Is it reasonable to limit gun-owners to seven round magazines?
No. This is just another "One size fits all" solution to a very complicated problem.Several years ago I attended "Combat style pistol shooting" classes every Wednesday night. For nearly all the exercises in that class magazines were limited to 7 rounds. That is not to say you couldn't use a larger magazine. Indeed the pistol I used for these classes only used 13 round magazines. You just couldn't put more than 7 rounds in each magazine. This was a result of a bias held by many people in this group and others that favored the 1911 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol for combat style shooting. Those guns only have 7 round magazines.I can assure you that every member of that class could do an incredible amount of killing with only 7 round magazines. Each shooter could empty such a magazine with satisfactory accuracy shooting paper half-silhouettes, reload with a fresh magazine, do it all again, reload with another fresh magazine, do it all again and complete this in less than 15 seconds. I never measured the time it took a trained person to swap magazines but it was clearly less than one second. Done properly, the empty magazine is still falling toward the floor while the new magazine is inserted in the pistol and firing continued.I personally think the notion that limiting gun features and magazine sizes is only an exercise in political correctness intended to earn votes from people who generally know nothing about guns or shooting. The simple truth is guns are tools for killing people and nothing you do to change the exact features of those guns really matters at all.
What would happen if high-capacity magazines were banned?
Banning "high-capacity" magazines sounds so easy, but when you get into the details it quickly gets complicated. Let's explore the practical issues a moment. Are you proposing banning new manufacture or possession? Keep in mind that there are millions upon millions of magazines out there. There is at least one 17-round magazine floating around in my shooting stuff that fits a gun I don't even own. I can't swear that it's the only one. If you are going to ban possession, the law will need some teeth. So you'll make accidental felons of pretty ordinary people. That will generate some resistance, so let's assume that there's some good-faith amnesty provision to keep the guys who misplaced a magazine out of jail. Now you have all these guys lining up to turn in their magazines. But wait! Doesn't the Fifth Amendment prohibit taking property without compensation? What's fair compensation? Can they take them off their taxes? Is this in the budget? Will Mayor Bloomberg pony up a purchase fund? Not holding my breath.Assume you somehow wave a magic wand and make all the evil over-ten-round magazines disappear and never come back. Never mind that most magazines work exactly like a PEZ candy dispenser and can be manufactured with simple tools, let's assume. So all magazines are now "safely" (sic) under ten rounds. A narcissistic freak like the Isla Vista killer just loads up a bunch of magazines (he had over 40 magazines).
California High Capacity Magazines?
Here is my situation: I bought 2 AR-15 stoner magazines online about 2 weeks ago. My brother is a resident in California (also a member of Cali National Guard) and he basically had me buy the magazines in a non-California state (funny wording, I know). From there, I am to ship the magazines, completely disassembled, but I keep reading all over the internet that in order to do that, my brother would have supposed to own a magazine BEFORE the whole ban/regulation in 2000, thus the magazines would be shipped as a "rebuild kit". However this is not the case, I simply want to ship him these magazines disassembled. I am in Army ROTC, so I really don't want/need to be getting wrapped up in any legal troubles, especially 1 year before I commission. Bottom line: Can I ship 2 AR-15 Magazines to California IF they're disassembled and IF my brother didn't previsouly have any 30 round mags pre- the 2000 ban?
Why do people REALLY own guns?
Why own them? I'm not trying to say it's not in the bill of rights, or that the right should be removed, but I'm surprised by the amount of people that enjoy having a weapon. I'm not a hunter, but I'm also not a vegetarian, so I completely understand hunting for food. But I cannot understand hunting for sport, but that's just because I can't enjoy taking something's life just for my own pleasure. I also don't understand the need for overpowered or automatic weapons, which are not used for hunting. I understand the need for self protection, but a pistol under the bed will do the same job as a case of guns in the closet in a home invasion. I'm not bashing guns, I'm actually quite open-minded if someone has logical reasoning that can away my opinion, I just don't understand it on my own.
What is the California government’s number one reason to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?
While I agree with Scott Connery that plenty of Democrats in Sacramento enjoy giving the middle finger to Republicans who own guns, I think there’s another factor involved. Come time for reelection, California Democrats can say with perfect truthfulness that they did something about gun violence. The constituents who voted most of them into office tend to be as ignorant about guns as conservatives tend to be about the actual definition of “socialism.” Any quibbling about the effectiveness of magazine bans in reducing violence involving firearms or its body count, to say nothing about bans on rifle features like bayonet lugs, is entirely lost on the majority of Democratic constituents in California. Entirely lost. So really, magazine bans from Sacramento are a win-win for the average Democratic assemblyman or state senator. The Democrats get to be seen taking action, and they won’t get challenged on the effectiveness of that action because the people who vote for them don’t know any better and don’t care to know better.
As a supporter of gun ownership, do you consider banning fully automatic firearms against the Second Amendment?
The question is; As a supporter of gun ownership, do you consider banning fully automatic firearms against the Second Amendment?Banning that type of firearm is done at the state level. There is no federal ban on machine guns. Instead, the federal government demands licenses for purchase and possession of machine guns.So, yes, some states have unconstitutional bans on machine guns and recently even on semi automatic rifles which can accept larger than allowed for hunting magazines. (Many states have a 5-round limit on magazine capacities for semi automatic rifles if they are used for hunting.)It all gets back to “public opinion” which of course is every politician’s real guiding light. The capacity thing and the firing rate thing are both matters of uninformed public opinion and the politicians have their ears glued to opinion over fact every goddam time.