AWB Dead in the Water, Dems to Shift to Mag Capacity Limits

Surefire 60-round magazine courtesy brownells.com

When Bloomberg.com calls the AWB dead, I believe it. Considering that pro-gun control maven Michael Bloomberg is the man behind the curtain at that particular publication, throwing in the towel on what’s essentially the holy grail of gun control isn’t something They’d do lightly. However, lurking in the shadows is the next big fight: magazine capacity restrictions. And this one’s more concerning for those who enjoy their 30-round mags . . .

Even as Joe Biden was flailing (and failing) this week, trying to find a coherent argument as to why “assault weapons” need to be banned during his Google+ Hangout chat, the rhetoric of the Obama administration seems to be shifting. While the president may dearly love the opportunity to sign an AWB into law, the political reality is that there’s virtually no chance whatsoever of that happening. So instead, they’re going for the low-hanging fruit of the gun control agenda, specifically “large capacity” magazines.

From KHOU:

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he’s more concerned about limiting the number of rounds in a gun magazine than about banning assault weapons that account for a small percentage of gun deaths.

Biden argued that the shooter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., could have been slowed down if he had fewer rounds in each magazine and had to change clips more often. “Maybe if it took longer, maybe one more kid would be alive,” Biden said during an online video chat on Google Plus.

Magazine capacity restrictions are, in my opinion, the weak link in gun rights. There are just enough people on the fence about whether 30-round magazines should be banned to give the Dems enough room to maneuver legislatively. Heck, even Ruger signed onto magazine restrictions back in the day (they have since changed their tune).

But the argument I find most compelling is my own personal experience. In a gunfight (well, as close to a real one as I hope to get), there’s no such thing as too much ammunition. In the above video, even though I hit my opponent it took me nearly the entire 15-round magazine in a Glock 19 to do so.

And then, once you start legislating the number of rounds mags can hold, where do you draw the line? How do you make that decision? Ten rounds is a purely arbitrary number thought up by someone writing a bill in Congress without any research on the matter. And after all, if we can save just one life by allowing 11-round magazines . . .

There’s already a bill in congress to try to limit the capacity of magazines. HR 138, or “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act,” currently has the following proposed provisions:

  • Applies to any ”magazine , belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” except those that use .22 caliber rimfire ammo
  • Bans the transfer, importation or possession of magazines fitting the description
  • Includes grandfather clause (owned before bill passes = OK)
  • Excludes armed forces, manufacturers, LEOs and retired LEOs

Nice that they don’t include .17HMR in that exemption.

The bill is currently in the House Judiciary Committee which is chaired by Lamar Smith from Texas. Congressman Smith recently sent me a nice letter so at the moment I’m not that concerned. However, there’s a chance that the Democrats could use the imminent death of the AWB to try and scare the Republicans into compromising on passing “just this one.”

With President Obama’s other gun control suggestions drowning under the weight of public reaction, there’s a chance that the Democrats might redirect all of their efforts into this bill on restricting magazine capacity. Right now there are signs that they’re starting to swing in that direction, but nothing concrete. So far. My guess is that they’ll wait for the official death of the AWB bill before switching horses.

I’m betting that mag restrictions will similarly go nowhere. And while I did find myself with a nice 400% return on investment in roulette in Las Vegas, I’d only put myself at a 75% confidence on this one. Moral of the story: keep calling your representatives.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

146 Responses to AWB Dead in the Water, Dems to Shift to Mag Capacity Limits

  1. avatarWilliam says:

    Bring on the next one.

  2. avatarg says:

    “Moral of the story: keep calling your representatives.”

    And keep stocking up on mags… just don’t buy them from goddamn CTD.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Wish I could, but in this market it’s doubly hard to find magazines from sellers willing to disassemble them into CA legal rebuild kits. They seem to have plenty of buyers lined up who will pay premium prices without any extra demanufacturing steps required to make the sale. {sigh}

      • avatarOld Air Force says:

        Here is one that seems aware of Ca and other backward states regs.
        http://www.desertwarriorproducts.com/AR15-Magazine.html?gclid=CJbKr9v01LQCFWaoPAodLjUAdA
        A little on the pricy side but in this market it is fairer than some.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          That’s awesome, OAF. Much appreciated, especially since they take backorders so I can just get in line for delivery in a few weeks.

          You rock!

          Oh, wait, I mean “those magazines suck, they look terrible, totally disreputable looking dealer, nobody should bother clicking on that link much less placing orders!” Ahem. Because I wouldn’t want you b@stards all jumping on this and doubling the wait time…

    • avatarAM says:

      I had plenty before the panic.

  3. avatarSilver says:

    I’ve never seen any group of people so desperate to oppress law-abiding people for absolutely no good reason.

    • avatarOHgunner says:

      Nazis?

    • avatarJPD says:

      Okay, history lesson. England, King John. Spanish Inquistion under King Ferdinand ll, England again, in the 1800′s under King George and Queen Victoria. Most recently Queen Elizabeth and the disarming of England today.
      Turkey in the early 1900′s, which led to ethnic genocide. Roman Empire, Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Russians.
      Oh yeah, and America. Check out our atrocities to our own citizens. American soldiers subjected to radiation during testing in the 50′s. Japanese internment during WWll. Volunteers injected with syphilis, then left untreated to watch the results, massacre of Indians over the course of a hundred years, Waco, Ruby Ridge.

      List goes on. They have, good reasons: Greed, power, control. Populace helpless to whatever evil they wish. That is the course of most governments in history.

  4. avatarjwm says:

    Compromise is where we get something in return. That’s not what they’re offering. No compromise. If you want my rights and freedoms you’ll have to come and take them. Better bring freinds and pack a lunch when you do, it’s gonna take a while.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Oh, I dunno. I’d be willing to give up non-box-type large magazines (the infamous snail-drum Beta mags, specifically) in exchange for removing suppressors from the NFA list.

      It would be the legislative equivalent of getting a $200 Amazon card in exchange for a rusted .32 revolver at a gun buy back. ;)

      • avatarjwm says:

        How about we give up 100 round drums for constitutional carry nationwide? That’s a compromise I can get behind.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Yeah, because that’s totally going to happen in your lifetime. Or mine, really.

      • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

        I too would trade 31+ plus mags for suppressors.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Oh, let’s not be hasty, now. I phrased my proposal most carefully. I wouldn’t be willing to give up the possibility of acquiring, say, 40+ round custom AR magazines for 3-gun competition outside of CA…

      • avatarTangledThorns says:

        Throw in SBRs and we have a deal!

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          The SBR rules are ridiculous. It’s right up there with the idea that putting an adjustable stock on a pistol-grip shotgun makes it into an OMGWTFBBQ ASSAULT SHOTGUN IT’S GONNA KILL US ALL nuclear-grenade-launching death machine.

        • avatarHowdy says:

          I want us to push back and gain ground. This is the time we should be getting stuff back. SBR’s, silencers, SBS’s, stupid 922r import bull, everything! I want it all back. Let the anti’s know there’s a price to pay for even contemplating infringement. Grr.

          I want a separate department for alcohol and tobacco. Don’t need no stinking firearm bureau!

          /rant off

      • avatarHuman Being says:

        Really? You’d stop fighting for “shall not be infringed” that easily? Before December, the various gun rights groups were gearing up to push both national reciprocity *and* removing suppressors from the NFA this year. Now a month later you’ve given up on that entirely due to one already-sputtering counter-offensive by authoritarians?

        You’re giving up the fight we were already winning for for a “deal”. Think about that. Then remember these people have a tendency to alter deals when they think they can get away with it.

        • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

          I want to be a Human Being, pick me to be on your team!
          I’m with you man. It’s time to play hardball and take no prisoners, so to speak. There can be no compromise on our rights. Especially when there is absolutely no benefit to anyone, anywhere in giving in to this restriction.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Um, I was kidding. I’ve posted comments several times in the last few days arguing for no negotiation. Chill.

        • avatarAnonymous says:

          “Darth Vader continues to alter the deal with Lando.”

        • avatarHuman Being says:

          AlphaGeek, I read that as an honest opinion. No one can read all comments here, nor keep track of all opinions for a given name if they could. There is also no search function for the comment history of a single name (that would make keeping up with Dyspeptic Gunsmith so much easier). To be sure, I’d recommend using a “/sarc” type of tag for comments like that.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          HB, I’d say that you had a fair point if I hadn’t posted a comment saying “hold the line, no mag cap limits” about 50 minutes earlier, just a bit down the page from this thread.

          Point taken, in any case.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Not good enough. I’d want suppressors, sbs, sbr, and aow’s removed from the list in exchange for banning over 50 round prone-to-failure drums.

  5. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    With President Obama’s other gun control suggestions drowning under the weight of public reaction, there’s a chance that the Democrats might redirect all of their efforts into this bill on restricting magazine capacity.

    Nick, they started redirecting the energy towards mag capacity limits nearly a week ago. It just takes a while for the messaging to percolate through the ranks, but the administration was signaling their focus on this back on Monday.

    Now it’s time for the real test. Can we push all of those supposedly pro-2A legislators to hold the line on magazine restrictions just as they have on AWB 2.0?

    I’m looking at YOU, Senator Manchin…

  6. avatarCarlosT says:

    Biden argued that the shooter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., could have been slowed down if he had fewer rounds in each magazine and had to change clips more often. “Maybe if it took longer, maybe one more kid would be alive,” Biden said during an online video chat on Google Plus.

    Didn’t he prematurely change mags anyway, shooting 10-15 rounds from most of them? People want to push magazine restrictions act like magazine changes would be a significant impediment to spree shooter. It won’t, because unlike Nick’s simunition scenario, he’ll be completely unopposed in a gun-free zone. Thirty rounds or seven, it won’t make a difference, because he’ll have all the time in the world.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That’s a good response. I like the VA Tech example better, where the shooter was clearly not slowed down in any appreciable way by having to use 10-round magazines.

    • avatarDutchinDC says:

      The final police report on Newtown is suppose to be coming out soon. An official report showing he only fire 10 round per magazine along with the virgina tech repot would kill the antis narative on the magazine ban.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        And people accuse ME of wishful thinking. ;)

        No amount of objective fact is going to faze the disarmament brigade.

        • avatarDutchinDC says:

          +1 on not being able to change an anti’s delusions.

          We just need to convince enough low info voters to kill the antis momentum.

        • avatarWC says:

          The shooting incident nearest and dearest to the heart of those in Congress is the shooting two years ago of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In that instance, the size of the magazine was important. When Loughner went to reload, he dropped the magazine and was tackled by bystanders. I’m sure those in Congress wish Loughner had only 10 or 7 shots, not 33, before he tried (and failed) to reload.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Yep. Too bad there’s no room for good-faith negotiation on this stuff, or I might (gasp) be willing to concede that magazines which protrude more than an inch or two beyond the grip of a pistol are a bit silly.

          The problem is that the only strategy proven to work regarding 2A issus is one of near-absolutism to keep the Overton Window covering some reasonable range of options.

      • avatarBrad_in_MA says:

        Harris or Kleibold also used 10-round mags in the hi-point carbine . . . firing off 98 rounds from 10 magazines. Add that to the list of talking points to demonstrate how ineffective a magazine ban will be. And besides, the original intent of the 2A was to allow militia, aka THE CITIZENS, to have the same kind of hardware as the gov’t. So . . . if the police / military make 30-rounders their ‘standard capacity’ mags, then the same should be for us civvies.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Oh yeah? What if they’d been legally limited to loading 7 rounds into each of those 10-round mags? {/sarc}

      • avatarGreg Camp says:

        Nope, then they’d call for a five-round limit.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Shutupshutpshutup… They might hear you! (Heh)

          I strongly believe that they bottomed out at 7 rounds because there are mass-production revolvers with 7-shot cylinders. It would have made the ban more internally consistent if they had settled on 5 rounds across the board, but then even the uneducated would be going “Hey, waittaminute, that’s less than those old-fashioned revolvers!”

          I devoutly hope that this entire bill goes down in flames when it goes to court. Bow tie power!

    • avatarDoug says:

      Not to differ with anything you said, just when did the authorities definitively, positively say what the shooter at Newtown actually used? We saw the early reports of an AR-type firearm, then the stories that he used two handguns, and then that there was no AR at all, just a shotgun sitting unused in the perp’s TRUNK!, and what the heck?

      Anyone? Guys?

      Finally, the size of the alleged magazines would be much less important if the cops had just put down their donuts and coffee, grabbed their hats and hauled ass to the school, instead of taking the reported 20 minutes from the time of the first call to just go less than two miles and merely arrive outside. While kids are being shot? Or was this news coverage totally SNAFUed also? Maybe we need a national ban on slow cops?

      • avatarBrad says:

        “Finally, the size of the alleged magazines would be much less important if the cops had just put down their donuts and coffee, grabbed their hats and hauled ass to the school, instead of taking the reported 20 minutes from the time of the first call to just go less than two miles and merely arrive outside.”

        Quite frankly Doug, your comment is about and cruel and unfeeling as I’ve ever read. I put up with the anti-police BS on this site because overall, believe in the 2A and this is the best place to get good UTD info.

        As you mentioned, there’s a lot of info missing and we all look forward to the final report. To imply that these cops chose to finish their donuts and coffee before responding to a school shooting is beyond the pale. How dare you casually imply that. Those were local cops from a small town. They probably knew most of the parents and the kids that were killed personally. They now have to live with the real feelings of guilt, regret, helplessness and failure at the 20 minutes it took them to get their shit together. It probably didn’t seem like that long during the incident but now that they see the results, they know, every day and night, how they failed to act earlier.

        You are free to judge them in the way everyone second guesses or arm chair quarterbacks the coach on Monday morning. The best hindsight seems to always come from folks who have never been there, so keep it rolling. But you are not free to imply that they don’t care or were so derelict in their duty that they callously let kids die rather that leave their coffee break. Words matter, ever on the Internet. Saying them ignorantly only reflects on the one who says them.

  7. avatarTangledThorns says:

    A mag ban is unlikely to happen as well however don’t take anything for granted.

    I just don’t wanna be one of those guys sitting on 100 PMAGs that I’ll never use.

    • avatarJames1000 says:

      That and the dudes who paid $50 per….I still can’t get my head wrapped around that.

    • Agreed. The die is cast, and if there’s a sacrificial lamb, it’s going to be private sales sans background check.

      This is a good example of anti over-reach, because if they went for a 20rd mag cap, they might have gotten it. But 10 is absurdly low, and anyone who’s ever used a semi-auto pistol knows it.

      • avatarDisThunder says:

        I was thinking about this the other day- I mean, I’d still fight like hell, but I see a lot of guys that would’ve probably settled for 20rd magazines. They do make shooting prone easier…
        The trouble is, and always has been, now that Cuomo overplayed his hand, no one can deny their true intentions. There can never be a “reasonable” compromise with these guys.

  8. avatarST says:

    I think the shift in rhetoric was always a ” Plan B” for the gun grabbers if an AWB failed in Congress. It’s like the old salesmans trick of quoting an inflated price and then ” discounting” it. The salesman makes a profit and the customer feels like they got a deal.

    AWB too far? How about “just” restricting magazines then.Its reasonable ,no?

  9. avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

    Is anyone else out there buying magazines for guns you don’t even own (yet)? I know I am.

    • avatarracer88 says:

      I’ve done it.

    • avatarDutchinDC says:

      What about all those people who bought out the supply of 25rnd ruger 10/22 mags and there not even in the bill. MidwayUSA wont have any until March.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Those people are just being assholes, just like the morons buying up all the 22LR ammo. Though I understand what’s motivating them.

        • avatarstormchaser says:

          I will have you know I had just recently purchased my first 10/22 and had planned on having at least six BX-25′s but the lgs I bought the gun from only had those two.
          Also I have always kept several bricks of .22 on hand so I have not been out picking up more.
          The S&W 15-22 and those mags, well, that’s another story.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Present company excluded, of course.

          Something tells me that many of the buyers aren’t picking up stuff to go with a newly purchased firearm.

  10. avatarracer88 says:

    Hell no! We won’t go! We fight every single thing tooth and nail. We’ve got the Constitution behind us.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Well it’s one, two, three, what are we fightin’ for?
      We all know they’ll tax the cans, we’re just fightin’ the magazine ban.
      An’ its five, six, seven, eight, hope they don’t legislate.
      Ain’t no time to wonder why, just counter all the anti’s lies.

      “Gimme an F…..E…..I…..N……S……T…..E…..I…..N.
      “What’s that spell?” “Paranoia!”
      “What’s that spell?” “Paranoia!”

  11. avatarDaveL says:

    In a gunfight (well, as close to a real one as I hope to get), there’s no such thing as too much ammunition. In the above video, even though I hit my opponent it took me nearly the entire 15-round magazine in a Glock 19 to do so.

    In a gunfight, the extra time required to change magazines can be important. However, in a criminal attack against unarmed victims, it means pretty much squat. Non gun-owners tend to have this cartoonish “escalation of force” scale in their heads with the firepower required for target shooting at the bottom, followed by hunting, followed by legitimate civilian self-defense, followed by mass murder. They like to think they’re being reasonable by trying to find a level of firepower that’s adequate for self-defense while not allowing for mass killings. However, in reality, it takes much more firepower to effectively defend yourself against an armed aggressor than it does to commit mass murder.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That’s an excellent observation, DaveL. I’d never thought about it that way, but I think you’ve described their reasoning precisely.

    • avatarHuman Being says:

      This is exactly the argument we need to make. Someone facing unarmed opponents can take their time. Ammunition capacity matters *defensively*, as all you have is what you have on you at the moment and what you can employ in the fractions of a second you have to save your life.

      • avatarHowdy says:

        Just as RF pointed out in an earlier article. By definition, if you’re on defense, you have no idea when or with what you are being attacked. Being in the defensive constitutes arming yourself with the best of what you can afford and what technology allows.

        We don’t want to hurt nobody.

        To paraphrase Mr. Colionnior’s paraphrase, we want to fight back with the best gun available. And when there’s something better than guns, I’ll want that too.

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      They get their shooting knowledge from Hollywood. Good guys only need one round, while bad guys can’t hit their own feet with the gun taped to their shoes.

    • avatardaveR says:

      However, in reality, it takes much more firepower to effectively defend yourself against an armed aggressor than it does to commit mass murder.

      + infinity

    • avatarGA Koenig says:

      The numbers prove this out.

      The Newton shooter was active for just over 10 minutes, and (according to the latest reports, pending the actual police report) fired fewer than 100 rounds. No magazines were fully expended; many had 15+ rounds in them.

      He clearly had all the time in the world…

  12. avatarAnonymous says:

    Washington D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan recently went on the record as stating that prosecuting an individual for possessing a 30-round AR-15 magazine

    would not promote public safety…nor serve the best interests of the people.

    Our congress-critters need to constantly be reminded of that.

    No magazine ban should be allowed to pass as long as David Gregory remains a free man.

  13. avatartdiinva says:

    There will be no magazine capacity limit passed. The House won’t vote for it and it will die in a Senate filibuster. The pro-Second Amendment majority has won at least at the federal level until at least 2015.

    • avatarBob says:

      What scares me to death is the possible one or two freedom-haters he may be able to put on the supreme court.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I like your reasoning, but I remain concerned that there may be a horse-trade brokered with the House GOP that gets them something they want in exchange for coughing up enough votes to pass a 10-round magazine capacity limit.

      ESPECIALLY if the 10-round limit is included in some omnibus must-pass bill loaded with pork and concessions to weaken the will of enough kinda-pro-2A holdouts…

  14. avatarAccur81 says:

    The mag ban is uncomfortably close to passing, in my opinion. There are far too many people with zero tactical experience making or attempting to make laws. The same politicians who have “righteous anger” at the failure to pass AWB 2.0 will re-focus on bans of standard capacity magazines. To them, the truth is merely an inconvenience, and you don’t *need* 30 round or 15 round magazines. It is definitely time to keep the pressure on. I’m glad NY is feeling backlash at the passage of their asinine laws.

    On an unrelated note, I have a friend who sold PMC 5.56 manufactured in 1992 for $1 per round. These are tense times.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      The price of 5.56 has completely killed my plans to try 3-gun this year.

      Hat tip to your friend, though… It’s not often that you can stockpile a durable good and be able to take cash profits at 5X the original purchase price.

  15. I’m not so sure I agree with you regarding Mayor Bloomberg. I wouldn’t put it past him to try and get this “news” out there so that people who side with the Second Amendment get the “early win syndrome” as witnessed in the presidential race of but a few months ago.

    We must keep up the pressure and we must continue to fight for our rights no matter what the biased liberal media is telling us.

    Never give up!

    MOLON LABE

  16. avatarJumbie says:

    One supposed ‘gotcha’ I’ve seen from gun grabbers is, “If low magazine capacity doesn’t reduce the lethality of mass shootings, then why would it reduce the effectiveness of home defense? If the time to change magazines doesn’t make a difference in mass shootings, then what’s the big deal if you have to change magazines during home defense? Seven round mags are enough.”

    The answer of course is preparation.

    No one sleeps with 4 extra magazines strapped to their belt in case someone breaks in at night. (OK, there’s probably a *few* here at TTAG, but that’s besides the point)

    A spree killer has weeks/days to prepare. He walks into the selected Gun Free Zone strapped with his baker’s dozen of 7-round magazines and can fire of 90 shots with minimal fuss.

    A home defender at best has one magazine loaded in the gun with a few more nearby in a cabinet/drawer etc. She/He doesn’t get to pick the time and place of the attack, unlike the spree killer, so she/he might be downstairs doing the laundry or upstairs in the bathtub when the need to grab the gun arises. The one magazine you manage to load into that gun as you grab it out of the safe better be able to hold off a gang of 4.

    • avatarNick says:

      In the case a “mass killings” the attacker chooses the ground on which the fight will take place and has thusly prepared to do so.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Awesome response.

      I keep extra magazines in the gunvault with the primary defense weapon, but I can tell you from experience that if it’s not attached to the weapon I won’t grab it when something goes bump in the night. And I don’t take a minute to strap on a belt over my pajamas when seconds count: it’s gun-flashlight-go time.

    • avatarHuman Being says:

      There’s also time of engagement. Spree shooters are acting like their at a carnival shooting booth. A home defender has seconds to fractions of a second to respond before they are killed (or worse) and need all the advantage they can. Defending against an armed attacker is much harder than plinking at non-responding targets.

    • avatarHowdy says:

      The counter argument should be “if you’re attacked then you need to be armed at least as well as those who are attacking you.”

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        All good points if someone enters into a conversation with an anti about self defense. Even if the media cannot get it, we must remain vigilant.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I have some concerns that this particular line of argument is too easily twisted in the minds of the Brady/Giffords crowd.

        In their pointy little heads, they fervently believe that they can legislate reality if they just try hard enough. Specifically to this point, they believe that they can eventually reduce criminals to using low-capacity magazines if we just keep the laws in place long enough. (For reference, see all of the “AWB 1.0 was just starting to work when it expired after 10 years” prattle being used to justify AWB 2.0.)

        Worse, though, the basic premise is wrong when it comes to magazine capacity. Let’s say that there’s one of me, two bad guys in my house and a third standing watch just outside the door, which is a reasonably common configuration for a burglary crew. We won’t count the getaway driver.

        I come downstairs armed to investigate the bump in the night, discover the intruders, and the excrement impacts the ventilator. The lookout man rushes inside to the aid of his fellow criminals. How many rounds would be optimal for this situation?

        I’m facing three assailants I need to neutralize ASAP. There is not likely to be time for a magazine swap, and there is NO guarantee that the BGs are going to flee when the first shot is fired.

        It’s safe to assume that with three moving targets, even with the home-field advantage, at least 50% of the time I’ll either miss entirely or make ineffective hits. Oh, and I want to have enough ammo remaining when the dust settles to handle the possibility of a 4th BG joining the party. Let’s see what that comes out to:

        3 effective hits per assailant == 6 rounds each @ 50% effective hit rate
        3 visible assailants + possibly 1 more == 4 assailants
        6 rounds * 4 visible or potential assailants == 24 rounds

        They, on the other hand, could easily get by with a single 10-round magazine each, delivering a total of 30-40 rounds though presumably at a lower effectiveness due to my home-field advantage and training.

        The only way I’m likely to survive this scenario is by bringing more continuously available ammo (30-round mag), using it more effectively (carbine with red-dot sight and 600 lumen flashlight), and acting with decisiveness if things go hot. I would argue that I need to be substantially better armed than the opposition, not equal, because I want to survive — not “win” then bleed out minutes later.

        Put another way, I want enough firepower (in terms of kinetic energy, effectiveness of delivery system, and quantity) to fsck the fscking fsckers before they can fsck me. Simply matching the bad guys means I still end up dying, and that’s unacceptable.

    • avatarSteve says:

      This is an excellent, well thought-out response. It shouldn’t even be necessary, though.

      So, a magazine round-count limit doesn’t seriously affect mass-murders and other forms of criminal gun use? Okay, we’re done here. Even if you do try to apply arguments of social utility to a fundamental right, there’s no way to justify that particular measure. Thank you, please drive through.

      Burden of proof should be on those who seek to curtail a right in any way, not on those who wish to exercise it. The fact that this isn’t the case probably says a lot.

      • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

        “Burden of proof should be on those who seek to curtail a right in any way, not on those who wish to exercise it.”

        Hitchens’ Razor, my friend.

  17. avatarBob says:

    What do y’all suppose will happen if another massacre happens 2 years from now (it’s only a matter of time)?

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Hopefully there will be a few attempts that are thwarted by a pistol-packin’ citizen first, then we’ll be able to say told ya so…

    • avatarHuman Being says:

      In two years, I hope for national reciprocity and to see a lot less success for anyone who tries this.

  18. avatarjuliesa says:

    Nick, our congressman is no longer chair of the Judiciary committee, but he is still on it. Goodlatte is now the chair–I don’t know anything about him without googling around.
    Lamar is now chairing the Science Space Tech committee. We’re so fortunate that Smith, Cruz and Cornyn are on our side on this, and I wrote them each a couple of times to reinforce them.

  19. avatarAnonymous says:

    Claire Wolfe is more worried about a ban on private sales.

    Sometimes I Am So Afraid
    Saturday, January 26th, 2013

    . . .

    The thing I most fear is a ban on private sales.

    Nothing would stop private sales, of course. It’s just that every private sale could be a threat of 10 years in prison. And we’d learn to distrust people who ought to be our peaceable trading partners: “Is this one an agent provocateur?” “Will that one snitch if they put pressure on him?”

    A private-sale ban is even more fearsome because the NRA and the R-Party will go for that one, and the most gun-hating people in Congress (Lautenberg and McCarthy) are already customizing bills to give their alleged opponents something to “compromise” on.

    Some FFLs will even be in favor of it because they’ll think it’s a way to use government against the competition. Or force more of us to bring them transfer and background check business.

  20. avatarSkyMan77 says:

    If we do beat back this latest attack on the 2A we need to figure out a some good ways to take a pound of flesh from the Anti’s. If they lose nothing they’ll just shrug it off and start anew like they have to date… They need to think very hard before trying to derail our God given rights again…

  21. avatarChris says:

    The only restriction that could possibly be considered constitutional is applying it to limits above military use. 30 round magazine for the AR-15? Should be legal. 100 round betamags? To my knowledge the military does not use them because they are unreliable so banning those could be acceptable to a lot of people.

    I’d still rather see our side to get the NFA and GCA repealed, focus on that so the middle ground is at worst what we have now.

    • avatarDutchinDC says:

      That’s right we only used 30 round mags for the M4 in Afghanistan because they are reliable, keep the rifle light and are easy to carry (can’t fit a beta mag in a ammo pouch or cargo pocket). Anything more than 30 rounds was belt fed. The large surefire mags look interesting but a 30 round mag still seems like it strikes the best balance.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Bet you $5 that the Marine units fielding the new magazine-fed HK squad MGs will be trying out those 60-round Surefires the minute nobody is looking.

        Not saying they’ll take them into combat without authorization, at least not on a widespread basis. Just saying that 30-rounds-then-reload is gonna suck for suppressive fire.

    • avatarHowdy says:

      Ooo, pound of flesh! What you said. No more NFA’ed sbr, sbs, silencers and 922r bull!

  22. avatarJay W. says:

    I think banning standard (i.e. large by the gun grabber’s standards) capacity magazines was their end game on this round anyway!

  23. avatarBob says:

    I guess Piers Moron will have to live up to his word and leave the country!

  24. avatarJohn says:

    I also assumed the Affordable Health Care Act would not pass congress either……. Keep calling and writing till you see these bills go down :-)

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      It’s Affordable because the estimated cost is 983 billion to 2.7 trillion over 10 years. That’s just super affordable.

      /sarc

  25. avatarPowers says:

    It really makes me think that these idiots will want to ban “things you might say” because of the potential to hurt someones feelings or cause a reaction. Think of their reasoning, and it is not so crazy. The thinking, the logic is the same. What if to make everyone safe and ensure no one is planning some kind of terror attack or any crime, they make you out to be a threat and remove your freedom of speech. How to enforce that? It would be arbitrary..but the people who pass such laws are in power already. They have the right “thinking”. Free Speech would be restricted because it may save just one life if they do not let a certain group of people demonstrate or make a video about certain political or societal views.

    Anyways..that is just my warped mine taking off in direction with no real point..

    I will continue to contact my elected reps and remind them of the continuing fight.
    I live in Texas and Oklahoma, so my reps are on the right side of this already, and have proven it to me. How fast others get in line to restrict the very Constitution they took an oath to uphold and protect. The very same Constitution which gives them their freedoms and put them in office by requiring the 3 branches of Government. These are the same people who make laws that do not apply to them, and vote themselves pay raises every now and then, no matter their job performance. Is it a wonder that their approval ratings are so terribly low?

    • avatarIng says:

      …these idiots will want to ban “things you might say” because of the potential to hurt someones feelings or cause a reaction.

      They’re already doing their level best: political correctness is the tip of that particular iceberg. Gun control is just another plank in the same repressive agenda.

  26. avatarHC says:

    The ONLY comprise I would be willing to make would be a ban on an capacity magazine over what was standard cap for said weapon. so no more then 30 for AR’s in exchange for the machine gun registery being reopened to civialians to post 86 firearms.

    • avatarJoseph says:

      I would disagree with that. I think a far less invasive way to provide these vultures with a “compromise” would be to agree to maufacturing proccesses which stamp a serial number onto magazines, manufactured after… oh let’s say 2015.

      I’d expect the cost per mag to increase by upwards of a dollar to compensate for this but yeah, I can live with that.

      In return for this we keep the complete and utter lack of any kind of capacity limits. And in addition to this the BATFE is disbanded wholly and completely, not to be replaced with any similar agency.

  27. avatarHauptgefreiter says:

    I don’t understand how Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court could state that the “Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    The Bill of Rights clearly states:
    “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The definition of infringe is”
    in·fringe /inˈfrinj: Act so as to limit or undermine (something)

    So why am I currently limited in my right to keep and bear any arms? I don’t see any room for interpretation for an absolute statement as “shall not be infringed”. Any law that limits the right to keep and bear arms should be unconstitutional and therefore should not be the law. But clearly the current gun laws limit that very right! Can someone explain to me how it is possible that the current gun laws infringe the right to keep and bear arms?

    Now, the Bill of Rights of 1689 limits the right to keep and bear arms by stating “no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law”. I don’t get how the US supreme court can rule based on the English Bill of Rights and not the US Bill of Rights. I thought the US won the American revolutionary war?

    I just don’t understand how the Bill of Rights ensures a constitutional right unambiguously, and how federal and state laws can just take that right away. As I understand, the Constitution can not be changed and is a higher authority than federal and state laws, even though each state has its own constitution ? How is it that a US supreme court justice or a President, Governor or Senator does not get impeached for ruling against the US Constitution? Is there any lawyer here that can explain this to me? The US Constitution clearly conflicts with lets say the California constitution, because a 10 round magazine limit is an infringement of my constitutionally given right.

    • avatarPowers says:

      Great points, I would also like to hear from a lawyer or anyone who knows it well enough and who can explain it with more than just “politics”..if that is possible.

      • avatarMaria says:

        There are some attention-grabbing time ltmiis in this article but I don’t know if I see all of them middle to heart. There’s some validity but I will take maintain opinion until I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want more! Added to FeedBurner as effectively

  28. avatarLeo338 says:

    Some quotes from Biden for your enjoyment.

    “You have an individual right to own a weapon both for hunting and for self-protection”

    “There is no sporting need that I’m aware of to have a magazine that holds 50 rounds… and I’m a sportsman”

    “People shouldn’t be using assault rifles, because they probably wouldn’t know how to shoot very accurately, and it’s usually easier to hit something with a shotgun anyway. If you wanna keep some people away during the big earthquake, buy yourself some shotgun shells”

    America helped put this guy in office, by choice! It’s scary to think this guy is 1 heart beat away from being President.

  29. avatarPowers says:

    I had most of my orders for mags before the big rush, but I did place a couple of orders to pad the safe. I was in the process of laying down specs for some AR builds or a buys, and this of course has to wait. But in the meantime, if it does die like I hope and pray that it does and should, I really do feel sorry for those who bought $130 Aluminum AR Mags and $699 Beta Mags from CTD. I can’t express my gratitude enough to companies like Brownells, Midway, Natchez, The Mako Group and others who did not go into the gouge party CTD and others did. Brownells, Midway, Natchez, The Mako Group are also reliable supporters of the 2nd Amendment. I will continue to support them including all who stand behind/with the firearm consumers and the 2nd Amendment in good and bad times.

  30. avatarLance says:

    The mag ban is just as annoying as the AWB. Since all handguns use mags higher than 10rds. Glock 17 has 17rd mags, Glock 22 has 14rds, Beretta 96FS 12rds, Beretta 92FS uses 15rd mags, HK-USP .45 12rds, mags Springfield XD series 12-17rds depending on caliber. SO this affects more than just 30rd AR mags or AK mags this affects all DGU situations. well if Bloomburg says AWB is DOA its due to us and Gun rights grassroots. So keep the pressure up and kill this ban too!

  31. avatarJoseph says:

    The text of this bill begs the question “why do gun-grabbers not get scared of .22 rimfire?”

    Seriously. If you allow only .22 then you’re going to immediately see the same kind of 100 round drum mags the grabbers are scared of, just in .22 rimfire.

    You don’t think 100 rounds of .22 will kill a couple of dozen people? Plus it’s cheaper, has less recoil and is therefore more easily controlled allowing for quicker followup shots. As a smaller round it’s more easily surpressed.

    Seriously. .22 has pretty much every single characteristic that anti’s are afraid of in spades. Why doesn’t anyone make 100 round drum mags for .22 rimfire? Because who would buy them? But yeah if that’s the only thing you can fire more than 10 rounds of at once you can bet we’ll see a 100 round or greater drum on the market within a week.

    Anti-gun pols just don’t make any damn sense. I garauntee that the exemption of .22 rimfire is not to “leave us with something” or any other kind of ploy but rather because these cognitive midgets (sorry, “size-impaired”) think of .22 rimfire as a toy, not a deadly weapon.

    Like mama always said “stupid is as stupid does.”

    • avatarOHgunner says:

      The killer in Chardon Ohio used a .22lr and I’m fairly certain others have also. Their logic is flawed, but we already knew that didn’t we

  32. avatarSwarf says:

    compromising on passing “just this one.”

    We should start calling this the “Just the tip” bill.

  33. avatarCCW Guy says:

    I’m thinking about paying $600 for 3 standard capacity Glock 19 Gen 4 magazines.
    They are throwing in a new pistol with it.

  34. avatarstormchaser says:

    This must be the fourth article I’ve seen suggesting that the AWB is dead. I don’t think we can allow ourselves the luxury of stopping now, we must continue to write our reps, speak to fence-sitters and encourage our states and sheriffs to tell the feds to FOAD. We must also ensure that we get all those Fudds on board.

    We need to keep working beyond the defeat of this attempt to push for nationwide CCW, more open carry, campus carry, armed teachers. Once we get all of that done we can look at the NFA and GCA.

    Seriously, we have had so many victories in the last 10yrs with SCOTUS rulings, the recent ruling forcing IL to issue carry (looks like it may be concealed or open) permits, ruling about may issue in wherever it was, Maryland? and etc. etc.

    I would also like to see enormous pressure on DC due to its obvious unequal enforcement of their labyrinth of laws.

    • avatarSkyMan77 says:

      “We need to keep working beyond the defeat of this attempt to push for nationwide CCW, more open carry, campus carry, armed teachers. Once we get all of that done we can look at the NFA and GCA.”

      +1… We need to make sure the Anti’s loose ground, reclaiming right that were already taken makes perfect sense… Thank you

      • avatarSixpack70 says:

        I’m not so sure we should be blasting out there that these bills are DOA. Until they die in committee or are voted down, they could still come and bite us in the as and then we will be screwed. Keep up the fight until then.

  35. avatartravis f says:

    we should be fighting to get full autos back, silencers and not just walking up trying to protect what we have we need to fight for what they have already taken, the compromise will be to stay the same with no change

  36. avatarAnotherMatt says:

    Exempts .22 rimfire? PMR-30s are going to become the #1 seller in America.

  37. avatarLarry2 says:

    Push them into the sea!!!! Keep calling and once we have them truly on the run then push for National Carry, NFA, etc.

    Keep calling and shift the direction to not a defense of one, but an offensive one. Tell them to not pass any limits on the types of weapons, magazines, ammo, etc. but to expand our existing God given rights.

  38. avatarmtshootist1 says:

    on top of all that, I want to be able to own foreign full auto firearms, and our guys should be able to bring back any weapon from any war they are sent to. No more cutting perfectly good Thompsons in half, no more cutting perfectly good FN FALs in half, etc. If a damn raghead can own a full auto AK, why in the hell can’t I????????????????

    • avatarJumbie says:

      Being of the raghead persuasion myself, I wanted to say, you’re an ass.

      I still assert your right to own an AK. But you’re an ass.

  39. avatarRalph says:

    “Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
    – AWB 2013

  40. avatarRetired 3rd Infantry Grunt says:

    The magazine issue is also a red herring. Face it dhimmicrats, you lose again. The Constitution wins out again, don’t you just hate it when that happens?

  41. avatarmdc says:

    Don’t snooze.One or more high profile incidents will sow the deal.Power of the media and sheeple will follow.Im tellin ya.

  42. avatarHC says:

    There is no after we beat this. We need to be on the offensive NOW, working on takaing our rights back and repealing the NFA’s defacto ban! It’s the biggest push back we have, push for it as hard as they are pushing their agenda

  43. avatarduke nukem says:

    hopefully after this is over prices start coming down cause spending $50 on mags and almost $2500 on a ar is ridiculous. and my guess is the mag ban would also die but at the cost of universal background checks

  44. avatarKevmo says:

    And, what about this guy? Do you think 10 round mags are going to slow this guy down? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4–Qw

  45. avatarDerek says:

    “Biden argued that the shooter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., could have been slowed down if he had fewer rounds in each magazine and had to change clips more often. “Maybe if it took longer, maybe one more kid would be alive,”

    Wasn’t this covered on here already? The police took 20 minutes to get on scene. 20 minutes; 26 kills… could have fired one round every ~46 seconds and had the same result (assuming one hit kills). Anybody have a total round count fired?

    • avatarPassSetCrush says:

      @Derek:
      I agree with you that his reason for lower capacity magazines is WEAK. The magazine capacity would have made little difference, if any at all. Here are some suggestions as to what VP Biden could have said instead:
      - “… the shooter could have been slowed down if his mother had locked up her firearms as a responsible citizen should”
      - “… the shooter could have been slowed down (even stopped) if the first responders (the teachers and staff) had a firearm on campus that they could access in an emergency like this.”
      - “… the shooter could have been slowed down if the state kept better track of our mentally unstable who have access to firearms”

      Seriously, there are so many arguments that could be made that speak to slowing down, even preventing the shooter from taking all those innocent lives. I read the comment by gun-grabbers, “… if it saves even one life, then it’s worth pursuing”, as it relates to more gun control. But can’t the SAME argument be made for more responsible gun OWNERSHIP? If the Principal, Vice Principal, and selected members of the staff have access to a firearm (which is secured in a biometric safe on campus somewhere), and if THAT saves lives, isn’t it worth discussing?

      These days we have to consider solutions that make sense. We do NOT live in a utopia where bad people are unarmed. We have to be responsible, and many of us ARE. Limiting magazine capacity doesn’t make the high-capacity magazine go away. They will still exist, but in the hands of law-breakers, not law-abiding citizens. Is that the real solution? Magazine capacity is such a small (and insignificant) part of the real problem. There are bigger fish out there, Mr. VP.

  46. avatarPublius says:

    No compromises. Ever. In fact, we need to work toward rollback of 1968 and 1934.

    The tried-and-true lefty tactic is to demand everything out to the horizon and beyond. Then they take whatever movement they get in a “compromise” and go home happy. Rinse and repeat, as opportunities arise.

    We need to do the same. The Second Amendment is crystal clear. (And it’s a lot more clear than whatever the left used to justify abortion.) …shall not be infringed.

    If you really want to protect the Constitution, we need politicians who’ll stand up for it. Grassroots, Tea Party, call it what you like — the GOP needs to be taken over and redirected toward liberty. But contact your congress people (house and senate) over and over. And be just as demanding as the left: no additional rules, no concessions, no give.

    If we can stop this effort cold, with no movement benefitting the left, we can count it a victory for liberty. And then build on it.

  47. avatargermanguy says:

    Can anyone explain to me, why bigger magazins are better than lower ones? In a fight you only have to reload more? Or is there more that i can´t see?
    P.S: Yes you may notice i never fired a bigger gun than an air rifle. But in Germany this is uge, you don´t get to any guns except for shooting clubs ( but also there are restriction), in the millitary ( i´m to young for the compulsory military service, that was paused by law 2 or 3 years ago) and also i´m not in the police.

Leave a Reply

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