3 Reasons Why 7-Round Mag Cap Limits Are Good for Gun Rights

 Glock 30SF with seven rounds (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

New York lawmakers consider ten-round ammunition magazines a bad, bad thing. The recently enacted SAFE Act reduces the legal maximum number of cartridges (a.k.a., bullets) to seven. Come April 15, Empire State gun owner can no longer buy a ten-round magazine. Nor can he or she load a pre-ban ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds. The “thinking” behind the seven-round law is as convoluted as it is capricious . . .

If a spree killer has three less cartridges in his gun there could be three less lives lost when he starts murdering innocent children. By the same token, the measure could (in theory) limit the lethality of gang bangers, armed robbers and other n’er do wells.

Also, reloading takes time. Not much if you know what you’re doing. Hardly any, really. But lawmakers would have their constituents believe as they do (apparently) that the time a madman/criminal spends reloading is “extra” time for innocents to escape and rescuers to intervene.

Of course, that’s assuming the madman/criminal uses a magazine that only holds seven rounds. The logic also assume that he/she/they don’t fully load an illegal ten round magazine, of which there are literally millions in circulation. Or use a higher capacity magazine, of which there are literally millions in circulation.

What are the odds that three rounds will be the difference between life or death for someone on the wrong end of a madman/criminal’s gun? Slim? None? Of all the “crime fighting” measures lawmakers could have added to their unconstitutionally enacted civilian disarmament legislation the seven-round limit is easily the most absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Which brings us to the first of three reasons why New York’s seven-round magazine capacity law (coming soon to a New England state near you) is good for gun rights.

1. Seven-round mag cap laws reveal the “gun control” lobby’s true intentions

Unlike New York state’s freshly minted laws regarding background checks, ammo sales registration and “assault weapons,” no one in their right mind could possibly argue that the seven-round limit is anything other than an infringement upon lawful gun owners’ Second Amendment protection.

The limit sends a clear message to millions of law-abiding gun owners: we (the state) control your guns. Not you. We decide how, when, where and why you can defend yourself, your family and your community. Not you. If we say you can only load your magazine with seven bullets, what we say goes.

As will Americans’ gun rights, eventually. The mag cap limit is a blatant—and so far successful—attempt to chip away away at American citizens’ firearms freedom until it’s gone. Which is, clearly, the mag limit backers’ plan.

2. Seven-round mag cap laws waken the sleeping giant

I’m no intellectual powerhouse. If I can figure out that a seven-round magazine limit does nothing to fight crime and everything to promote a civilian disarmament agenda so can every single gun owner in the United States. But it’s more than that.

The seven-round magazine capacity limit is literally taking bullets from their gun. It’s the government directly and capriciously reducing gun owners’ ability to defend themselves, their family and their community. And that’s pissing them off.

Sure New Yorkers (and residents of Massachusetts, Hawaii and other states) “agreed” to a ten-round magazine capacity limit. It’s just as non-sensical and a seven-round limit. But there is a point at which Americans say enough to their government. The ten-round mark is it.

To wit: at a recent meetings with the law enforcement officials tasked with implementing the SAFE Act, hundreds of NY gun owners showed up, in person, to voice their anger. Would they have made the scene if  the Act was “just” about the ban on transferring modern sporting rifles in-state (including the gun owners’ progeny)? Sure.

But the seven-round mag cap limit gives New York gun owners the moral impetus to get off their asses and fight for their rights. And it places them on the moral high ground. It also shows out-of-state gun owners that the push for gun control is not about any particular type of weapon. It’s about civilian disarmament. Seven rounds? I’m not going to stand for that.

No. No they’re not.

3. Seven-round mag cap laws enable civil disobedience

Let’s say you want to protest a state or federal ban on assault weapons. What are you gonna do, show up with a modern sporting firearm on your back? If you do and get arrested all of the people who don’t own guns are going to say “Thank God they arrested that gun nut!” BUT—

If thousands of people show up at NBC with empty 30-round AR-15 magazines—an inert piece of plastic and metal—how’s that going to go down? If the cops arrest all of them that won’t look good for the government. If they don’t it will empower the gun rights movement and spark similar protests in exactly those states where gun rights are most under threat.

In short, the seven-round magazine limit law is a gift to gun rights advocates. Americans who seek to defend and extend their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms can use it to highlight the true motives of their aspiring oppressors, to beat back the efforts of unmasked gun grabbers, hoisting them by their own petard.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

80 Responses to 3 Reasons Why 7-Round Mag Cap Limits Are Good for Gun Rights

  1. avatarWilliam says:

    NEXT: 3 Reason Why Gun Control is Good for You.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I was actually hoping for a full-blown Dr. Strangelove parody:

      7-Round Mag Cap Limits Are Good For Gun Rights, or:
      How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love 7-Round Mags

      • avatarDavid Wright says:

        Are you people nuts??? How is a mag cap or any other gun restriction stop crime, when criminals get there weapons off the black market. And dont forget Department Of Homelands Securities studies, and CDC’s studies on gun violence. Gun violent related crimes are down to 3.6%. We havent had that low of gun related crime since 1962!!!! The 2nd Admendment was put into this countries Bill of Rights to ensure that the government would be run by the people, for the people!! With out the 2nd, this rest dont mean squat!! You really need to listen to what our government is trying to due to are basic constatutional rights, WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
        NRA LIFE MEMBER
        Disabled Orlando Fire Dept

        • avatarBill Clinten says:

          What idiot would want to live in the Communist State of NY.

        • avatarjaredh says:

          Come on now, I thought everyone knew that ALL spree killers, murderers of innocent children, gang bangers, armed robbers and other n’er do wells are law abiding citizens who will follow whatever laws they set. One good thing about living in Utah is our awesome gun laws.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      NY schmuck cops just arrested a four-tour injured veteran and charged him with five felonies for having five 30-rounders in his trunk.

      A while back said decorated veteran had a write up in a NY paper about his efforts to help other injured vets in aqua therapy but now he’s a criminal looking at five felony charges. I hope asshole Cuomo is proud of himself.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/1/miller-ny-vet-arrested-30-round-magazines-part-1/

  2. avatarWilliam says:

    3 Reasons Why Being Halfway Down the Slope is Better Than Being at the Top or the Bottom.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Here’s the thing. The first big incident where the shooter uses 10 or 20 NY compliant mags will spur these douche bags to add limitations to the number of 7 round mags you can have in your possession. It’s a never ending process. They won’t be satisfied until everybody has their trigger finger removed.

      • avatarStevieP says:

        And then they’ll try to ban thumbs!

        • avatarMark Harder says:

          That’s why the authorities at the federal, state, and local levels should be held to account for these actions ASAP. As you point out, eventually their legal dodges will amount to the denial of all our 2nd Amendment protections. When that happens, we will have our best chance of having the most recent restrictions undone, but if they are stopped now, their current violations of our rights and all future ones will be stopped.

  3. avatarChristian says:

    Don’t forget the resurgence of the 1911!

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      I know Californians who ditched their 9mm or .40 for a good old .45. “If I only get 10, make each one as big as possible.”

      At any rate, the main advantage of a semi-auto is high capacity (and fast reloads, but someone who is smooth with their speed loader can be almost as fast with a revolver). The 7 round count is a defacto ban on modern handguns.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      I use 10 round mags with my 1911. Luckily I don’t live in NY.

  4. avatarPulatso says:

    7 round mags do exist. 1911 standard mag, LC9 extended mag, XDs extended mag, Walther PPK standard mag, just to name four off the top of my head. I know you mean that they don’t exist for the majority of handguns, but that’s different than not existing.

  5. avatarblahpony says:

    Protests with empty illegal 30-round magazines? David Gregory can lead the charge.

  6. avatarJohn says:

    Do I get extra credit because my Glock 36 only holds 6? The inmates are running asylum, and we put them there…

    • avatarRob says:

      As another Glock 36 owner, I second the motion!

    • avatarjerry says:

      And Cuomo and company will easily win reelection

      • avatarRichard says:

        I Live in NY and no I do not believe Cuomo will be reelected he has pissed off to many New Yorkers not only citizens but Law enforcement professionals. His ratings in NY have been dropping and we New Yorkers who own our guns legally are not going to take this..

        • avatarDavid Steelman says:

          I hope you are right when you say Cuomo will not get re-elected, but given recent elections and the amount of fraud involving multiple voting and the majority of liberal voters in large urban areas I have to wonder. The best thing maybe start looking at other locations. Also business’s start abandoning N.Y. and move to more tax friendly states. N.Y.C. almost went bankrupt years ago and let the state follow suit. How can a state run with limited tax revenue.

  7. avatarLTC F says:

    This is more proof that the people who write these laws have no idea what they’re writing (You have to pass the bill to find out whats in it), and their goal is disarmament, not preventing crime. Remember gun control really means people control.

    Having said that, Di-Fi’s 10 round magazine limit in 1994 was a boon for concealed carry. Before her AWB the only real concealed carry options were a Colt Commander type pistol (5 or 6 rounds of .45), a snub nosed revolver (5 rounds of .38 Special, .357, or my favorite .44 Special) , or a handful of tiny pistols in insuffienct calibers like .380 (and with the ammo available in 1994, .380 was insufficient) .32 and .25.

    Thanks to the 10 rd limit instead of trying to figure out how to build a gun you could fit in your hand around a 14 rd magazine, like the Para Ordance P14.45, gun makers tried to figure out how small of a gun you can build around ten rounds, like a Glock 30.

    • avatarSaml Adams says:

      Funny, that was my first reaction. How much do you want to bet most sales in the state are either full sized 1911′s and variants or small, easily concealed semi-autos? That paradox was one of the questions I posed to my assemblyperson’s legislative aide, who pretty much gave the Ralph Kramden “hamada, hamada, hamada” answer. Not that she had a clue how any of the other control measures would statistically impact crime levels either–at least her ignorance was consistent. But apparently the legislation does a lot to “protect New Yorkers” or so she said.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Further to your point, quite a bit of unremarked progress has been made in firearms ergonomics to enable small-chassis firearms to effectively deliver higher-power rounds than was previously possible.

      For a long time, the strongest medicine you could get from a really concealable firearm was the (IMHO) relatively anemic .380 aka 9mm lite, because it just wasn’t possible to deliver accurate, controlled fire with stronger cartridges. These days you can get a Glock subcompact in .45ACP that’s quite controllable and not painful to shoot, which is a huge leap forward.

  8. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Interesting point of view.

    For those that are going to get all up in arms about RF saying it’s “good,” becalm yourself. He’s not so much saying it’s good as “use it.” When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      RF ain’t sayin’ it’s good, I think. He’s sayin’ they overdid it and there will be citizen and judicial blow back. Seems likely enough.

    • avatarDucky says:

      That made me think of this.

      • avatarDucky says:

        Is there a way to link a youtube without embedding it?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Only by manually entering the html, thusly:

          Derp, that didn’t work.

          For some stupid reason, in their last update WordPress removed the checkbox on the back end to have the option of having YouTube videos either display inline or as links, and they’re all forced to inline now if you just paste in the url. The only way to force them all back to inline is with a plugin or some back end coding, neither of which this site apparently has.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Zip.

          <a href="http://youtu.be/f2vNuaBQNKE">http://youtu.be/f2vNuaBQNKE</a

          Yeah, that line is supposed to end with another closing caret, but it’s not showing up for whatever reason.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Yes. Plug the link into tinyurl.com, post the result and tell people it’s a YouTube link. Takes 10 extra seconds.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I like that even better. Some browsers even have plugins to automatically do tiny.url or goo.gl links.

  9. avatarRebecca says:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=34a_1317870586 – California compliant gun safe (humor)

  10. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    NY is just playing at this point, as said , this is just to piss off gun owners. Its guberment trying to show who’s boss. They sure have trouble grasping the “public servant” thing, all public. BTW, I’ve got 7 round mags in my S&W 4516, shh, don’t tell coma, Randy

  11. avatarTS says:

    Here’s hoping that reason #4 is that the SCOTUS throws out this limit because it fails the common use standard set in Heller.

  12. avatarmountocean says:

    I don’t think the majority of Americans (even gun owners) will jump up and start fighting becasue of your first two points; as much as I agree with your rationale. But I do see great potential, that will lead to understanding of 1 and 2, in civil disobedience. I long ago decided to NOT carry in federal buildings, airports, my kids school, etc because the cost of civil disobedience in exercising those rights taken from me in the past would have been too high. But not turning in my 12 rnd mags or loading my 8 rounder to 8+1 is very simple and something I’m absolutely comfortable resisting with do to the rediculousness and recentness of the infringement. This will be a great way to build momentum and bring the dialouge back to fundamental rights, logic, and the anti’s true intentions.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      Idea.
      Remember the single shot mass produced guerrilla pistols make by US govt durring WWII and VietNam? Liberator pistol and Deer Gun. It would be rediculously simple to mass produce 11 round magazines (or 8) that are only barely functional enough to count as a violation. The sten gun of the second amendment.

  13. avatarNelson says:

    Actually there is truly one reason why the tyrannical NY SAFE Act is a ‘good’ thing for gun rights: WHEN a lawsuit moves forth against it, the SCOTUS, even in their post ObamaCare ineptness & Constitutional cluelessness or intentional violation, shall declare it utterly UnConstitutional, as 13~19rd mags are now common in most modern pistols as is the ubiquity of AR/AK-patterned guns; it shall, effectively, once and for all, render ALL ammo-capacity limit/standard capacity mag and “assault weapons” ban, all null and void.

    Next up?

    A full abolition of the ever UnConstitutional criminal terroristic Fed agency, the ATF.

    Then, followed by a full repeal of the NFA (particularly, as per Miller vs. US, which clearly states that 2A covers all weapons with “military lineage,” which should frankly make ALL weapons including SBS, SBR, silencers/suppressors, and select-fire/full-auto machine guns, ‘legal’ as what weapon technology hasn’t been deployed by the military??), GCA (ask Sen. Dodd whose attorney father tried the Nuremberg Tribunal, in which the translated Nazi text origin for the GCA of 1968 which NRA crafted, can be directly traced back to), FOPA, Brady (NICS) et al.

    In some twisted fate of poetic justice, the gun/people-control faction’s overzealous ‘go for broke’ political opportunism will lead to the concrete death of their own efforts: their current trajectory will in fact nullify ALL gun control ‘laws’ in perhaps 2~7 yrs.

    Who knows, if the currency collapse or the overt policestate don’t occur in the next 10yrs, all gun control laws can, in fact, become null and void, at this rate.

    But, even if with the ever continuing policestate, when NDAA of 2012 & 2013 & ‘Patriot’ Act & TSA at your local intersection check point abuses become more and more blatant, the rest of the sheeple populace will quickly wake up to the Founders’ original intent for the 2A: a check on the tyranny of foreign, as well as the domestic govt. In fact, by then, the newly awakened sheeple would beat the gunnies in screaming ‘Tyranny!’ and ‘Constitutional Violation!’

    Too optimistic? Perhaps, but at the current historical trajectory, I cannot see how the hoplonphobes would ever prevail.

  14. avatarAccur81 says:

    I absolutely agree that the goal is disarmament. NY has “bravely” set the standard for gun and magazine control. Given their goals, and the goals of Feinstein/Yee/Holder et all, it is abundantly clear that incremental gun confiscation is well under way. Biden showed his opinion well by suggesting the double barrel shotgun. Because, really, we only need 2 shots.

    I hope that this law is broken sufficiently to the point where it can no longer be enforced. One of the many problems is that the media is unable to accurately report on criminal activities. We’ll have to trust TTAG and other sources where the bad guys ignored this law, or the good guys ran out of ammunition.

  15. avatarWilsontx says:

    Hate to split hairs here….

    Are 7 rounds an absolute or do they allow for +1 (one in the chamber)? I just want to be clear. We all know that they’re only looking out for our best interest and safety.

    If it’s an absolute, I hope the ammo manufacturers get on board and only sell boxes that hold multiples of 7. Nothing would be worse than buying a box of 50 and have one left over.

    • avatarNathanredbeard says:

      The ban is on magazines that hold more that 7. Once that +1 enters the chamber, it’s out of the magazine… but this is NY, they may come after you just the same.

      • avatarWilsontx says:

        I’m stuck here in Texas. The state and local government expects me to be responsible. Who will protect me from my pmags and high capacity (>16 oz) “Big Gulps”.

      • avatarmountocean says:

        IIRC, revolvers >7 are also banned. But I may be mixing my BillS. With all the BS that’s been introduced lately who know’s how they’re intrepret it.

  16. avatarRobert M says:

    Part of the reason the 7 is hitting below the belt is how many “hunting” riffle hold 10 rounds. Now the hunters are getting effected and it is no longer about “Assault Weapons” it is about the guns they actual own. They forgot they needed to divide the hunters from the sport shooters and hit most Gun Ownership.

    Thanks
    Robert

  17. It would have been good to specifically point out how it may polarize some of the pure hunters who have been sitting on the sidelines saying, “oh w/e it’s not my guns they’re coming after.” Now there is material evidence of that slippery slope we keep talking about. Your shotguns and hunting rifles may not be as safe as you think they are.

  18. avatar6 gunner says:

    So we should expect the next hard-to-obtain guns and ammo to be the Desert Eagle .50 AE and the S&W 500?

  19. avatarRandomhero says:

    Can you imagine if thousands of people went to the NY capital building and surrounded it entirely in standard capacity mags. Would be an epic protest.

  20. avatarRalph says:

    In states where the 7-round limit has been or will be passed, it will create an entire new group of lawbreakers who formerly were completely law-abiding. I think that’s just great.

    Every time the G passes a new law that criminalizes behaviors that were formerly legal, it alienates more and more people and creates more and more disrespect. Wonderful! We are all too respectful of our grasping octopus of a government.

    The Founders were criminals, too. And then they recalled that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And then they weren’t criminals anymore.

    • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

      Ralph’s right on target as usual. The “Sons of Liberty” were our hero’s, but the brit’s called them criminals. One man’s hero is another man’s terrorist, it just depends on what side you’re fighting for or against.

      • avatarBob says:

        Actually it depends on which side wins the war. History will always report that the winning side was right, and the losers were wrong.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Nailed it. Exactly right, Ralph.

  21. avatartdiinva says:

    The purpose of the seven round limit is to take away your ability to use your gun. The theory is that nobody is going to make a NY compliant magazine. However, as more states restrict magazines to seven rounds it will create a big enough market for 7 rounders. This will frustrate the intent of the law.

    It’s always a bad idea to create a felony that you can’t possibily enforce. Is the state of NY going to send law abiding citizens to jail over a magazine? Cuomo and co are betting that citizens will cave and hand them in. But what if they don’t? After all how are the police going to enforce this? A house to house search? So after abrogating the Second Amendment the State New York will have to do away with the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendmentw to make this work. This in itself is a good Constitutional lesson. Abrogate one of the ten, abrogate all of them.

    Finally, 1911 fanboys rule while Glocksters drool.

  22. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    This, if enforceable by State and Federal Pro Gun politicians could nullify all the gun bans the gov is pushing so hard for!!

     Re- Posted Juy 24, 2012
    The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
    The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
    The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
    Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
    The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
    During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
    The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
    Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
    “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
    The Honorable William Gordon
    Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

     

  23. avatarCA_Chris says:

    The law only exists to give more reasons to imprison people who have not committed any crimes.

  24. avatarfrankgon4 says:

    What if I own a S&W R8 ? 8 Shot .357 magnum revolver? Is it legal because it does not use magazines? :)

  25. avatarMark N. says:

    Given the haste with which the SAFE Act was enacted, and the total lack of any legislative hearing process, I have wondered all along if there is indeed any valid rationale at all behind the seven round limit. Aren’t we essentially speculating as to a rationale that the Legislature MIGHT have had? I am not suggesting that it is not fair to assume that the true intent was to disable the majority of firearms in the State, leaving only 1911s, revolvers and compacts or subcompacts still compliant with the law, unless manufacturers can ramp up production of compliant mags within the next year. Instead I am suggesting that the legislature has NOT expressed its rationale for the specific purpose of avoiding judicial scrutiny, relying instead upon a presumption of rationality, because it is fully aware that its rationale will not pass muster.

  26. avatarpat says:

    Telling a citizen they can only have seven rounds to defend their home?
    Evil libtards.

  27. avatarJunk Science Skeptic says:

    Lee Harvey Oswald’s full-manual rifle had a six-round drop-away clip. It has been fairly well documented that with his modest skill level, Oswald got at least three rounds into a moving target in less than 10 seconds. Allowing 10 seconds to stuff in a new clip, that works out to 12 rounds a minute.

    Factoring in the 20 minutes before police arrived in the Sandy Hook incident, that works out to 240 rounds discharged from a (manual) bolt action rifle, with only a six-round clip, prior to any intervention. That’s nearly ten rounds each for the 25 killed at the school.

    Please explain to me how limiting clip/mag capacity and banning semi-automatic weapons would have reduced the death toll in Sandy Hook.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I’m not disagreeing with your premise, but like so many things about Newtown, the initial reports were incorrect. The first police were on scene within 3 minutes of the 911 call.

  28. avatarMark Harder says:

    The capacity limits are also good for gun makers and sellers. If you need more firepower than 7 rounds, buy more guns! 2*7 = 14, and that’s more than 10 rounds. The strategy is already in practice by law-enforcement and security forces, who carry back-up weapons just in case.

    • avatarDavid Wright says:

      Your forgetting 1 HUGE THING, the government doesnt make us safe, we pay for there security!! WE DONT NEED THEM TO BE FREE, WERE ALREADY FREE!!! NO GOVERNMENT WILL EVER TELL ME WHAT GUNS RIGHT FOR ME OR MY WIFE!! Ive bin in the shooting sports for over 26 years, and have never seen an adminastration take such liberties with are fundumental RIGHTS!!

  29. avatarrichard says:

    Every one should start carrying 10 Mags……….

  30. avatarPatrick S. says:

    But the police did not enter the school for 15 minutes after arriving at the scene!

  31. avatarCrunkleross says:

    Would an inadequate education system be a defense to the charge of putting too many rounds in a magazine? The State didn’t properly teach me to count. Could this 7 round law be racist?

  32. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    “I’m as mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!”

    How about a pre-arranged act by every gun-owner we can reach. At some time (2100/4th July, anyone?) everyone lets off seven into something safe – say a sandbag if they’ve nothing else.

    Millions of angry shots in every time zone, audible everywhere – and with all the firecrackers and such, who’ll be able to fix blame?

    Civil disobedience.

  33. avatarBill Clinten says:

    My cousin knows a guy that knows Cumo well, and said he Como own several 15 mag glocks to protect his family.

  34. avatarHannibal says:

    Update: NY judge upholds Safe Act EXCEPT for 7 round ban.

  35. avatarAndy E says:

    Funnel effect gentlemen. Ban something here. Arrest people. Maybe people move to avoid the BS. Ban something there. Loophole laws suited for the big G, a landslide to the eventual. Big G buys up a crap load of ammo -uses mags with more than ten rounds- civil war erupts eventually. Too many hot button issues being beaten on. For now we are letting Lady Liberty roll over and take it from Uncle Sam.

Leave a Reply

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