You don't need more than a 10 round magazine: False, here are some reasons....

[tkdguy]

for Senate Bill SB 346.

CRIMINALS WILL NOT FOLLOW A 10 ROUND LIMIT, THEREFORE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS CAPACITY WILL BE DISABLED AND IMPERIL THEIR CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND THE GOOD CITIZENS.

HOME INVASIONS/KIDNAPPING OCCURS WITH 1-2 OR 5-6 INVADERS. This is the specific location that a large capacity magazine is needed to protect husband, wife and children.

MENTALLY ILL MASS MURDERS CARRY LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES AND MULTIPLE GUNS SO THEY DO NOT NEED TO RELOAD. Limiting citizens to 10 round magazines would easily be insufficient in the face of a high capacity weapon. The CHL holder would be at a distinct disadvantage in the face of an ongoing mass shooting murder of children and the public.

THERE IS NO GOOD REASON WHY A CHL SHOULD NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF A HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE. THEY HAVE PASSED FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS AND HAVE HAD BASIC TRAINING. THESE FOLKS ARE SOME OF THE MOST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN SOCIETY.

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT WHEN YOU WRITE THE SENATORS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS BILL.

Read More

 

[fd15k]

This is a weak argument. It in fact hurts us, instead of helping.

 

[civilian75]

for Senate Bill SB 346.
THERE IS NO GOOD REASON WHY A CHL SHOULD NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF A HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE. THEY HAVE PASSED FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS AND HAVE HAD BASIC TRAINING. THESE FOLKS ARE SOME OF THE MOST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN SOCIETY.

Don't agree with this statement. You should not need a CHL to own and use hi-cap mags!!! "Shall not be infringed" should be enough.

 

[Father of four]

I am a law abiding citizen who does not have a CHL permit at this moment. I may get one later and I will not be more law abiding if I do.

 

[DireWolf]

The average gunfight in self defence constitutes something like a 5 second exchange with less than 5 rounds fired by each person.

These are emotional arguments, not factual ones.

 

[Father of four]

The average gunfight in self defence constitutes something like a 5 second exchange with less than 5 rounds fired by each person.

These are emotional arguments, not factual ones.

Unless you are a cop. Then it could range from 8 to 15 rounds.

 

[Kimber Custom]

The 'emotional argument' is that we need to cap magazines at 10. Why? It doesn't stop crime. It doesn't lower the death toll. There's no logical reason to limit magazine size. It's more feel good legislation that we are doing *something*.

The real concern is in NY 10 wasn't good enough and it was dropped to 7. Where does it end?

 

[DireWolf]

Unless you are a cop. Then it could range from 8 to 15 rounds.

27 if you are a PDX cop, and 113 if you are NYPD.

The 'emotional argument' is that we need to cap magazines at 10.

I agree with that as well.

 

[drew]

The 'emotional argument' is that we need to cap magazines at 10. Why? It doesn't stop crime. It doesn't lower the death toll. There's no logical reason to limit magazine size. It's more feel good legislation that we are doing *something*.

The real concern is in NY 10 wasn't good enough and it was dropped to 7. Where does it end?

It is based on emotion and I fear it won't end.

27 if you are a PDX cop, and 113 if you are NYPD.

Sounds like Glock needs to introduce belt fed models to accommodate these departments.