House and Senate Democrats Introduce Federal ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban Bill

gun control magazine capacity limit

Bigstock

As we noted yesterday, this will be a week chock full of anti-gun posturing, pronouncements and virtue signaling. Thursday is the one-year anniversary of the Parkland school shooting, so the forces of gun control — politicians, the anti-gun advocacy orgs and their compliant media stenographers — are pulling out all the stops.

To wit, two federal legislators, Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Rep. Ted Deutsch of Florida, introduced a federal magazine capacity limit bill today. The legislation, complete with an appropriately Orwellian title, would outlaw all magazines in the US with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

As CNN reports . . .

The Democratic legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, would ban any magazine that exceeds 10 rounds of ammunition. The legislation, which has been dubbed the “Keep Americans Safe Act,” currently has no Republican cosponsors, one of many obstacles that would stand in the way of it advancing.
Still, on an issue that has consistently failed to advance in Congress and that many Democrats from more moderate or conservative districts don’t want to vote on, the proposal marks a significant development. It comes as Democrats control the House and it follows years of deadly shootings, many of which included guns with high-capacity magazines. Most of the recent legislative proposals related to gun control have focused narrowly on ways to improve background checks for gun purchases, and those have also struggled to advance.
Much to CNN’s chagrin.
Don’t look for the bill to get a hearing the Senate, let alone a vote. Still, like rust, the forces of gun control never sleep. Good times.

comments

  1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    propose all you want…none will get signed or passed…

    1. avatar L says:

      The scary thing is, though, that 51,498,759,135 attempts and only 1 success means it becomes law.

      1. avatar Gadsden says:

        Yep. And in a couple years it’s possible the dems will have all three branches. The dems are so radicalized now I have no doubt they’d use the nuclear option to ram this through the senate.

        1. avatar bmh says:

          Will they ever have 60 Senate seats? Unlikely.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          They’d need 67 to agree to change the rules so that the nuclear option was available for more than judicial and SCOTUS nominations.

          Rule XXII can’t be ignored without a 2/3rds vote to change the rules for legislation.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          They only need 51 as long as they do it at the beginning of session. No Congress can make a rule that binds the next sitting Congress.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “They only need 51 as long as they do it at the beginning of session. No Congress can make a rule that binds the next sitting Congress.”

          Incorrect. Senate Procedure and Rules do not change from session to session. The rules of the Senate stay in place unless the Senate agrees to change them which requires a vote of 67 “yeas”. If changed the rule stays changed until it is changed again by another 67 vote majority. That’s why the nuclear option remained after Reid no longer needed it.

          No Congress can bind a future Congress to legislation the previous one passed but procedural rules are not legislation. They remain as they are until changed by a 2/3rds vote in that chamber. Rule XXII, which governs cloture on legislation, has been in effect since 1917.

        5. avatar jbob says:

          BMH, yes they will have 60 senate seats. They’re working on a strategy that is focused on multiple states simultaneously with a core focus of turning one state at a time.

          Washington state is their current battleground and Seattle is the city they’ve been focusing on for the past eight years. Arizona and Texas are also in the process of being annexed along with Colorado.

          How it works, Soros and his cronies choose the most densely populated city and illegally dump a lot of money on the local Democrats to get and keep them elected. Those politicians then start creating a bunch of “social” programs that are designed draw homeless and drug addicts from all over the country while they start taxing the shit out of the lower middle class in those cities making it hard for those families to make ends meet and softening them up for socialist propaganda. At the same time they also start passing legislation that is unfriendly to business driving small and medium businesses out of business and making larger companies look for other places to expand while they shrink their footprints in those areas creating crushing the local economy.

          Over the long haul this drives the value of local real estate and other assets down making them ripe for purchase while at the same time creating a liberal foothold in what have traditionally been conservative states. In a few years you have a statewide democrat majority and eventually those Senate, Congressional and electoral votes turn Democrat.

          And no, I don’t see this as a Jewish conspiracy. It’s rich greedy asshole conspiracy and religion has nothing do with it.

        6. avatar DDay says:

          You can change the rules in the senate with 51. You do not need 67. Dems didn’t have 67 when they changed them in 2913, GOP didn’t have 67 when they changed them to confirm Gorsuch in 2017

      2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

        This… cannot stress this enough. We have to succeed 100% of the time to prevent this kind of shit from happening. They just have to charge the hill over and over until they get it right once. Then they move on to the next thing.

    2. avatar Alan says:

      If some legislative horror were passed, I don’t know how much, if anything, I’d be willing to bet on Trump not signing it, or vetoing a congressional enactment.

    3. avatar KMaiden says:

      I hope your words ring true. However, I’ll not hold my breath. No trust in any politican R, D or I.

    4. avatar Michael Gauthier says:

      I agree, i am not giving up anything. They will have to come and take it. It will cost them dealy.

  2. avatar Shane says:

    I would have to buy new mags for every semi-auto I own to be compliant. Both pistols and rifles. Not one meets their 10 round limit.

    1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      I have a 10 round mag for AR15, AK, and AR10 because it’s easier to sight in on a bench without a standard size mag sticking out but they’re crazy if they think I’m going to get rid of my pile of 25, 30, 40, and 50 rounders.

      1. avatar Robert says:

        Yes, if you use a “low” position on bench shooting, a shorter mag. is more convenient.
        With proper posture and a “high” position, larger mags are fine.
        IN ADDITION, if you are a target competitor using a hig-power rifle (such as an AR-15, or an M1-A) the 20 round magazine is better for 2 reasons:
        1. In the standing position, the mag becomes a palm rest.
        2. In the 200 and 300 yard rapid-fire stages, the longer mags make it easier to grab and remove so as to insert the new mag. — Those stages of fire require that 10 rounds be fired with a mag change all within 50 to 70 seconds (depending on the particular course of fire.) You must start with standing, drop down to sitting or prone, get into the proper position, fire 2 shots, change mag, and fire the other 8. — That’s not much time.

        1. avatar Squiggy81 says:

          Where do you get 20 round mags? Seems like all I ever see are 30s and 10s. If I find 20s, they’re ridiculously over priced. It would be nice to be able to use a bipod and not have the 30 rounders get in the way. I also like 20s due to the fact that most ammo boxes come as 20.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          20’s usually are a bit more expensive but they are fantastic for shooting uphill from a bipod or rest.

          Go run something like the Darin Fink SAC and if you’re carrying 30’s you’ll regret it.

        3. avatar Brian LaRose says:

          Been shotting high power for thirty years an still find my twenty rd mags a bit long on tne bench. Must be that I am not doing it
          “proper”

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Camp Perry circa 2004, for long range (single shot only, each round loaded individually) in military category, M1A was required to have 20-rd mag installed, although it was empty. I had to loan one to the guy next to me, all he owned was 10s.

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Looks like you could keep your existing mags in this round of legislation, but not buy, sell, or transfer them. Of course that is just a start…

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Even though there are over 40 million “high capacity” magazines in circulation, experts say that these magazine clips are bullets, and when you shoot them they’re gone so they won’t be there any more in the future. So eventually there won’t be any more high capacity magazine clips.
        https://youtu.be/IwnE-ubrVIY

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          The Bravo Sierra in their,the lefts knowledge on the subject of firearms could cost them more than legislative wrangling in the world of reality and they are to clouded by ideology to even realize it.

          On a side note Thanks For Bringing Back The Edit Function

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      You’re missing out on some cool pistols then. Not that you’d buy them because they’re less than 10 round capacity but they’re still pretty cool.

      *Pets Star BM*

  3. avatar Jeffrey Kretzler says:

    When will the people who are supposed to be protecting the constitution actually start protecting the constitution? If it is not “for the People” it should not be a conversation. All this talk about limiting my freedom of choice all while protecting illegal aliens is asinine. You either protect the constitution of the United States of America. The WHOLE THING!!! OR you are an enemy of the state and should serve jail time. You could always go live in china instead.

    1. avatar L says:

      The only ones who can protect the constitution are the people.

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        Ditto.
        Founders knew future leaders wouldn’t have the citizens freedom in mind as new laws get created and passed.

        If the Congress wants this, they should start with an example. Make the Capital police and Feds carry 10 round mags, pistols and long guns.

  4. avatar m. says:

    how about: NOYFB, d-suckers

  5. avatar jwm says:

    I’m so glad Trump is appointing justices and not hillary.

  6. avatar Mark N. says:

    Funny how they never mention that the Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      They don’t let the truth get in the way of the narrative.

    2. avatar Blkojo says:

      So they will shoot for five-round limits.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        That will be on the docket for next year’s legislature!

    3. avatar NoOneofConsequence says:

      The Parkland shooter did not use 10 round mags according to the official Parkland Commission Report. It reports that eight 30- and 40-round magazines were recovered at the scene. (Page 247)

      Here’s a link to the report if you choose to read it:
      http://www.trbas.com/media/media/acrobat/2018-12/70135058816260-12074125.pdf

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, which is correct?

  7. avatar James T Matters says:

    LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!

  8. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    That’s how libs get everything passed, keep bringing the same Bill’s up for a vote, change one word, and eventually people vote yes just to get rid of it. Works great for our legislature!

  9. avatar Alan says:

    Re this 10 round limit on firearm magazines, I wonder as to exactly where the seemingly magic number of 10 comes from. Anybody know or have an idea? I find myself curious.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      It’s the number some politician pulled out of their rectum, as you might have guessed. Apparently they didnt think they could jump right to their ultimate goal of a single shot .22.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      They didn’t want to drop into the single digits for fear that someone might points out that their IQ is the same as the number of rounds they think people should be allowed to have.

    3. avatar Adub says:

      I blame the Metric system! It’s a tool of the devil. This is America, damnit, and we are on the Imperial system. 12 round limits for everyone!

      But seriously, people just like round numbers.

    4. avatar Nunya Biznes says:

      “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun” — Bill Ruger to Tom Brokaw in 1992.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The number is unimportant. The goal is to establish governmental *authority* to decide any limit at all, since it does not currently exist nor is it Constitutional. They’ll point at the AWB including 10-rd limit, but no one paid any attention and everybody knew it would sunset. Once they feel the authority is established, anyone who thinks it will be increased should have himself committed, the final step will be guns which cannot be loaded *at all*.

  10. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    Better think of something else.

  11. avatar Bubba Ho Tep says:

    I am so damn confused by these “round magazines” they keep talkin about. Every magazine I’ve ever seen has been a rectangle!

    1. avatar william talaber says:

      Well, my drill instructors and range officers all referred to the metal container that fed ammunition to my M-14 as a magazine. Most gun experts refer to the same contraption as a magazine. Most make fun of ones who refer to magazines as “clips”; that’s what little girls use to hold their hair in place….

      1. avatar Benjamin McLeod says:

        My M1 Garand rifle uses 8-round clips. Drop a full clip into the magazine to load the rifle.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Correct, sir. Not a lot of miscreants using Garrands though. All the hysteria usually involves ar’s, ak’s, and Glocks.

    2. avatar DrDKW says:

      Well, don’t forget those round & ‘evil’ drum-magazines!
      I don’t think any are limited to 10 rounds though.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Cant afford to fill one!😆

    3. avatar Steve B says:

      Their push towards round magazines is actually a clever ruse by the democrats to try an end around to make all guns illegal or unusable. The logic behind it is that they figure nobody can fit a round peg in a square hole. 😉

  12. avatar Bob Percopo says:

    The Supreme courts needs to move on fully defining the second amendments protections now. We are getting whittled down inch by inch. Law abiding citizens are paying a high price for obeying the law while felons and lunatic flaunt it. Constitutional carry had s nice ring to it. Mr President. It’s time to act instead of talk

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Bob Percopo,

      Our President did act: he appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court which now seems poised, thanks to the case New York Rifle and Pistol Association vs. City of New York, to make the Second Amendment almost as strong and absolute as the Framers intended.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Pessimistic, but hopeful!

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        He also acted when he directed the ATF agency to rewrite regulation to restrict/ban previously legal property,for political reasoning in the bump stock ban.

  13. avatar Charlie says:

    Where are the republicans to introduce bills to repeal the NFA?

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The supposed Republican party has a high rate of the mental disease known as RINOISM and even if they didn’t they have No balls.

      1. avatar KJW says:

        In response to your other comment: The “7 rounds in a magazine” limit in NY didn’t stick because it’s so arbitrary but they just bumped it to 10. So the ban did indeed stick, just at 10 instead.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          However not the 7 as it was found to be ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS as is the states requiring A& C 10 rounds.

  14. avatar J says:

    I thought the Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines. Did they even read any of the mass shooter reports that the FBI has written to profile this Florida guy? No. Does not look like it. The schools, police, and FBI knew about him. Magazine capacity does not matter to the anti-2As. Even if, it was a single shoot rifle they would eventually want to ban them for too much magazine capacity.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      How ya think you’re gonna find out about his mags? They still wont say whether he had a slide fire or not. Kinda depends on who’s running the DOJ I guess.

    2. avatar NoOneofConsequence says:

      The Parkland shooter did not use 10 round mags according to the official Parkland Commission Report. It reports that eight 30- and 40-round magazines were recovered at the scene. (Page 247)

      Here’s a link to the report if you choose to read it:
      http://www.trbas.com/media/media/acrobat/2018-12/70135058816260-12074125.pdf

  15. avatar GunnyGene says:

    More spaghetti hits the wall. Eventually some will stick.

  16. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Even if crap like this passes. I will not comply. I will not register. I will not surrender to the state my property. If that makes me a felon, then I’ll be a felon. After a lifetime of being a cop.

  17. avatar Jeremy D. says:

    I dont understand how a lower magazine capacity is “safer”. Anyone wanting to harm a lot of people will just bring multiple magazines

    1. avatar Benjamin McLeod says:

      That is why California banned ARs (and other guns?) with replaceable magazines. The first work-around was the button magazine that required a “tool” to change the magazine; basically the magazine release button was omitted so that the user had to use the point of a bullet to reach through a hole to activate the release. I think those have also been banned now. I hope never to live in California.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        one could just fashion a ring with a bullet tip on it to enable faster reloads. Easy work around.

    2. avatar Ginder12 says:

      Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        So consequently, we should only be allowed 5 rounders. Makes sense to me????????

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          New Yorkistan tried that capacity limit and it didn’t fly with the court that tossed it out.

        2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          That’s why they all moved up here, thought they had a better shot.( pun intended).

      2. avatar NoOneofConsequence says:

        The Parkland shooter did not use 10 round mags according to the official Parkland Commission Report. It reports that eight 30- and 40-round magazines were recovered at the scene. (Page 247)

        Here’s a link to the report if you choose to read it:
        http://www.trbas.com/media/media/acrobat/2018-12/70135058816260-12074125.pdf

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          The ” pertinent ” fact is that he should’nt have been walking the streets with the rest of us in the first place. Civil rights run a mock. Red flag, my ass!

  18. avatar Robert says:

    High-capacity mags, and the ability to deliver “the shot” ……
    Well, take a look at You Tube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR279BvTVWKJ8BphPv8f8-6pmPbXbSLa4X0Czm6Y4cxwkGMx2b0DLt2JtXQ

    Once you’ve done that, send it on to your representatives and tell them how stupid they are.

    [Can’t do, then teach. …. Unable to be taught, then become a politician!]

  19. avatar Swarf says:

    Let’s use the anniversary of a slaughter committed using 10 round mags to propose limiting mags to 10 rounds. Brilliant.

    All this posturing proves is that they don’t give a damn about safety or preventing tragedies, they only care about punishing people whose hobby/self-defense choices they think are icky.

  20. avatar strych9 says:

    Assuming this is just a rehash of the 2017 bill (house version, Senate is identical: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4052)

    This isn’t going to fly. A LEO carveout, retired LEO carveout and a total ban on not just transfer, sale and import but also on possession.

    This is the kind of thing that pushes people from non-violent and law abiding into being neither because, what’s the downside? You’re a federal felon no matter what, and in possession of something “so dangerous” you’re likely to get the *BANG* “POLICE!” treatment anyway. Lot’s of people will figure they might as well shoot first and take a few with them.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Never underestimate these people! We live in what used to be the freest state in the union, Vermont. Last year they finally loaded up the legislature with New York immigrants and passed bills nobody here ever thought we’d see. Yes, the dreaded 10 round mag joke was a big part of it, along with the usual feel good nonsense. With a rino in the governor’s office and a Fresh new dem legislature, we may as well be part of Bloombergville! MOLON LABE

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        @Dennis Summer

        “Never underestimate these people! ”

        However the merry Marxists of Montpelier underestimate We The Woodchucks of Vermont

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        @ Dennis Summer

        This word today on the Mag.Ban here in Vermont.

        Vt Diggers Final Reading

        February 12, 2019

        IN TODAY’S FINAL READING…

        Magazine ban goes to court – One of last year’s most controversial pieces of legislation was at the center of court hearings just a couple minutes from the Statehouse Tuesday, as lawyers representing gun rights groups and the state argued over the constitutionality of a ban on high-capacity magazines.

        The state filed to dismiss the case on the grounds that gun shops and gun owners can’t prove damages from it. Solicitor General Benjamin Battles said Max Misch, who was arrested for allegedly violating the ban last week, would have standing to make the case.
        David Thompson, a partner at Cooper & Kirk, the law firm trying the case, relied on the 1903 Vermont Supreme Court decision State v. Rosenthal, in which a Rutland City ordinance banning the carrying of firearms and other weapons was deemed “repugnant to the Constitution.”
        Thompson also argued that lawmakers did not truly believe that high-capacity magazines posed a public threat, because the law they passed allowed them to continue being manufactured in the state.

    2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      “This isn’t going to fly. A LEO carveout, retired LEO carveout and a total ban on not just transfer, sale and import but also on possession.”

      I haven’t seen something definitive, but it looks like they are ‘going for the gusto’ and banning existing magazines.

      You’re right, it won’t fly, *now*. In 2020, it just might. I’m not planning on us winning 2020, and we may lose the Senate.

      But I agree on how it will play out if it happens. Bad things will happen. That truly be the kick-off to ‘Civil War II, Electric Boogaloo’.

      But quite frankly, I want them to overplay their hand. I *want* them to cave to the radical Leftists and try and get them elected…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’m with Serge on this one. The Democrats are already cutting their own throats with respect to 2020.

        If they could muzzle some of their “freshmen” members they’d have a shot at 2020 and therefore getting what they want. Speaking openly at this point is suicide and watching them commit political sepaku is interesting to watch the same sort of way as a truly nasty car accident in slow motion is.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          In a *rational* world, yes.

          But it’s plain to see, the Leftists haven’t been rational since Nov 9, 2016. They are running on raw hatred. Normally, that burns out after awhile.

          Have you noticed that they haven’t lost the ‘fire’? We are now a bit complacent. I’m concerned we won’t turn out in enough volume to counteract their hatred-fueled turnout…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Geoff, you may be right, all I can control is me, and I *will* be there.

    3. avatar grumpster says:

      The text of the proposed bill indicates that existing magazines will be grandfathered though it still is a horrible bill.

      (ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

      There is no way to enforce if someone gives/sells/trades to someone else other than a sting type operation but I would suspect most would only do business with a known entity in a very private setting. Laws like this would insure a booming underground market for firearm owners. Based on the extremely low compliance in states that pass such laws, I would expect much the same for a federal law.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        None of my mags have a date stamp on them, this will be a consideration when buying a firearm which does not accept current mags.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Correct A Magazine Ban Is A Gun Ban.

        2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          You do know they’ve already been talkin about ammo, also. Right? Want us to have to sign to purchase ammo, and a limit per month.

  21. avatar joefoam says:

    The opening line of the article says it all. ‘this will be a week chock full of anti-gun posturing, pronouncements and virtue signaling’. It will have nothing to do with actually enacting any law that could make people safer. Just pandering for votes which is all politicians do.

  22. avatar Karl says:

    Head on over to Brownells to look for a 10 pack of Pmags ship for $90.99 plus tax if applicable.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      One can never have too many magazines or ammunition.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        I agree with ammo. Not sure on the mags. If you have more than 200 or so it would seem your money would be better spent on guns and ammo. I mean, quality mags last a long time!!! Tango Down claims their Arc mags are good for 100,000 cycles!!! So, I imagine Pmags and Lancer mags are the same. That is 3,000,000 rounds of ammo fired through one mag!!!! If one went to the range once a week and shot 210 rounds through one magazine (a decent training session), in theory they could do that for 274 years!!! And that’s just ONE MAGAZINE!!!! Factor in strange accidents and in theory you could probably survive a lifetime on 5 – 6 mags. Not saying you should do that, but don’t over buy mags at the expense of ammo and guns.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I should probably add mags for some handguns, maybe my AR-10, but I don’t even know how many 20- and 30-rd mags I have for my AR-15s, they take up too much room, many haven’t been loaded in a decade. I sure don’t need any more.

  23. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I am not going into descriptions but many of you know about quick reloads and other magazine tricks so if they ever get crap like this passed we should scare the Bejeezus out of them.

  24. avatar Alan says:

    Question, if I may. Where did this High Capacity or HiCap rubbish come from anyhow. Why not use proper terminology, for instance, Factory Standard. I realize that proper terminology doesn’t set heart strings fluttering, but it would be more accurate, more correct, assuming that correct terminology is of interest to anyone.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Hi capacity was the phrase the gun grabbers decided struck the most fear in the hearts of the uninformed. Standard mag capacities for these weapons IS 20 and 30 rounds. Anywhere from 10 to 19 for most handguns. As we’ve been saying, it’s all about smoke and mirrors.

      1. avatar Quest says:

        Someone needs to do a proper peer reviewed paper examining what percentage of guns bring sold have standard capacities above 10 rounds. I’ve heard numbers of 70-80%, but we need real data to throw in the gun grabber faces.

        When the public understands that liberal politicians want to make felons of 70-80% of lawful gun owners, I think these propagandistic ‘high capacity’s tropes may finally come up against a wall and die.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Missing the point, sir. These people couldn’t care less about facts. It’s all about rhetoric and their ultimate goal.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Right, because just like vaccine injuries, if the powers that be just understood the truth, everything would change……can I have some of whatever you’re smoking?

  25. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Perhaps we need to introduce legislation that would ban Bob Menendez from having sexual congress with 14 year old Dominican prostitutes.

    https://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/dominican-prostitute-senator-bob-menendez-likes-the-youngest-and-newest-girls/

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      According to the sexually liberated, as long as its legal to have sex with children, in another country, under their laws, then its ok for Sen Menendez, and anyone else, to have sex with another nations children.

      Sex tourism in big business in San Francisco, for those that travel outside of the US. Also I understand certain eastern european countries are also a sex tourism destination.

  26. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The banning of standard or any capacity magazines as well as ammunition is UnConstitutional .

    The term Arms covers all of those and much more,notice it doesn’t say to keep and bear guns,it states To Keep and Bear Arms.

    The shot heard round the word was due to king George thinking he could do the same to the colonists at Concord and Lexington,which ended with the defeat of the worlds most powerful military at that time.

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    Well I DO need to pick up some 10round AR mags for the range. That’ll be the next BS Dumbocrat “law” in ILLinois…reality sux.

  28. avatar barnbwt says:

    Let me guess; both Trump and McConnell came and issued immediate statements strongly condemning the measure, assuring voters that no gun control would be forthcoming?

    LOL. How’s that halt screeching, these days?

  29. avatar The SGM says:

    Introduction of this Bill with all the cosigners puts on display for all to see the inability of those Congressmen to critically think through what they are signing on to, If they limit the number of rounds to 10 in any one magazine I will just purchase more magazines; it is what I already do for those magazines which only hold 8 rounds. So, if the manufacturers only produce 10 round magazines what will the government do to all of us who have magazines which hold more?? What ever they do does anyone think the bad guys will comply???
    This Bill is nothing more than a political play by scared and uninformed politicians.
    When will we see and hear recommendations/ proposed legislation/laws which will have a effect on restricting the bad guys from getting weapons, identifying those that shouldn’t have access to weapons, prosecute all those who attempt to purchase a weapon by falsifying the application form at the selling FFL dealer. We need these politicians to concentrate on putting restrictions on the bad guys as opposed to the good guys?????

  30. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    2 years of this crap is going to drive someone to shoot a few Libtards……………with paintballz.

  31. avatar Want My Rights says:

    None of this is about protecting anyone other than the powerful in politics. It is all about eventually disarming the Peasants so we will be easier to overpower and subdue when the modern day Hitlers all decide the time is right!

  32. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Let the politicians that sign onto this farce be the ones to go and take the magazines away from people.

  33. avatar Dale IV says:

    Bob Menendez is crooked as they come and the nitwits reelected him! Unbelievable!

  34. avatar GS650G says:

    10 years ago the democrats owned all three branches and briefly held 60 seats. It could happen again. And they won’t hesitate to ban guns. Period.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Perhaps the simple solution,ban Leftard Marxists instead.

  35. avatar Aleric says:

    They will NEVER get my magazines I don’t care how many “restrictions” they put into place. I bought them legally and I will keep them. Good luck finding them, we take private property and the 2nd amendment very seriously in KY and our State Constitution protects us from Federal Regs that restrict our CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

  36. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, the D party is making it perfectly clear what they’re about; what they’ll do if they get the chance.

    Even so, I despair of the R party competently aligning with the hordes of “Please give me an alternative; any alternative.” the D’s are creating.

  37. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    You can keep your guns the way you got to keep your doctor.

    With all these “common sense” around the edges exercises, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Indeed, it’s the point.

  38. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    And if this somehow passes, and does nothing to reduce gun crimes, the next ‘small’ step is a bill to limit the number of 10 round magazines you can possess. Small steps to the bigger objective.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Incrementalism ,the creeping crud of Marxism.

  39. How would this ban keep criminal gangs like the Crips, the Mafia, and MS-13 from possessing high capacity magazines?

    1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      It won’t. But the grabbers don’t care. And just like in Colorado the law will be unenforceable, especially if they grandfather currently owned mags. I doubt that an all out ban would pass but they will try.

  40. avatar Anonymous says:

    “We need to take freedom away, because evil exists!” – Democrats

  41. avatar grumpster says:

    We will need a big wall across the southern boarder to impede the flow of illegal “high capacity” magazines into USA and the carnage they would cause if this passes..

  42. avatar Wally1 says:

    In Washington, initiative 1639 passed but has not fully taken effect, However this means nothing. No one will comply, No one is currently complying. More and more county Sheriffs are refusing to enforce it because it is against the state constitution and the federal constitution. It will not matter, no one will be turning in their Mags.

  43. avatar Bobby says:

    Don’t even care. Never giving up any of my guns or magazines. Germany 1933-Hitlers first legislative act was to ban guns from a certain people group. Not going to happen at my house. EVER

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Pathetic that they don’t even teach this stuff in screwed any more, just their own revised version.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Meant screwl, PC police probably changed it!

    2. avatar grumpster says:

      “Germany 1933-Hitlers first legislative act was to ban guns from a certain people group”

      No doubt it was also called the “Keep Germany Safe Act” or something along those lines.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Isn’t it ironic that they’re so fond of calling us ” nazis”, while taking pages right out of Mein Kampf?

  44. avatar m. says:

    gun “control” = a**hole

  45. avatar m. says:

    d-suckers can have a 10-word limit on each “bill” instead of the typical diarrhea. see how how that works, t**ts.

  46. avatar Harley says:

    Here’s the deal Democrats. I’ve done nothing but compromise since 1964. Every time you wanted to take away or further restrict MY rights in the name of controlling criminal use of firearms I was told that I, as a gun owner, needed to “compromise”. The problem is that while you took, you gave NOTHING in return. No, you took and gave nothing in return. Well guess what, P’m done compromising. Now it’s your turn.

    It’s time for YOU to actually do something that may have an effect on the criminal misuse of firearms. Pass a law that makes it a separate federal crime to use a firearm in the commission of a criminal act. Like an additional 10 years on the first offense without parole, good time, or whatever off. Every single day must be served, consecutive with the other crimes. Second year is 20 years, third offense if life. If the firearm is discharged it starts at 20 years, life on the second offense. If someone is wounded, life on the first offense and if someone is killed we hang you publicly. Every single time.

    When you do that for 10 or 20 years and there’s no effect of criminal misuse of firearms I MAY consider additional restrictions on my rights. Until then, forget it. Now, I am willing to “compromise” here. Instead of execution I would go for life without parole provided that they’re warehoused until they die. Find an isolated island and put them on it. Let them run it themselves (read the book “The Penal Colony” if you wan’t to know how to do it). Until then, I’m not going to give up one more damned thing. Deal with it.

  47. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    “…if someone is killed we hang you publicly.” ” Now, I am willing to “compromise” here. Instead of execution I would go for life without parole provided that they’re warehoused until they die.”

    I disagree with the compromise. If you kill someone with a firearm during the commission of a crime you get the death penalty. No plea bargaining, no appeals, mandatory death sentence…soon! I’m tired of paying for these dirtbags to be on death row for decades. I’m also tired of criminal rights being more important than law abiding citizens rights. You do that Dems and I am betting the murder rate will decline. Like Harley, I think we should be done compromising.

  48. avatar God says:

    As i read these wide ranging comments it seems that we are seeing history repeat itself.

    You cannot ignore the fact that every day someone is turning 18 and able to vote with most if not 80-90% come from brainwashing libtard larping reeducation camp101

    Look how 3 jihads or more got elected to Congress and how they are shielded by the the Left.

    What is behind open borders! Democrat Takeover! With Billions of Muslims and People voting Democrat and Muslims will make up 51% then 100% of Congress and Potus!

    What do u think will happen to people who don’t practice Islam? U ever hear Convert or Die that was on the news 24/7after terrorist Muslim Obama created ISIS on the News in Orange Jumpsuits in the massive be-headings?

    You better load up or plan on moving somewhere else they want to turn America into the caliphate more than anything.

    Enjoy it while it last…and thank all the laws that allowed immigration to take over America so we have 200+million retards who want Somalia.

    Our Country was created by people seeking religious freedom who paid the price of liberty many dying!

    After the 1800’s we should shut off any immigration…and we would not be in this mess that will turn into a civil war like how many countries now????

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Can you say Venezuela???????

  49. What about the second amendment. The democrats should be taken out of office for swearing to uphold the consecution and then lying.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email