BREAKING: CO Dem DeGette Introduces Hi Cap Magazine Ban in House

Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette – whose district includes Columbine High School and abuts Aurora – has introduced a bill to ban “high capacity” magazines on the first day of the new Congress. From AP via denverpost.com: “DeGette co-authored the bill with New York Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was killed in a 1993 mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad.” May DeGette enjoy as much success as McCarthy’s has in her past efforts to limit Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Details of the bill to follow as they’re available. Expectations were strong that DiFi would introduce her “assault weapons” ban bill today as well, but so far . . . no dice. Watch this space.

75 Responses to BREAKING: CO Dem DeGette Introduces Hi Cap Magazine Ban in House

  1. I see they are planning to introduce two separate bills so if one does not pass, perhaps the other one will.

    We need to keep the pressure up on the NRA to not make any compromises !!!

    • avatarSteve says:

      Right now what we need to do is contact speaker Boehner and tell him to keep this bill off the house floor and NOT to allow a vote on it, and, unfortunately, it’s not going to be two bills, it’s going to be a blizzard of them.

      Contact Boehner here:

      http://www.speaker.gov/contact

      By email or phone. You do NOT have to be in his district to contact him via the speaker contact form or phone numbers, anyone can contact the speaker.

  2. avatarWilliam says:

    We’ve got to STOP these high-capacity mags walking around KILLING PEOPLE.

    • avatarPro-2A says:

      I know. If only these evil high cap mags would only be smaller, then there would be less carnage. Correct? Wrong! 3 30 rd mags are far more effective than 1 100 rd drum. 10 10 rd mags would be more effective than 1 100 rd drum.

  3. avatarCasey T says:

    Someone should send these people an idiots guide to the Constitution. Maybe they could then understand that they are violating it.

    • avatarEagleScout87 says:

      I think they understand quite well that they are violating it. I don’t think they care, or better yet, they are intending to knowingly violate it.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      My second-year Criminal Law professor wrote “Wishful Guide to the Constitution” for years. Now he, Mike Seidman, has gone completely over the wall, “we don’t need no stinkin’ evil Constitution,” (and thus no Guide?) he recently wrote in the NYT. I thought it was tongue-in-cheek. Nope. He should’ve told me this was coming long long ago, and before drop-add was over. In the old days, according to his casebook, people who thought they had all the answers proposed amendments. This must be so last century, eh?

  4. avatarSanchanim says:

    Wow first day and folks are already bogged down in multiple bills.
    I would like to propose a new law. you can not introduce a bill which is covered in part of another bill. So until this bill is voted down or axcepted you can’t introduce additional legislation.
    To me this is simply government waist. Not just gun legislation but all legislation. It is like they are throwing anything and everything at the wall to try and make something stick…

    • avatarLance says:

      The mag ban is currently the only ban bill in. Politico even states its unlikely to pass call act and pray they are right.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Yeah I can pray..
        We know Biden is in a commission/task force oh lord what ever that means…
        DiFi is coming with that big bill.. Hope that gets shot down too!

  5. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    Tell me how a magizine can do anything? It requires a rifle, a cartridge, and if used to murder, a mental health patient…

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Blunt object?

      Maybe if they are banned we can melt them all down and mass produce “brass” (polymer or steel) knuckles. Oh the irony alone would be great.

      • avatarDavid-p says:

        Three shooters all with high capacity mags, all three with gun jams. If they can’t ban them they may give magazines the congressional medal of honor. Looks like a high capacity magazine has stopped more shootings then the gun grabbers have.

  6. avatarJohn says:

    Wouldn’t it make more sense for these well-intentioned legislators to introduce a bill banning insane racist homicidal mass-murdering black men from riding the Long Island Railroad?

    • avatarJeff the Griz says:

      I got a better idea lets just write new laws stating that murder is a criminal act, that will stop all the murders…

  7. avatarstateisevil says:

    If full auto can be banned and if background checks can be required and if foreign components can be outlawed what’s wrong with mag capacity limits and telescopic stock bans? Answer: nothing. Our side is always at a serious disadvantage politically speaking because of compromise. If an AWB becomes permanent, it will never be repealed. Start calling and FAXING your slavers in Congress.

  8. avatarPaul M says:

    I keep a close eye on my hi caps. One wrong move and I’ll wrestle the bugger to the ground and keep it from killing somebody! I am actually for a form of gun control, but not the cosmetic, pointless, or hysterical things these people want to enact. Crazy people do crazy things. That wont change. Get crazy people the help they need. The politicians don’t get it. Massacres cluster around gun free places, or states with tough gun control laws.

    • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

      Right. So-called “reasonable” gun control. How pro-2A of you.

    • avatarJoe says:

      “I keep a close eye on my hi caps. One wrong move and I’ll wrestle the bugger to the ground and keep it from killing somebody!”

      Some people say that I keep my mags in a locked safe. The reality is that they are locked up in a prison. Same with the guns. I’m not taking any chances that some night they will just snap and cause murder and mayhem. You’ve seen the movie ‘Gremlins’, right? Nasty little buggers.

  9. avatarJon says:

    Someone needs to remind this politician that when Eric Harris walked into Columbine High School with a Hi-Point 995, he had thirteen Assault Weapons Ban-compliant ten-round magazines.

    Magazine capacity regulations didn’t stop a determined murderer then, and they won’t stop one now.

    • avatarJeff O. says:

      Then it must have been the evil pistol grip.

      Seriously though, I think there’s something to be said for response times. Loading mags in a classic, non-hold open, 995 is a pain and even with practice is clumsy.

      • avatarEagleScout87 says:

        Guys and girls, It might be helpful to finish your points with solid alternatives. Saying “someone remind these people that X had an already compliant Y when they killed Z” and ending the statement there can lend fools and the uninformed to jump the their next logical step “you’re right, they should just all be banned outright”. This is not the direction we want the discussion to go, following with (the obvious to us) solutions of good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, gun free zones kill people, lets focus on mental health and face the fact that evil exists, etc. I know it’s monotonous but he other side is drilling in their “points” (even if they’re inaccurate) and we should be firing back with ours every single time even though we already know them. You never know who’s reading.

        just my humble opinion. carry on folks!

      • avatarBruce says:

        Perhaps that’s why he had 13 of them.

  10. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Hopefully the House and Senate gun confiscator types will get so involved in a pissing match about whose bill is better that they won’t notice us lobbying every pro-2A Senator and Rep to kill their bills in committee.

  11. avatarguzzimike says:

    It’s almost as if all the anti 2A folk across the country got together & said “starting Jan 1 let’s all release our bans simultaneously & watch the gun nuts try to keep track of them all”

    • avatarBen says:

      I thought this myself. I wondered if they were strategically trying to release a number of bills at the state level simultaneously, to try to overwhelm the resources of lobbying groups like the NRA.

  12. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    The brainwashed zombies are just going to keep comming. If we all had micro NAA revolvers we liked those would be first on the ban list. I’m waiting till some of their stupidity makes it into court./// Your Honor, they they they have these ttthings that ssshoot people with big mags, they can’t have them. We don’t want to see anybody get shot, just little school kids, Randy

  13. avatarBeninMA says:

    In Massachusetts we’re looking at mandatory liability insurance for gun owners:

    http://fleming-hayes.com/2011/06/mandate-ma-lawmakers-consider-gun-insurance-2/

    The idea, at least according to my local NPR broadcast, is to increase the cost of ownership for people more likely to commit crime (apparently they don’t know that you can’t insure against a criminal act). Of course the whole point is to just make the cost of gun ownership prohibitive for the “wrong sort.”

    The Governor and house speaker have said they support the idea. There’s already a bill, although it looks like things are still being negotiated (they have other ideas, like giving the chief of police access to your medical records).

      • avatarGreg in Allston says:

        Ben, what they are proposing is patently unconstitutional. Never the less, we must remain vigilant. They don’t understand what they are going to unleash.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Thats quite a plan. You left out the part where there would be mandatory insurance for criminal safe zones. I’m sure that was just an oversight,lol, Randy

    • avatarMark N. says:

      The absolute stupidity of this idea is just stunning. Do they really think that any half way intelligent criminal is going to buy insurance for his or her unregistered and illegal firearm???That leaves only law-abidding types buying insurance, and for what purpose? The rare “accidental discharge”? If you shoot an intruder, and the shoot is justifiable self-defense, then there is no liability for the damages suffered by the perp–if a jury could even be persuaded to award them! Oh, I get it now-the insurance industry in Ma. is wants to sell (mandatory) policies that provide no coverage for intentional killings–pure profit!

      The other part about access to med records does not seem on its face to pass muster under HIPPA, absent a criminal investigation.

  14. avatarPatrick B. says:

    Jeebus, idiots in my state run amuck. I’ve been stocking up on 17 round Ruger mags for my shooting pleasure, now they might be a good investment as well….

  15. avatarAccur81 says:

    I just emailed her my opposition. I gave her my real name and address, but the government knows it anyway. I encourage TTAG readers to do the same. It’s tiring, but the antis have been feeling our sentiments, and this fight is one that is worthwhile.

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      Sadly, she’s my Congresscritter. She introduces this bill periodically, and struts her ignorance (“assault magazines”) on a regular basis.

      She has one of the safest seats in the House of Representatives, and has either token or no opposition when she runs for re-election. Most of her district is Denver, a Dem stronghold for decades. Denver also has a magazine ban that somehow survived a state pre-emption challenge in a court case some years ago. So, at present, you can’t have a magazine that holds more than 20 rounds if you live in the City of Denver. There is an exemption if you’re passing through, but for residents they’re a no-no.

      I’ll write her anyway, and also the locals as there are bills coming up in the Colorado statehouse that are equally unpalatable. The governor sees this as a jumpstart to his national ambitions, so it could get ugly especially with the Ds in control of both houses and the governor’s seat.

      • avatarEd says:

        A guy from another forum I frequent emailed her and this was the response:

        “Thank you for voicing your concern with this very important issue. Unfortunately, your view on the 2nd amendment and what you are entitled to is quite wrong. As an individual not in my district, I don’t represent you, and will continue to hold my stance on limiting these assault weapons high capacity clips.”

        I think she needs to have a refresher on her job description and The Constitution!

  16. avatarJAS says:

    It’s like shooting prairie dogs. They just keep popping up!

  17. avatarDrVino says:

    Can someone explain to me how the demonstration at the end of that video is supposed to NOT persuade the antis to just go after ANYTHING that takes a detachable magazine?

  18. avatarJPD says:

    Check this out. It appears that Federal action gun bans may be exceeding their authority:

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/8806/county-sheriffs-can-block-federal-gun-control/

    • avatarMark N. says:

      No, not exceeding their authority, rather that they do not have the authority to require local law enforcement to comply with federal guidelines. A good example is weed. In some states it is legal, but it is still illegal undr federal law. A local LEO can, but is not and cannot be required to enforce the federal law.

      The problem is of course travel. Just because one sheriff refuses to comply and enforce the federal ban doesn’t mean that the seriff in the next county over will have a different position, thus subjecting ou to prosecution when away from your home county.

  19. avatarRichard W. says:

    This is both publicity for McCarthy ( DiFi can’t steal all the gun-hating thunder ) and a test vote. This is to even see if they can bully any “common-sense” Republicrats into doing this quick-and-fast so that there is a maximum amount of time for voter-remorse to be clear in 2 years.

  20. avatarSilver says:

    I’m sure McCarthy’s dead husband would appreciate his memory being “honored” by infringing the rights of millions of American citizens. Then again, if he married a creature like her, he was likely morally no better.

    You can tell a lot about a person’s character from how they respond to a crisis. Following a shooting such as that, do you empower yourself? Or do you attempt to disempower everyone else?

    • avatarJustAJ says:

      I wa spreading up on the shooting that killed her husband, and it looks like once she failed to get paid from a lawsuit against the ammo maker, she got big time paid in the lawsuit again the railroad for “not maintaining a safe environment” to the tune of $36 million.

      I say anyone who gets injured in a gun free zone should be entitled to sue for damages the persons responsible for creating the zone, and anyone responsible for not allowing lawful CCW.

  21. avatarBenny says:

    Ya know,I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t an agenda here. Difi can’t really think that hurt bill will pass. This isnt the 90′s. I think there’s more to it than her trying to push a hopeless bill forward.
    I smell a political scheme.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      A classic negotiating technique is to ask for more than you ever dream you will get, and compromise from there.

      • avatarBen says:

        Compromise requires other parties to gain something. Compromise with these guncontrollers will only accomplish a loss of our civil rights, and by definition isn’t a compromise. If someone berates you and calls you an a-hole until you give them what they want, we don’t call that compromise, we call it bullying. That is what is happening here.

  22. avatarMark N. says:

    I was wondering about DiFi’s bill, having expected to see it yesterday. But the next senate session does not convene until Jan 20, and I think she’ll wait until then.

  23. avatarLance says:

    Despite Degette (annoying French antiguners LOL) filing this all NRA news and other day this is just Sen McCarthy introducing the same ban as she did in 2011. Nothing new Keep calling your Senators and Reps to say kill the ban.

    Even Liberal Politico says its unlikely to pass!

  24. avatarALTAC6 says:

    Unlikely to pass, but still possible if we let up the pressure.

    On that note however, the claim of 125 co-sponsors (in the video) ? I would just like to point-out that H.R.308, the last attempt, had 138 co-sponsors.

  25. avatarإبليس says:

    She’s only hurting her home state. If it passes, Magpul will relocate to friendlier mountains. Maybe harming Colorado trade is a small price for the Greater Good ™.

  26. avatarRopingdown says:

    Considering how much action happens in DeGette’s district, isn’t this going to cost her a lot of votes? Human nature says her constituents just threw in the towel and backed up the truck.

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      DeGette’s playing to her base. This won’t cost her significant support, and if anything gives her more credibility with the urban democrats in the district.

  27. avatar4strokes says:

    In light of the bs we are facing, I want to share with you a thought that I have been kicking around. In November Oregon and Colorado both flipped-off our overlords in Washington by legalizing marijuana. I suggest we start the same type of state level effort to protect our arms. Febs pass an “assault weapon ban”, Utah passes a state wide referendum legalizing the sale, possession and manufactor of modern sporting rifles and tells the the Febs to FOAD.
    It would never work for those of you in idiot states, but then you should be voting with your feet.

    • avatarDrawfire says:

      Its called the firearms freedom act. First enacted by Montana. http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com
      President Obama recently stated that they would not enforce federal law in Oregon. Or Colorado. So if he is going to pick and choose what laws to enforce why can the states not pick and choose what laws they will follow?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I like the idea, but the federal gov’t has undisputed power over interstate commerce. This will only work if you can manufacture complete firearms (or at least the essential operating components) within the state borders.

  28. avatarch3cooh says:

    Once again guys, I’m just sorry. She’s my rep, I voted against her but downtown Denver is hardcore dem. I’m sorry.

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      I think we may make up a significant percentage of those that do vote against her.

      This seat is so safe that the only reason Patsy Schroeder threw in the towel in the 90s is that she didn’t want to deal with those awful Republicans when they got control of the House in 1994.

  29. avatarpat says:

    People, these bans on magazines that hold over 10 rounds hurt people who defend their homes far more than they help would be mass shooters. The reason being a determined group of three home invaders would have better odds of overcoming a person using a firearm with 10 rounds on tap because that person could easily shoot up the mag in a few panicky seconds and have to do a reload drill (for no effing reason except for the ban) while having perhaps not dealt with the problem.
    With the mass shooter, they dont seem to operate that way and would just methodically change over to another mag (or gun like the Virginia Tech dude).

  30. avatarPatriot says:

    All good points I’m reading but even if both bills fail you still have the dick-tator in chief that uses the Ex-O card like it is a friggin’ meal ticket, so a bit pointless to call your reps when the B.O. is just going to “throw his weight behind gun control”. Mr. Jones doesn’t seem so crazy after all.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      How many Executive Orders do you believe President Obama has issued?

      Hint: this is an IQ test and a credibility check all rolled into one neat package.

    • avatarpat says:

      I fear the Executive Order as well, though it would sap most of his power to make other moves he cares more about (like immigration that would make him and the dem party stronger rather than weaker. 2014 would be a wasteland for the dems electionwise if they push the bully pulpit with that much zeal.

    • avatarSteve says:

      It’s not pointless at all. There is only so much that can be done by executive order and executive orders are NOT law. There is also going to come a point when Obama’s executive orders are simply ignored in mass if he continues to try to substitute them for law.

  31. avatarJorge says:

    I attempted to do research on this bill and I’m having a terrible time finding the actual text. From what I gather, its H.R. 138 and has been submitted to the House Juduiciary Committee on 1/3/2013. Nothing else is available. I can only assume it will be very similar to H.R. 308 that died in 2011. If we want to fight this and other legislation, it seems common sense to find out exactly what it says.

    Don’cha just love the”grandfathering” but “no transfers” clauses they are including in all the AWB related proposals? What that means is that you have a constitutional right to your guns but your children and grandchildren do not.

    • avatarSteve says:

      AFAIK you are right this bill is essentially the McCarthy no transfer bill that would make criminals out of heirs because they possess a dead relatives left over high capacity mags. Also notice how it’s not just your second amendment rights they want to flush, now you can no longer do as you please with your own property.

  32. avatarSteve says:

    The strategy here is simple: This bill, which incidentally reportedly prohibits the transfer of existing high capacity magazines even to family members, still seems less Draconian than Feinsteins. That plus the fact that emotions are still high from Sandy Hook makes them hope they can slip it in if they act fast. They are going to put alot of pressure on the house speaker to allow a vote on this bill. We all need to contact speaker John Boehner and tell him to keep this bill off the house floor and NOT to allow a vote on it.

    Contact Boehner by email, phone or fax here:

    http://www.speaker.gov/contact

  33. avatarAndy says:

    We do not need a service rifle ban,(the media and the liberals call them assault rifles),no magazine capacity limit ban,no background checks on private transfers of firearms,that is tantamount to registration,and that would be tyrannical!The liberals just want to take all firearms,so they can do what they want to citizens and we would have no recourse at all.In my opinion what we need at this time is more school police,in Mississippi we have school resource officers,we don’t have our schools attacked,a nationwide ccw,a mentally ill records database connected to NICS,better conviction rate of criminals using firearms in crimes,I can see a gun trafficking law,and we all know who should be tried first!I don’t believe these polls taken by universities,or liberal media organizations,about people wanting more bans,more gun control,it is lies,they know what segment of the population to contact to get the answers they want.We have to stand and fight,if we are going to keep our rights,all of them that is!Contact your Senators and Representatives,and let them know,bombard them everyday,that is what I do,we have to let them know that there are a lot of us out here that don’t want our rights infringed on!I am sure a lot of you remember what happened in the election of 1994,after the ban,a lot of politicians lost their posts.If these bills become law it will happen again!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.