Politico has a copy of the post-Safeway Massacre high-capacity magazine-banning bill floated by New York Congressional Representative Carolyn McCarthy. (Thanks for the pdf/link guys.) The proposed legislation “goes further than than the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, outlawing the sale or transfer of clips that hold more than ten rounds, even those obtained before the law takes effect . . . The bill closes a loophole in the expired assault weapon ban that let gun owners buy high-capacity magazines made before the ban took effect in 1994. The bill carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.” Speaking of “excess” lead, this bill’s a lead balloon . . .

“The bill faces an uphill climb in the new Republican-controlled House,” Politico reports with unconscious British understatement. “An aide to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it’s unlikely that he would support it.”

One more thing, while we’re here . . .

Gun control is a personal matter for McCarthy, whose husband was murdered and son seriously injured in 1993, when a disturbed gunman opened fire on a Long Island commuter train. Like the alleged Arizona shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman who killed McCarthy’s husband also used a high-capacity magazine.

No, he didn’t. Although spree killer Colin Ferguson fired 30 rounds from a Ruger P-89 9mm on that fateful day, he used two standard capacity, fully-legal 15-round magazines. FWIW.

Recommended For You

17 Responses to High Cap Mag Bill: 11 Rounds = 10 Years in Jail

  1. I don’t have any expectation that this will pass. Nevertheless, first thing Monday morning, I ordered those two 33 round Glock magazines I’d been wanting for my Sub-2000. And from media accounts, a great many other people are thinking the same way.

  2. Bans the sale or transfer of mags made before the law goes into effect? Hmm, I distinctly remember the Constitution stating that the congress shall not pass ex post facto laws. Good thing this law is DOA in commitee.

    • Remember the “Lautenberg Act”? That made citizens convicted previously for “domestice violence” charges ineligible to buy or possess a firearm. It cost the military a lot of people and law enforcement agencies were “required” to dismiss officers who had these convictions in their past. If a person has paid the fine and or done the time then their “rights” should be restored. If they cannot be rehabilitated then keep them locked up until they die. Second offense maybe?

  3. Lord Felix, if you think Congress can’t pass ex-post facto laws, I suggest you do some research on the “Lautenberg Amendment.”

  4. The future criminalizing of high cap mags that are now legally owned would not make it an ex post facto law. A law making it a crime to have owned such mags before its passage would be ex post facto. In other words, a new law cannot criminalize old conduct. That’s what ex post facto means — after the fact.

  5. FYI, Carolyn McCarthy’s husband was killed and her son wounded by the LIRR murderer. Those are the sum of her “acomplishments” in public life.

  6. I don’t get this. So a loon can’t get high cap mags (supposedly) if this bill passes? Wouldn’t he simply use two guns and have another two hidden on his person? I just think this is silly.

  7. This goes beyond a 2nd amendment issue. This the government take away your property without due process. I doubt that this will pass, and it would be a pretty easy challenge in court as written.

    • Lance, they would just mandate a “reasonable price” for the mags and it would sail right through the courts. Of course “reasonable” means different things to different people. You may not want to sell at $500 while the gov says $30 is the price. you either accept the gov’s price or bury your mags.

  8. What sad lady does have clue that handgun use magazines. Rifle mostly bolt action use clips m1 grand. Main stream media seem just stupid over that face becuase Abc Nbc all other media keep call hand gun magazines clips. Living in place that stuck 10 round magazine sillyness California. I can say this it does make state any safer becuase your only allowed have 10 round in your gun. Goes for any other stupid gun laws that California passed make state safer. Imagen how much suck they made rest counrty like California.

  9. Democrat Dictionary:
    Loophole [loop-hohl] or (ˈluːpˌhəʊl)
    –noun
    1) freedom

    Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation.
    Legislators want to eliminate that “loophole”

    Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

    NOT every wacko uses this or that gun or magazine or knife.
    Every single one of these crazies trying to kill others wears shoes They help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and sometimes are used in escapes. Ban shoes.
    (The TSA and airports will be safer too)

  10. “How many hurricanes, evacuations and aftermaths or other natural disasters have you been through to know what I “need”? Not as many as I have? Then I’m a better judge of that than you are, dontcha think?

    Also, how many of those OPTIONS in your car do you NEED … oh? you found a loophole? You do want us to decide what YOU “need” too right? Got any ice cream in your freezer? Please justify why you “need” it … I’m drafting a bill…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *