to prove I bought them post-ban?
"I got proof I bought the magazine pre-Burdgasm. It's right inside this tube - just look down it and I'll turn on the light with this hook shaped switch..."
"I got proof I bought the magazine pre-Burdgasm. It's right inside this tube - just look down it and I'll turn on the light with this hook shaped switch..."
- Messages
- 909
- Reactions
- 937
Such short memories people have. Either that or we were too young to pay attention.
It no different than in 1994-2004 when the Assault Weapon Ban was in effect. It had a provision limiting normal cap mags down to 10rds. Remember all those "LE/MIL ONLY" stamps you would see on mags produced during that time?
This new bill would require all new mags to be serialized and have DOM stamped on them.
It no different than in 1994-2004 when the Assault Weapon Ban was in effect. It had a provision limiting normal cap mags down to 10rds. Remember all those "LE/MIL ONLY" stamps you would see on mags produced during that time?
This new bill would require all new mags to be serialized and have DOM stamped on them.
Are these as well made and reliable as factory glock mags?
- Messages
- 527
- Reactions
- 377
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reactions
- 1,774
This bill is not going to even make it out of committee. Pure political pandering to their base.
- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
New Remington .45 Colt , 500 rounds for $300
- Started by glockfan40
- Replies: 1
-
-
WTB Benelli 12ga ComforTech stock, for (pre-2023)M2. Other M2 parts wanted.
- Started by nforest
- Replies: 0