Magazine Limits for Freedom: Time for Some Political Judo

By Brian

When I was a college kid I took a judo class to satisfy my gym requirement. Today, I’m too many years removed from college and I can’t perform any the moves or remember most of the terminology. But one concept from judo has stuck with me: sometimes you can’t just out-muscle your opponent. Sometimes you’re going to get thrown and that’s when you need to use your opponent’s strength and energy against him. The pro-2A crowd needs to learn that lesson right now, because it may be that the current situation presents an opportunity for us to actually make some gains, particularly at the state level, instead of just minimizing the (sadly almost inevitable) losses . . .

I’m not talking here about what things should be like, or how the meaning of the Second Amendment should be read.  True, we shouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but the reality is that the bulk of the country — and at least five Justices on the Supreme Court –don’t agree with us that all these gun control proposals are invalid on their face and bad ideas to boot.

With that caveat out of the way, here’s how I see things shaking out in the Senate (barring unforeseen events):

·      The Senate is unlikely to support a ban on scary looking guns “assault weapons”

·      The Senate will support magazine restrictions, probably capping capacity at 10 rounds

·      The Senate will support grandfathering pre-existing magazines

·      The Senate will support universal background checks and require FFLs or law enforcement to do the checking

·      There will be some action mental health and medical records that is interesting and important but, come on, we want to talk about the guns

·      There will be at least some support for these measures from red state Dems and “moderate” Republicans . . . some earnest and some based on perceived political need which, combined with the support of the rest of the Democrats, means these measures will pass in the Senate

So this bill gets to the House. Sadly, I don’t see how something that makes it that far doesn’t get passed there, too. Moderate GOP House members are no doubt worried that if they don’t do something. They’ll be targeted by the Obama/Bloomberg et al. bloody shirt brigade in the next election, causing them to lose their seats and the Dems to retake the House. And if the Democrats retake the House . . . *shudder* . . . .

So where does that leave us? Something is likely to pass and this is where the opportunity lies. If the GOP is smart enough to not just hunker down and get beaten up for “doing nothing.” But what should the GOP do to keep their moderates in line and not give Pelosi a tool to retake the majority?

The House GOP should take the demand for something to get passed and turn it around on the grabbers by proposing . . . magazine limits.

Wait! Before you hit the back button or leave a scathing comment, hear me out (you can leave the scathing comment later).  This proposal operates under the assumptions laid out above, which means we’re already in a bad place. If our position is stronger by the time the House has to act, toss this in the trash. But assuming there’s sufficient political pressure that something has to give, there’s a lot to be said for deciding what gives and how.

If the House GOP counters the Senate bill with a magazine limit of 30 (per Prof. Kopel, probably the upper bound of what this Court would find protected), and makes a big deal of getting rid of those nasty 100-round drums, they can say to the American people that they did something. And red state Senators can accept a magazine ban without having to take rounds out of anyone’s pistol and almost no one’s rifle.

As for that “universal” background check, I’m in the minority here at TTAG in that I think you could design a “Universal Background Check System™” (UBCS) that’s not particularly prone to abuse by the government and would be at least as effective as the systems currently proposed (that is to say: not very). If we can dodge this one entirely, great. But to the extent politics demands a UBCS, better the House GOP  design one — something that doesn’t rely on FFLs and would be less subject to being turned into a registry — than be pressured into whatever abomination is likely to come out of the Senate.

Rather than just saying “no” until they’re beaten into saying “yes” on the opposition’s terms, the House should talk about how their new proposal embraces the changes in technology that have happened since the 1990s: smartphones, the cloud, the fact that there is no need to require an FFL to run a background check when we have online background check companies out the wazoo.

Then the House could go to the Senate with the argument that the House’s system “solves” the problem without all red tape, inefficiency and potential for abuse that the Senate surely just overlooked and didn’t mean to include . . . right? Let Schumer and Feinstein defend their system over a newer, more innovative and less-dangerous-to-gun-rights version and see how that goes over with the public.

Now I’m sure you’re wondering where the gains I promised earlier come in. Here’s the kicker (sorry for burying the lead): the House should also demand that this bill — with its 30-round mag cap, no “assault weapons” ban and (if necessary) less-prone-to-abuse UBCS – preempt state law. It replaces New York’s law; it replaces California’s law; it is . . . the law.

I don’t see much risk here since federal law is already the ceiling on the practical exercise of our rights. States can (correctly) complain that gun laws are too restrictive, but barring some pretty dramatic action, there isn’t a lot they can do about it until the Supreme Court changes its mind on certain things. If the federal law is the ceiling on our rights, why shouldn’t it be the floor as well?

Yes, those of us in free(ish) territory would lose the ability to buy new 50 round drums (which stinks), but we will likely lose that anyway. This way, our brothers and sisters in the occupied zones would no longer face prison for having a standard capacity magazine.  In addition, it will make it easier on the gun companies because they won’t lose lucrative markets or have to deal with all the different state versions of rifles and magazines.

Complaints from the Congressional gun-grabber caucus that states should be able to set their own more stringent limits could be met with a the response that other states should then also be able to enact their own less restrictive laws. This will either spark a healthy debate on the virtues of federalism or (more likely) put an end to the discussion.

Here’s another nice feature of this: it may turn the biggest grabbers into the reason nothing really offensive gets passed. While many GOP and red-state Dem Senators will be happy to support something, anything, that contains the words “magazine limit” and gets the issue off their radar, Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin and the like, faced with the elimination of their draconian homestate laws, may refuse to go forward, providing the perfect excuse for the whole thing to come crashing down. And if that happens, it will be the Republicans in the House who can say they met the grabbers half-way, but that apparently wasn’t good enough.

In a perfect world we wouldn’t have to deal with any of this. But we don’t live in that world, so we may as well try to do the most with world we have.

165 Responses to Magazine Limits for Freedom: Time for Some Political Judo

  1. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    I like it. I like it a lot.

    The problem is, we here at TTAG might as well live on another planet from the legislators in DC. This is a fantastic plan, and I think it would work, but how do we get the pro-2A caucus in the House to line up behind this?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Though to be fair, I might be more than a little biased because I live in California and I would love to have a uniform Federal law that overrides my state’s AWB idiocy.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Of course you think it’s a fantastic plan. You willing choose to live in a Soviet republic that you could flee at any time. As a result, you have a seething hatred for the freedoms those of us who choose to live in free states enjoy.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I wish life were actually as simple as it seems to you from your parents’ basement.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          I’m sorry, what part of your “As someone living in California, I think this is a great idea because it screws over the people I’m jealous of in free states!” comment above me did I get wrong?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I admitted, without prompting, that my opinion was biased because it would increase my freedoms, and that implicitly I might not have been giving equal weight to considerations elsewhere. Or did you miss the comment immediately above yours were I made that statement?

          I’m not sure how it could be that restoring the right to effective self-defense in all of the current and would-be 10-round, and now, 7-round limit states is “screwing over” everybody else because you’d have to stick to standard-capacity magazines.

          I would also appreciate it if you could refrain from assigning motivations and emotional states to me like I’m your little dress-up doll. I’m motivated by a desire to increase personal and collective freedoms, which doesn’t leave any room for being “jealous” of people who live elsewhere.

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          I;m willing to share AG so the fruits & nuts(just kidding) in Cali. can have some freedom too. I personally didn’t see you as out of line, Randy

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          We have plenty of fruits and nuts to go around. Almonds, especially. :)

          Thanks, Randy.

      • avatarJoseph says:

        +1 to Totenglocke

      • avataranonymous says:

        > you could flee at any time

        Because changing where you live — especially if you have kids in school and/or a spouse with a career and/or a house you can’t sell — is as trivial a choice as, say, changing brands of soda or shoes.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Not to mention a career that would be difficult, if not impossible, to pursue outside of a specific geographic region — Silicon Valley, in my case.

          And kids. And a spouse who is a pillar of the community, teaches in a public school, AND is in school for her master’s. etc.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          re Alpha.
          Not to mention the sorry state our states would be in if every time the hoplophobes win a battle all the freedom loving American’s run away. We’re not going to win this by all having more babies or creating new states in the middle of the ocean. We’re defiantly not going to win by hiding out in the most comfortable place we can find, hoping it never changes and accusing each other of seething hatreds. We have to engage on every front and convert/convince the people we live with.

        • avataranonymous says:

          from another TTAG thread

          Totenglocke says:
          February 8, 2013 at 16:22

          Maybe my inability to find a decent job after graduating will be a good thing in the near future – it’s much easier to leave a crappy, low-paying job to go fight than it is to leave a cushy, high-paying job.

    • avatarJMS says:

      I like it as well! If it’s looking bleak, this is an excellent fall-back idea. It should all be written out ahead of time and, if it looks like there really is no way to prevent the existing things from passing, this would certainly be a better option. Call it “common sense” and throw it back at them.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Maybe it’s the nature of what I do for a living, but I am only comfortable when I have a Plan B. And a Plan C. And a completely different Plan D in case the assumptions driving plans B and C were wrong.

        It’s not capitulating to game out ahead of time how to give ground if you can’t hold the line. It’s called “having strategic options” and it IS the smart thing to do.

    • avatarIvan w/ an AR says:

      Add a preemption clause AND when “The Thing” is about to pass, add a rider that repeals the NFA. THAT should do it. Even if it goes through, we still get supressors and fun switches. Win-Win.

  2. avatarElliotte says:

    No.

    Republicans control the House, therefore there is no need to allow anything to pass unless they want it to pass.

    • avatarDrVino says:

      And in two years, they may not and then we’ll be looking at 7 round mags like a kid looking at the cone after the scoop of ice cream fell to the sidewalk…..

      • avatarDBeans says:

        What’s the point of trying to win control of the house or Senate if you have to repeat what the other party does anyway. Plus I’m of the opinion that if you dont fight tooth and nail against your freedoms taken away you’ll probably never get it back…… And you probably don’t deserve it back.

      • avatartravis m. says:

        We shouldn’t compromise on mag limits. After DC outlawed guns, they went after less lethal weapons such as batons, tasers, pepper spray and tear gas. It’s still illegal to have those items, and it’ll probably require a big fight to get them legalized again.

    • avataranonymous says:

      I think Dan’s point is that such a counter-proposal, in the spirit of “compromise”, would, in the best case scenario, change the dynamic of the debate so much that it might derail any new legislation.

      In his worst case scenario, we would be better off than trying to hold a line that Republicans aren’t willing to hold.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        Want to stiffen some spines? Start making it known to the squishies that they’re welcome to support mental-health information being included in the background checks- nobody wants crazy people to have guns- but voting for any ‘compromise’ that affects mentally healthy, law-abiding citizens guarantees a primary challenge by a section of the electorate that will turn out to vote.

        Do not underestimate how few votes it takes to tip a primary. The prospect of a few thousand irate 2nd-A voters voting against them in the primary is not something any Republican is going to dismiss.

  3. avatarOK S. says:

    NO!!!

  4. avatarDrVino says:

    What do you mean: “almost no one’s rifle”…………..

    I suddenly felt an icy draft…….

    • avatarBrian says:

      What I meant is that no handgun I know of has more than a 20 round mag as part of its usual design, and the novelty magazines tend to stop at 30. For rifles the standard is rifle but there are some novelty 50s and 100s which are cool but rare.

      • avatarMike in NC says:

        FN PS-90 uses a 50 round magazine as standard.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          That’s a fair point, and boy howdy do I want a PS90 or P90. Even though they’re chambered for the oddball 5.7mm.

          The way to address this would be to specify exemptions for all pre-agreement firearms which came from the factory with a >30 round magazine as an integral design feature. It’s clear from the design of the P90 family that it was intended from the start to hold 50 rounds.

          The exemption couldn’t apply to models introduced post-enactment of the law, because otherwise manufacturers would start offering AR15′s with 100-round SureFire mags…

        • avatarrosignol says:

          How about we address it by telling them NO?

          If we agree to a cap of 30, the next time something happens, they’ll try to lower it. And the time after that, they’ll try to lower it more. And eventually we’ll be New York, with everything over 7 rounds banned.

          And we won’t have a leg to stand on to argue against it because we will have agreed that magazine capacity matters.

          It’s like that old joke about the woman who would sleep with a man for a million dollars, but not for a hundred- having agreed in principle, all that’s left is negotiating the price.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        I have 33rd mags for my Glock

      • avatarJMS says:

        My Kel-Tec PMR30 has a standard capacity of 30 ;-)

        …so does every AR pistol, which are common…

  5. avatarLorenD says:

    I agree too but like already stated how do we get the right people to even look at this possibility? I sent letters to my senators (PA) and all I get back is a “blanket reply” that I am sure gets sent out to any letter mentioning guns… They didnt read them!

  6. avatarTS says:

    I like it – but I live in CA. So it would be a removal of restriction for me.

  7. avatarbastiches says:

    Might be a small 10th Amendment problem with a 30 rd magazine limit/permit superseding state law. Yes, it would be ironic for the Left to argue that, but I’m not sure of the wisdom of damaging that amendment any more.

    • avatarBrian says:

      I think you could ground it in interstate commerce. Yes, if this is the thing that revitalizes the 10th Amendment great, but I have my doubts.

      • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

        Actually, it would be constitutional under the militia clause (Art I, Sec 8). Congress could list weapons or types of weapons that states cannot ban because such a ban would affect its ability to regulate and arm the militia (able-bodied individuals).

        Under the militia clause, Congress could even require that all citizens go out and buy an AR-15.

  8. avatarMatt in SD says:

    Not one inch? Anyone?

    • avatarGA Koenig says:

      Yea, that sounds fantastic – until you see the polling numbers where 55% of Americans want to see magazine capacity limitations and 60% want to ban *all* semiautomatic weapons.

      We are seriously outnumbered and it is our own damn fault. While we leaned heavily on the courts and the NRA’s legislative clout in the back rooms of power, American gun owners have done a piss-poor job of reaching out to non-gun owners. Constitutional protection only goes so far – SCOTUS interprets the Constitution as they see fit and (in the long term sense) Constitutions can be changed.

      As long as a majority of Americans remain ill informed and against us, there will be nothing but constant pressure against us.

      The best we can hope for, at this point, is to minimize the pain of whatever legislation comes down the pipe and fight it in the courts as best we can. Once it passes though, it’s time for American gun owners to clean the hell up, stop coming off as a bunch of nutty extremists and start reaching out to liberals and getting them to start seeing the value of the 2nd Amendment the way we do.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Those are bogus polls done by biased news agencies. Try looking at numbers from legitimate polling companies such as Gallup – you’ll see that the reality is quite different from what CNN tells you.

        • avatarGA Koenig says:

          Gallup… yea, they really called the Presidential election in 2012 solidly.

          I have yet to see a single, national, statistically valid and solidly conducted poll show anything but a majority against us. Not a single one.

          Most people have zero connection to guns. They live in super safe, suburban environments where the threat of crime is absolutely abstract. All they know about guns comes from movies and TV shows. They look at an AR-15 and honestly wonder why anyone would need to own anything like that. They have gotten use to the fact that Constitutional protections have loopholes in them big enough to drive a GITMO and PATRIOT act through.

          Until we can start answering the “Why do you need an AR-15?” question better than either going indignant (“It’s called the Bill of Rights, not Needs!”) or yammering on about guns being the bullwork against tyranny, we will lose.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          So you’re going to ignore one of the most respected polling institutions because they didn’t accurately predict a presidential election.

          The reality is that you want a ban and are using these bogus “polls” as a justification for your stance.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        Support for banning things always spikes right after a shooting incident, and slowly dies down afterward. The gun-grabbers know the support for their side has an expiration date, it’s why they’re trying to move quickly and shove the bill through.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      I’m there.

      And I took Bowling and Problems in Coaching (football)!

  9. avatarRalph says:

    If NICS was an open system, I’d absolutely use it if I was selling a gun. In fact, the only reason why I won’t ever sell a gun to a non-FFL, even in a face to face intrastate transaction, is that I don’t trust any buyer who I don’t know personally, and damn well at that.

    Until and unless NICS is opened (which will happen in the reign of Queen Dick), I cannot and will not support so-called “universal” background checks. I view so-called universal checks as nothing more than another imposition on 2A and another impediment to gun ownership.

    As far as “nonpartisan” action in the House, there’s a bill co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats to severely punish gun traffickers and straw buyers, with a potential 20 year sentence. Depending on the language of the bill — language is everything — I’ll support it. Anyone who lies for the other guy deserves to go to prison if the other guy uses the gun to commit a crime.

    The NRA is studying this proposal. I’ll wait to hear from the NRA and SAF before I draw conclusions.

    • avatarPascal says:

      I’ll take the system we already have here in CT. Fill out the federal 4473, fill out the DPS form, call the state PD, give drivers license and permit of buyer and seller, if everything is Ok, you get an authorization number you put on both forms. Take yellow copy for buyer and seller and put rest in an envelop and send to the State PD. Done. 15min transaction, never had an issue.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I’m not a fan of sending anything to the State PD, or anyone else. It’s bad enough that the FFL’s here in FL retain the 4473′s on site (and apparently the ATF feels they have free reign to come in and photocopy them whenever they’d like for no specific reason, according to the email I just got from GOA).

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        If TTAG is posting policy proposals, clearly I need to do a full write-up on how we can implement private-party NICS transactions in an acceptable way.

        It’s completely possible to facilitate a secure private-party NICS transaction which observes privacy constraints without requiring a (repugnant and wrong) FOID card or similar.

        • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

          Just be sure you include the means to prevent those with ill intent from accessing vital personal data. You know, like an ex-husband out of jail looking to re-abuse his former wife, or an employer looking for a reason to fire someone, etc., etc.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Done. Already factored in.

  10. avatarCrazed Java says:

    The Democrats will not support a 30 round limit. Sounds good on paper but they will not go for it.

    Not only that, but any compromise is a victory for them. Once again something bad happens and lawful gun owners must pay the price?

    At some point you have to draw a line in the sand.

    Keep up the pressure of your representatives and if you have anything left at this point send money to your favorite pro-2A orgs. We must make it clear that NO compromise is acceptable or politicians will lose their jobs.

    If TTAG has shown anything lately it is that gun rights cut across both political and ideological lines.

    • avatarBrian says:

      I generally agree, and my proposal is set in a world where the line doesn’t hold. We do have to acknowledge however that not everyone agrees with us, and we may have to face a second-best scenario.

  11. avatar4strokes says:

    I love it for one simple reason, the libs on the east and left coast will scream bloody murder, States rights! In order to protect their little, tyrannical enclaves they would torpedo this in a heart beat. In essence if the House insists it is this or nothing, we will get what we want – nothing.

  12. Except that states would (somewhat defensibly) howl that Congress lacked the authority to pre-empt state laws on firearms. Of course, you could do the “Gun-Free School Zone” end-run around the Constitution via the ever-so-flexible Commerce Clause.

    I like it, actually. It’s a clever way of pushing back which doesn’t set very unfavorable precedents, and will give the loyal opposition some political cover in the likely event it doesn’t pass. If Feinstein’s bill miraculously becomes law, I think (hope?) the Democrats’ll lose a lot of seats in the midterms since the turnout is lower, especially among the, ah, under-informed.

  13. avatarBallfar says:

    Even as a subject of Lord Cuomo I have conflicting feelings about this tactic.

  14. avatartdiinva says:

    You are falling for the meme that the Republicans in the House will just cave to what ever Harry Reid allows to pass. I know that’s a popular view but it’s a big lie. Ironically it is the “true blue” Conservatives who are responsible for spreading it. The default position on gun control is the status quo. It is up to Feinstein to get the votes to change it. The House is pro-Second Amendment and they don’t have to do anything to keep it. There will be no compromise on the House side when it comes semiautomatic rifles and magazine size.

    There will be no Republican House member whose no vote on control will cost them their seat. If they lose it will be on other issues unrelated to guns. A yes vote guarantees their defeat. They have no incentive to vote yes.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Don’t be dissing Harry Reid. He saved our collective @sses by assigning this to Leahy’s Judiciary Committee and telling him not to send a draconian bill to the floor.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        Ehhhh. I don’t WANT to be indebted to Harry Reid!

        • avatarrosignol says:

          I don’t like him much, but it looks like the guy might be doing us a favor.

          Going to wait and see what happens, but I think Reid’s setting Feinstein’s draft up to be amended into an unpassable monster. It also looks like Feinstein has figured it out, and that’s why she threatened to attach it to a must-pass bill as an amendment.

          There is going to be some very interesting legislative D-on-D knife fighting in the next month or two on this issue. Obama won’t ever face the voters again, but there are 33 Senators who are only 22 months away from their next election, and they know 2nd-A voters have long memories.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        Harry is a slime ball, just ask Lefty Rosenthal, but he is a smart slime ball. He knows a draconian bill is bad news for the donkeys in 2014. He didn’t do it for us, he didn’t to keep the Democrats in charge of the Senate in 2015.

      • avatarCasey T says:

        I will diss Reid. I work in the Department of Energy complex (as a contractor) and Harry Reid has cost more money and created more problems than almost any other politician. He’s also one of the primary reasons Obamacare passed. Basically, he’s screwed up the country almost as much as Obama has. Being protective of one issue doesn’t outweigh all of the damage. I’d rather put a pro gun Republican in his place.

    • avatarBrian says:

      My thesis, which I acknowledge could be wrong (which would be great) is that most people and many elected officials don’t see it as a binary, but rather a continuum. I have talked to staffers at a pro-gun Senator who assured me no-one was coming after my guns but asked if mag limits was that big a deal. He honestly sees it as a continuum, and thinks politically his guy can survive a mag limit but not a ban, I think, in my state, he is right.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        That might be true in the Statewide election but not in a House district. A vote for anything more than expanded background checks is a career ender.

        • avatarBrian says:

          That will vary depending on the district. Where I live there are a few Republicans who are facing some significant cross pressure (lousy urbanization) Also, with SCOTUS in mind we need the Senate.

  15. avatarTodd Price says:

    As someone who has 30+ round magazines, I say YES. I fully understand, “shall not be infringed”, but with the Republican Party in tatters, I too worry for 2015 if the house is a brick wall. This could be the ace-in-the-hole strategy that exposes gun grabbers true intentions to moderate and uneducated people who might then stand against them.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Except that things don’t work like that. Giving up on the mag issue doesn’t assure Republican control of the House. It only assures more gun control.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        This. Democrats aren’t going to magically change and vote Republican just because the Republican voted for gun control.

  16. Yes, let us give up essential liberty in hope that we can abuse the federal government’s usurpation of states rights rather than letting the grabbers abuse it. There is no way this can backfire.

    Seriously though, abuse of power NEVER leads to good things, even if its your team that’s in power. Eventually they won’t be, then that lovely pre-emptive 30 round mag limit will turn into a 10, or a 5 or a zero. I’d rather fight tooth and nail to take back the liberty we’ve already surrendered.

    • avatarBrian says:

      In this case we may be facing giving up essential liberty anyway, or teeing up an issue to lose the House, not take back the Senate, lose the 5th vote on SCOTUS (Scalia can’t live forever), and get really really hosed.

    • avatarJumbie says:

      Lord Platypus is right. Zimmerman says his argument is based on the long term but long term pre-empting state laws is a huge mistake.

      One day soon the Dems will control enough of the house and senate to get a bill passed and then there will be no cover for people who live in free-er states.

      Besides the 50 state system is supposed to be 50 systems that experiment to find the best laws. I *want* some states to try banning weapons and then we can point to Chicago and DC and say, “Hey, maybe your idea’s not so good?” and then point to Florida and say, “Hey, gun ownership works.”

      Leave the Feds out of it. They are not the solution. They are NEVER the solution.

  17. avatarKCK says:

    When you already have a gun trained on you, and your gun is still in the holster, you have to do some tactical thinking, or not.
    Quick to say No?
    Do some processing here, this is a complex proposal.
    Charge the gun, get shot, be dead or:Charge the gun disarm them, win:
    or
    look for a weakness make a plan.
    Which? We have a day or two to think before we respond, the quick comments above are from your guts, not your head.

  18. avatarST says:

    I vote NEIN to this idea.

    No, I’m not a chest beating moron hunkering down in my basement-turned-bunker. The thing about political will is that ultimately most reps do what their constituents tell them to.Good news for Texas gun owners, and bad news for Minnesota gun owners.

    As such rather then compromise we should take the hard line approach. Thanks to the strategy Obama knows an AWB is dead on arrival, and furthermore Republicans and pro gun Democrats in the House know their seats depend on how happy their voters are in 2014. Obama throwing stones at the conservative House is going to happen no matter what: even if they passed an AWB he’d still say they didnt go far enough. Right now the House is doing what it’s supposed to do.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I’m with you. We don’t need this Neville Chamberlain appeasement bullsh!t. He sold out for “peace for our time.” Eleven months later, surprise! The world was at war.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        AS IF he didn’t know. AS IF we don’t, either.

        I’m not keen at all on appeasement. It sounds whiny, but WHY IS IT US DOING ALL THE COMPROMISING?

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Not to mention that the economy is going downhill, so Republicans can definitely use that in 2014. Hell, I’ll write an ad for them: “While our economy slid back into recession, President Obama was spending his time trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens instead of focusing on polices that would create jobs”.

    • avatarMoose says:

      Agreed. Enough is never enough for them. They will seek to restrict our rights no matter what. And I doubt anti-gunners would, especially considering the fact that all of their magazine limit bills passed are 10 or 7, would even consider accepting 30 as the limit. They’d cut it down, and at that point, it’s just another one of the bills we’ve been trying to fight.
      We’ve just got to keep on keeping on and letting our reps hear us.

  19. avatarbrian says:

    Consider this – the Democrats paid dearly for supporting the 1994 AWB. Keep reminding them of that. They’ll kill this thing dead.

  20. avatarOrc4hire says:

    You want to stop all this nonsense? Here’s a Bill:

    To ensure that law enforcement agencies represent the standards of the communities that they serve, no agency whose representatives, agents, employees, or contractors carry weapons shall use, issue, or carry any weapon category, type, brand, model, caliber, or capacity, or any ammunition, accessories, or attachments for such weapons, that are not legal or available for the common citizens of that jurisdiction. State and local law enforcement agencies must comply with the restrictions applicable to the residents of their state or municipality, Federal agencies must comply with the relevant Federal laws. Officers of a State agency operating in a municipality with stricter availability laws will still only be restricted by the relevant State laws. Likewise Federal officers operating in a State or municipality with stricter availability laws shall only be restricted by any relevant Federal, nationwide, restrictions.

    This law shall apply to all government agencies excepting only the military branches (U.S. Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard).

    Any resident of an agency’s jurisdiction may bring suit against an agency which is in violation of this law. Each proven violation shall result in a fine of $1000 per resident of that jurisdiction levied on the agency, payable directly to each resident.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I’d vote for that bill.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Get rid of the military exemption and I’d support it.

        • avatarJoseph says:

          Well the military exemption I believe has to exist to allow us to store those “weapons of war” stateside. Otherwise we’d have to ship all our nukes, tanks, cruise missiles etc overseas. We wouldn’t be able to berth naval or coast guard ships at ports in the Continental U.S. etc.

          I’d add however that said exemption applies to US Reserve and National Guard components as well as Air National Guard ROTC cadets, Civil Air Patrol members and Merchant Marines.

          Consider this, particularly, the military existing at the federal level means that each violation under the terms of this proposed bill would result in a fine of 360 million (affected residents under jurisdiction) multiplied by 1000.
          On top of that Basic training and firearms proficiency maintainance would have to occur exclusively overseas.

          If you think our defense budget ballooned over the last decade…. lol.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      YES!!

    • avatarMoose says:

      Hell YES.

      Let’s get this law made, I think we have a winner.

    • avataranonymous says:

      > This law shall apply to all government agencies excepting
      > only the military branches (U.S. Army, Marine Corps,
      > National Guard, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard).

      The Coast Guard is not a military branch. Before 9/11, it was part of the Department of Transportation, and was reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. During wartime the Coast Guard can be transferred to the Navy.

      Trivia: There are “seven federal uniformed services that commission officers as defined by Title 10” :

      * United States Army
      * United States Marine Corps
      * United States Navy
      * United States Air Force
      * United States Coast Guard
      * United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
      * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps

  21. avatarreoiv says:

    Don’t give anti-gunners anything.

    By saying gun owners have to do something, we accept that gun owners are somehow responsible for what happened.

    Don’t give them an inch at all.

  22. avatarg says:

    This post has some non-linear thinking and I appreciate that… I wonder if TTAG has readers in Washington, DC? A pro-2A rights group of legislators needs to draw up some similar legislation.

    If I recall correctly, there’s also been talk of a national CCW law of similar weight – submit to a background check (in the new, re-vamped, oh so awesome system), get a license, and *BAM* you’re legal to carry in every 50 states. Renew every 5 years just with a doc’s note of physical and mental fitness, and re-check of your criminal record. Not that I think most states would be happy to have this be the law of the land…

    • avatarBrooklyn in da house says:

      I was thinking the same. If they are going to counter they need to include CCW for all. If you are clear to buy a gun there should be no reason you cant carry it outside if you want to.

  23. avatarJoel says:

    as a Cali rez, I can only say yes. I’d love to get my hands on an AK with 30 rounds in it w/o some stupid slow-mag change system or dumb-looking features.

  24. avatarGoodbarrel says:

    I have been suggesting something similar: Ban all “non-standard” magazines and make the NCIS system available (not required) for private sales. Make a big deal out of promoting it. This would be a tiny loss but a potentially huge gain relative to just saying no to everything and getting whatever we end up getting.

  25. avatarSkyler says:

    No. No. No.

    Do you allow the government to tell you the words in a prayer, even if it is only grace before eating and not a really “profound” prayer? No.

    Do you allow the government to require you to have equal time on your blog, but only during the two weeks before an election? No.

    Do you allow the government to find you guilty of a crime and put you in jail, as long as it is limited to a year imprisonment? No.

    So why should we allow the government to tell us what kind of magazine to put in our guns?

    Rather than retreating, we should be pushing hard for a repeal of those intolerable acts, the 1934 and 1968 gun laws. Then make the other side do some judo and give in on something.

  26. avatarRabbi says:

    NO MORE COMPROMISES.
    Never again!

    We have compromised too much already and looks where it had gotten us:

    - no new machine guns
    - state required permits
    - no national reciprocity
    - background checks
    - gun free zones
    - 21,000 gun laws

    It is not time to retreat and compromise, it is time to attack and repeal all those unconstitutional laws!

  27. avatarTotenglocke says:

    As someone living in a free state, you can FOAD. I’m not going to limit my rights for those too lazy to move out of their Soviet republics.

  28. avatarmjc104 says:

    How about trying to tie in the National CC Reciprocity US Senate bill tied up in DiFi’s committee?

  29. avatarSteve says:

    Here is what we need to do.

    Go HERE: http://www.gop.com/contact-us/

    And tell them quite pointedly, that gun owners will pound whats left of their party into dust two years hence, if they sell us out in any way. No matter how minor. Any and all offenses to American gun owners will be subject to a political death penalty, to be imposed as soon as the next election.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      This, a thousand times over. We don’t need cowards like Brian trying to sell us out and take away our rights “just a little bit”.

      • avatarBrian says:

        And when the GOP is nothing but dust who makes the laws? Not some new majority super pro gun party, it will be the grabbers since they are the ones without their voting base split. I’d hate to see that.

        • avatarCasey T says:

          The GOP has been in worse shape before. People need to learn history and have faith. This idea is a gross overreaction and a component of fear. Don’t let the grabbers win.

        • avatarSteve says:

          If the GOP won’t back us, we may as well destroy them. If they are useless to us, they need to be made examples of.

          Just like the Republican establishment going after Tea Party candidates. Or Candidates who get elected with Tea party support, the run right out in favor of immigration reform.

          Where pragmatism fails, principles rule.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          The Republican party is in trouble for one reason and one reason only – they refuse to stop pushing legislating the goddamn Bible. The American people have made it very clear over the last several years that they do NOT want people running about banning things “because the Bible says so”.

  30. avatarBiofire says:

    I like the idea of pro-gun folks going on the offense instead of being stuck reacting to the anti-gun crowd, which is what we are doing (in the political sphere) right now. As a California resident, it would be great if we could get Federal law to over-ride state law on this issue. Is that even possible?

    • avatarBrian says:

      All Federal gun law is, to one degree or another, overriding state law. It is just as legitimate for the Feds to put a minimum as it is to put a maximum. Whether any of this should be legitimate is a bigger constitutional issue, but for the forseeable future it would be considered Constitutional unless there is some sort of 10th Amendment revival.

  31. avatarBruce says:

    I like it Dan. Think it’s a very good idea.

    Also Orc4hire’s isn’t bad either. But I bet we could never get it passed.

  32. avatarcwp says:

    I’m waiting for some clever pro-gun Congresscritter to propose a bill banning the sale, transfer, etc., etc., of any assault rifle, submachine gun, or other selective-fire or fully automatic firearm that was not already registered and in civilian hands by 1986 — just to underline for the slow of thinking that “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” are two different things.

  33. avatarAccur81 says:

    Interesting idea, but to me the real problem is the Gun Free Zone. The next mass shooting is already being planned in a GFZ somewhere.

  34. avatarConker says:

    Honestly, I don’t have much hope with all the insane gun laws passing at the state level and the pending federal gun ban that has been proposed by DiFi. They have shown that they want all of our guns and will continue to push/test these new laws until civilians are pushed back into the mid-1800′s of firearm technology (forget about those revolver shotguns though!). I believe this to be unacceptable and unconstitutional, and trying to reach a “mutual point of agreement” is exactly what they want. They will keep pushing this mutual point with each new wave of bills until we are disarmed.

    There was no compromising listed on our constitution or our bill of rights, and with over 50 firearm laws currently in effect, I think compromising needs to stop, immediately. They are very keen on banning up to 90% of modern day firearms, that is pushing towards making guns contraband. You know what my response is? Lift the 1934 NFA ban and allow the law-abiding civilians to own ALL firearms including fully automatics and short-barreled long guns. We have them a piece of our admendment back then and yet they still hunger for more control, pushing the boundaries more and more. Well I say screw them. We have compromised for almost 80 years and yet they still want more.

    By pushing for the NFA to be lifted, this will show the politicians and the public that we still stand for our god given rights and that We the People run this country, not them. We grant them their power and reserve the right to remove it, but unfortunately they have used their position of power to terrify the American people into believing that their rule is all.

    Our second admendment grants us the use of military grade firearms yet we have been limited to semi-automatics for too long. Yes, with the proper paperwork, funds and approvals you can attain a “class 3″ weapon but they have added so many legal barricades that you have to be a rich man with the patience of a saint to acquire on. Surely I can’t be the only one that feels this way? Compromise they say? Well, we have and it has gotten us no where. Give up the guns for the children they say? Well, we’ve given up plenty of guns (especially post-control states like CA and NY) and yet children are still suffering from our lack of means to protect them. But the UK has almost no firearm homicides they say? Well they also have 5x the violent crimes and almost 4x the rape, I’d rather have criminals killing criminals than have our innocent women and children getting raped. That’s ludicrous in my opinion.

    I say it’s time we get all of our rights back and push for a removal of the National Firearms Act. Maybe it will help them get their priorities straight and focus on improving national security by other means. Just my two cents.

  35. avatarAl says:

    While I dont agree with all of the points made in the article, I do agree that this is a good time to strike. A good offense is the best defense. We can sit around saying “no, no, no” or we can propose solutions we think will make things better.

    Making background checks available to anyone could be made to work. It would make people feel better, and it wouldnt inconvenience anyone. Add to the bill the creation of a Trusted Citizen program. We have a Trusted Traveler program via which you can enter this country with no interaction with a Customs person, just check in at an ATM like machine. Why not a Trusted Citizen program? Pass the requirements and skip using an FFL for purchases, skip BS on SBRs/suppressors/AOWs, get universal carry.

  36. avatarKY1911 says:

    I like the authors idea…that works.

    And I’m real sorry to have to point it out, but all the no compromise Molon Labe BS that I see in the comments here and elsewhere online is the signal that you’ve lost the argument. When your only answer is “no” you margininalize yourself in any productive (and in this case protective) conversation. You are simply making their job easier by confirming your own irrationale behavior in their eyes.

    I love guns and shooting and hunting. I love my ARs and my standard cap mags. And I think it’s a damn shame that normal gun folks are demonized. But the only way to win is through cool calculating reason and facts. And I’m sick to death of this ‘cold dead hands’ nonsense…because frankly that’s what your going to get unless the gun crowd starts playing these political games a bit more responsibly.

    • avatarMoose says:

      The thing is, you give an inch, they take a mile. If we knew they’d stop at that inch, we would likely jump on the chance. Knowing they’d take that mile, we cannot risk it.

      • avatarBrian says:

        My argument is that politically we may face a case where either we have to give an inch but get to take an inch somewhere else, or we end up just having to give the inch. Neither is good, but one is better.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      because frankly that’s what your going to get unless the gun crowd starts playing these political games a bit more responsibly.

      Well you’ve already stated that you think being “responsible” means agreeing to unconstitutional bans. Sorry, but your word is worth less than dog crap to me after that BS.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I’m sure he’s going to cry himself to sleep tonight knowing that you disapprove.

        Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Right, you and the other cowards have lost your nerve and are switching to “preemptive surrender”, but there’s something wrong with me for saying we shouldn’t sell out our rights merely because some of us lost the nerve to demand our representatives respect our rights and the Constitution.

  37. avatarTman says:

    Brian: Thanks for a really good piece. My response: The only discussion that should take place in the House is on the UCBS, and yes, do it in a way that makes the Democrats choke on it. Assuming that the AWB is DOA, that leaves the mag limit ban. Under no circumstances should this even be under discussion. Yes, the GOP is in a bad place right now, but it’s in a bad place on a lot of issues, and surrendering is not the way to move forward. And even agreeing to have a discussion mag limits is surrendering because the entire mag limit “issue” is idiotic. We should not be having a “compromise” discussion on something that is idiotic, particularly when it will not reduce crime, or deter maniacs, or make any gun less lethal. This is how the whole damn Dem agenda keeps getting pushed forward — inch by bloody inch, with the GOP always willing to “compromise” and the Dems only willing to demagogue.

  38. avatarschizuki says:

    No Republican (or Democrat) will lose his seat opposing a mag limit. Not one.

    Several will lose their seats going along with one.

    That said, the 30 round limit sounds like a nice win/win cover. Hey, the grabbers said they want compromise. They started at 10 rounds, we started at 100. 30 is a nice compromise.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      50 would be a better compromise (not that we should compromise on anything – especially since it’s not a “compromise” when we’re the only ones giving up anything). I’ll beat someone with a crowbar if I get screwed out of getting a PS90 with a stock 50 round magazine.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Well, at least you aren’t planning on shooting them.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Of course not, that only pushes the anti-second amendment agenda. I only use blunt or sharpened objects for harming people – Democrats have agreed those are acceptable methods of killing.

  39. avatarPowers says:

    I think that the state’s AWB’s are unconstitutional. I can’t imagine a state placing a limit on how many words you can say in a day or have a predetermined vocabulary which you are allowed to use. I see state AWB’s the same way. But that’s just me. If anything passes or not, they will continue to go after the 2nd Amendment forever.

    This compromise I have often thought of would never happen, but it is only a dream. Get rid of the Hughes Amendment and I wont mind giving up mags over 100 rounds. In a twisted sort of way, with the right media and talking points, I think that compromise would be possible. But it would never be offered. Think of the Liberals claiming a win by banning those “super high capacity” magazines, and because they will be banned then it is OK to repeal the Hughes Amendment. Which was crap anyways…
    Just my dreams..
    I really absolutely hate to give. The Bill of Rights is clear and those rights cannot be legislated away by anyone in this current time. Or without some serious legal and political action. I do not want to give anything. I want to fight. And I will continue to call my representatives to remind them that they swore to uphold the Constitution. Not dismantle it. The big thing is how conservatives have lost the information wars. And that is costing us our Rights. If I had an inside read on what’s going on in DC, maybe I could think about needing to compromise or not. But I get a bad feeling when thinking about compromising ANY of out rights.

  40. avatarmacgearailt says:

    Brian you have contributed immensely to the dialog, your suggestions are substantive and deserve our thoughtful and deliberate consideration. We are assailed on every front, in the media with its reach and control of the message, in the legislatures around the nation as they gather steam and testimony as to why we shouldn’t have what is ours by right, on the street corner where our positions and love of the Constitution is an anomaly in many parts of our nation. The antis are in the perimeter and all we can say is NO. This set of modest proposals offers all of us more options than I’ve seen here or for that matter anywhere else. We give a beat down Republican Party something to say that will not elicit a knee jerk reaction of ridicule. We appear to be giving up something and indeed we are, however I view the gains nationally to outweigh the concessions.
    Imagine the citizens in California and New York and the citizens of every other repressed state having their rights long denied; restored.
    We are up against it; we better Stand To. We must repulse this onslaught on our rights.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Well there’s a nice joke, you think we should follow Brian’s idea of preemptive surrender (maybe his family is French?) and then say “We must repulse this onslaught on our rights.”.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        You know (well, clearly you don’t, as evidenced by your replies in this thread), but it’s perfectly possible to disagree, even vehemently, without being an asshole.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          I’m sorry that you think we should be kind to those trying to take away our rights. You must be from Canada where instead of telling a burglar to FOAD you say “I’m sorry, would you mind not murdering me and stealing my valuables, please?”

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          This is what I’m talking about. Every disagreement has to be accompanied by an ad hom, apparently.

          Why must I be from Canada? Nevermind that you and I have both been around long enough that you ought to know better.

          I’m not sure if I should be offended, or if Canadians should.

          You get an ad hom. And you get an ad hom. And you get an ad hom. And you, you get two! I’m feeling generous. Keep watching, folks, I may actually make a cogent point eventually, once I’m done handing out abuse!”

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Heh.

  41. avatarmacnorfin says:

    I kind of agree with the gist of this article. If us gunners do have to accept something, at least let the something be on our terms. One compromise that’s possible for universal background checks is the system they use in PA: NICS checks for private handgun transfers (except family) but no checks for long arms. This at least has the virtue of maybe cutting down on illegal handgun trafficking without curtailing collectors or hunters.

  42. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Better yet attach national reciprocity, and make 49 rounds the maximum.
    Ok ok even if we make 30 rounds the standard attach national reciprocity to it. It will make them go nuts!
    As far as “common use” 30 round magazines are everywhere, as is the AR, and AK platform. So based in Heller we have a case. I honestly don’t know anyone who uses a 100 or 200 round drum. I am not saying they don’t have a purpose or are great to blast away your paycheck at current ammo prices, but if we think logically. If we are going to give up something, even 100 round drums, lets get something in return.

  43. avatarJoseph says:

    This would be a great idea if the principle of State’s Rights wasn’t among our Nation’s founding principles. Supporting such “legislative judo” is one of the things that most of us, or at the very least myself find so onerous about our current political elite up in Washington.

    No matter the short term gains doing something like that would set a dangerous precedent. Such a legislation would establish that “it’s ok for us to expand the federal government, as long as it benefits our agenda.” Which is the primary issue that, again I in particular have with the current crop of politicians and the mainstream news media etc.

  44. avatarRKBA says:

    “…shall not be infringed.”

    That is a period at the end.

    No More Compromise.

    (again, another period)

  45. avatarMauser says:

    Settling for a 30 round magazine capacity limit instead of a 10 round limit is not compromise. Look up the definition of compromise in the dictionary.

    Compromise, noun – An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

    What are we getting in return for our ‘compromise’? NOTHING. It’s take, take, take. When the next Sandy Hook happens they’ll want more. Agreeing to ‘only’ a 30 round limit is like negotiating with a house burglar by letting him take a few things instead of robbing your entire house. He’ll just keep coming back again and again, taking a little more each time, until there’s nothing left.

    Here’s my idea for compromise. You want a 30 round magazine limit? Fine. We want silencers reclassified as Title 1 firearms. You want to go to a 20 round limit? OK. We also want national right-to-carry reciprocity in addition to the silencers. 10 rounds? FOAD

    • avatarBrian says:

      In fairness, we would get something, we would get 30 rounds across the board, no state based AWBs, and (to the extent required) a UBCS that doesn’t completely suck.

      The other issue is under different circumstances I would never suggest it, but under these circumstances our next best alternative may be worse.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Apparently you didn’t make it simple enough for the more stressed-out commenters to grasp before the panic set in.

        • avatarMauser says:

          It was more than simple enough to understand. The suggestion is that we get no state-based AWBs in trade for the mag cap limits. The problem with this is that most states do not and may never have state AWBs. What do residents of these states get out of the deal? I wasn’t necessarily suggesting Brian’s idea was completely out in left field, but it is a concession for all gun owners without a benefit in return to all of them.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        In fairness, we would get something,

        No Brian, it’s not “fair” and “we” aren’t getting anything. You who choose to live in freedom hating states get something and those of us who make wise decisions regarding where we live get to take it in the ass.

  46. avatarRoadrunner says:

    I’m old enough to remember the thrashing the Democrats got in 1994 for passing the first assault weapons ban. They lost the Senate and the House they’d held for 40 years. Probably most of them are old enough to remember it too, as are the Republicans who’ll get bounced in 2014 if they go along with this one. Frankly, I’m fed up with being the side that always has to compromise. How about we dare them to pass it while we start hoarding tar and feathers over the next two years?

  47. avatarMerits says:

    I appreciate the outside the box thinking, but I’m unwilling to play by their rules, through tactics of manipulation of political process to achieve a relative victory, especially through giving the Feds more power. It’s time to stand on principle and what is right under the constitution, and scale back the overreach on firearms that already exists.

  48. avatarPulatso says:

    To accept a ban of magazines greater than “x” is to accept the premise that mag limits are good, we just need to agree on a number. And I don’t. And won’t vote for a politican that does.

  49. avatarjimbthepilot says:

    I live in Texas. I should now consent to become less free so that those in Kalifornia, Messo’2$hits, and Blue York can be more free?
    I don’t think so.

  50. avatarda_courtz says:

    No. You are understandably concerned and in reaction you are grasping at straws to get as good of a bad deal as you can, I understand, but I disagree.

    What we need to do is continue to fight. If a mag cap limit gets set at 10, I believe we will be in a stronger position based on Miller and Heller to have it overturned. Whereas if we have a mag cap limit of 30, it is harder to fight that in court since most of the military stops at 30, and most civilians have 30 in common use. Thus, 33 round glockers and 50 round PS90ers will be out of luck.

    • avatarda_courtz says:

      Also, we should only accept 30 if we restrict our own military to 30. Come to think of it, we should probably restrict the military to 3-rd bursts and give that to us as well.

  51. avatarTRUTHY says:

    IF THEY GET 10 ROUNDS, NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE 7, AND SO ON AND SO ON.

  52. avatarChuck says:

    Yea, no.

  53. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Or we can be like the monkey who’s grasped a date in the monkey trap, so don’t let go of that pet date, I always try not to, Randy

  54. avatarC says:

    If i thought they’d leave us the hell alone, i would accept a 30rd mag limit, but they wont.

    • avatarBrian says:

      True, but nothing says we have to leave them alone either.

      Something I should have been more clear on is that this does not, and should not, be the law for ever and ever amen, this is making the best of a bad situation, scoring some victories where we can, and then hopefully improving upon it after the madness passes.

  55. avatarDuke says:

    This is a terrible, weak idea. It’s called appeasement. Maybe if we give Czechoslovakia to the Nazis they will be happy and leave us alone…nope – they want it all. The gun-grabbers will not be satisfied until they have confiscated every last gun.

    Besides that, whatever “the polls” look like they say, gun control is not a good way to get votes in America. Democrats were punished for the ’94 AWB and since then public opinion has certainly become much more pro-2A (how do you explain the wave of pro-CCW legislation across the country? It’s because the people demanded it.) Republicans will not lose their seats for holding the line against mag limits. They will lose their seats if they support such legislation.

  56. avatarSzymon says:

    No magazine limitations. No compromise. Never.

    If someone can be trusted with 10 rounds, then he can be trusted with 30+ rounds. If someone can’t be trusted with 30 rounds, then he shouldn’t be able to have 10 rounds either.

    You don’t make deals with your enemy, especially when those deals involve your personal liberties.

  57. avatarJohn says:

    How about we somehow elect a REALLY pro 2a POTUS. Then, he executive orders all gun laws down to nothing. To turn over a exec order, it has to be unconstitutional, yes? Could they rule more freedom unconstitutional?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      The last pro-2A president we had did more to diminish our civil liberties across the board than any president in history, including Obama.

      There are no easy answers.

  58. avatarTarrou (Joshua Grabow) says:

    It’s a sad day that sees me agree with Totenglocke. This is bullshit. Compromise will last as long as the next overhyped tragedy. Don’t go squiffy now. This is not the time to whinge and roll over, this is the time to hoist the black flag, in the words of Mencken. We have the hand on this issue, we can win it. Any spinelessness now will just mean more “compromise” in the future, and compromise only goes one way. I hear a lot of bullshit about this “compromise”. What exactly are we getting in return? You want to tell me we can legalize suppressors and SBRs if we accept 30-rd limits, thats a compromise. This is just abject and pitiful capitulation. Remember when I said the only litmus test for 2A supporters is to actually support the 2A? Well, now is the time to prove that.

    • avatarMamba says:

      ^This.
      To accept a little death is worse than death itself.” – Dune

      Sorry Brian, but I’m less optimistic than you about DiFi & Co even grudgingly “permitting” a 30rd mag limit. The grabbers have made it clear that they want more, but at a minimum they may settle for 10….for now. To suggest any kind of deal, and it would be a “deal”, not a compromise as has already been noted by others, is to acknowledge that we have lost this fight and that all we have remaining to us is damage control.
      Reflecting on my own martial training experience, it is true that you can’t always “out-muscle” an opponent. But you can focus your forces, side-step and precisely target a vulnerable area…without kissing the mat…or your opponent’s posterior.

  59. avatarchris says:

    it’s refreshing to see opinions like this rising to visibility in the community. let’s face it, the republican party is in shambles right now. house repubs are NOT guaranteed to vote “no” to things like a 10 round magazine cap limit. to think otherwise is SUPREMELY naive and in the end WILL sink us.

    is it our ideal? hell no! but like it or not we’re backed into a corner and EVERYTHING is at stake. THEY have the upper hand.

    we are NOT fighting for the opinions of the extremists. we are fighting for the opinions of those non-gun people in the middle politically. if they see us staunchly and stubbornly “clinging to our guns” without even the slightest inclination to “compromise” we have already lost them. BUT. if we can show them that we ARE willing to “work with the opposition” our chances in the long run are MUCH better. if we were to propose something like this, THEN we have the “moral high ground” to be able to say “hey, we’re willing to meet you in the middle on this.”. the non-gun public WILL see that and it WILL look good for us in their eyes.

    i KNOW it’s not in the spirit of the 2A to make a move like this, but to hold unswervingly to that POV is NOT a luxury we have at the moment.

    i FULLY support something like this and hope that more people will take a step back (into our current reality) and give it a second thought…

  60. avatarVidarr says:

    Sacrificing anything is a mistake. It is not compromise, it’s surrender. And every time we play the game, it makes it that much harder to stand up with credibility later. Look at what La Pierre is going through now. He used to support some measure being proposed (at least publicly) and now, people are calling him on his current opposition. Credibility. Surrender. Both are bad.

    Stand firm. Even if we lose a battle, we can still fight and push back. The current energy will fade as people go back to their reality TV, Twitter, and Facebook.

  61. avatarDennis says:

    Not just no, but HELL NO. No more compromise. That’s how we got here now. We have the upper hand on this if you think about all the gun sales that happened & are still going strong, as long as each purchase equals a vote. Every gunowner needs to get some backbone for the real battle that’s just around the corner. I’m talking about the UN gun grab. Obama will sign it & that is when the po-p hits the propeller. Repub congress people know what they need to do, our fight is coming in a few months.Grow some backbone.

  62. avatarVidarr says:

    Defeatism like I see the author advocating here is exactly what the anti-gun playbook has advocated from the beginning. Imagine the conversation went something like this: “We’ll scare them by wanting to ban everything, confiscate things, and outlaw the stuff out there. Then, after letting ‘em sweat, we’ll shave the list down to two or three things, then hit them with that. Make ‘em feel like they sacrificed something tiny to save the rest. I mean, it worked when we passed the Brady Law. And the last AWB was passed the same way. Hell, the NRA helped us last time. We scared the crap out of them.”

    Stand strong. Let them blink.

  63. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    We’ve given up enough already. No more, not another inch. “Compromising” for 30 just means it will be 20 the next time.

  64. avatarDanner says:

    No more anti-gun laws! Nothing! The time to draw the line in the sand is NOW. We will not comply with any new gun laws, none. If they want them make them come and take them. Grow some balls people. MOLON LABE.

  65. avatarGman7.62 says:

    After reading and considering both sides, I’ve come to this conclusion. Totenglocke, you need to go upstairs and TAKE YOUR F***ING RITALIN. Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, reading your comments is like listening to a retard trying to explain quantum physics. When ADULTS debate, we present our views in a civil manner based off of facts. CHILDREN, on the other hand sit and scream and call people names because they are too IGNORANT to know any better. So please, for the sanity of everybody on this forum, STFU

  66. avatarJim Mapes says:

    Given the structure of most firearms and practical feeding concerns 30 is a reasonable bar. But for some firearms its not practical, ie I have 2 Calico 9mm cabine/pistols. They use a helical magaizine mounted horizontally on the gun. Grandfathered I’d be ok, but due to the design smaller magazines aren’t terribly practical for it, because the spares are so damn big and have to fit the gun. Similar a Thompson was designed for a drum, having a drum that big with fewer rounds isn’t practical as a spare is a monster.

    The last issue is, those mondo big drums on most firearms are prone to jams – the military only uses 1 or 2 varieties that are proven, the rest are crap. If someone is going to try to do a mass shooting, I’d rather they take a 90 round drum that fails in 20 shots than a dozen 10 round magazines that won’t (fail).

Leave a Reply

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