“Many semiautomatic rifles have detachable magazines that hold only three or four rounds. It would be more difficult to turn those into mass-killing machines than if the shooter were feeding the gun with 10-round magazines, the legal limit in California.” – George Skelton, In vetoing gun-control bill, Brown misses the mark [via latimes.com]
“Many semiautomatic rifles have detachable magazines that hold only three or four rounds….”
Ignoring the obvious incrementalism here for a moment, can folks help me out by naming some of these? I can’t think of any semi auto rifles with 3-4 round magazines.
Browning BAR (sporting rifle), Remington 740. There are probably a few others along those lines.
No – see; it’s like here in Colorado where good ol Morse “compromised” to “allow us” 15-rounders when the limit was gonna be 10.
Gee thanks , phew, at least I can use all of my 15-round AR and AK ma— oh wait.
De-facto 10 rounds.
If there aren’t any “4 round” “magazine clips” for the scary semi-auto rifles, which you know is a “common sense” amount unlike that lunatic fringe 10; what is there?
Nothin’. That’s what.
I find it interesting that they’re “backdooring” this crap. , still to attack the scary black rifles, which statistically speaking aren’t even the issue.
Shows how For the Children this crap really is anyways.
To me, it just showed that this is about fear, not rational thought.
No. It’s about disarmament. It uses fear to garner support among the low information voters.
If I recall, when the mag limit was changed from 10 to 15 rounds the bill’s proponents said that this would exempt most modern pistol magazines from the ban; in all fairness, this is largely true, 17 round Glock magazines aside.
Still a rotten bill, and your point about incrementalism stands.
CZ-75 mags, at 16 rounds, are just barely evil.
Beretta 92 mags are just barely not evil
Hope Morse is enjoying his humiliation.
Nailed it, Doc V.
I think he’s getting confused with bolt action hunting rifles with removable magazines.
Agreed. Name one…
To name a few: Remington models 8, 740, 742, 750, plus all semi-autos from Browning excepting the classic, full-auto BAR – the Browning Automatic Rifles in hunting calibers are genuine hunting rifles. Some versions of the Ruger .44 Magnum Carbine also accept detachable magazines (not box-style, but rotary). And I would suspect that many semi-auto slug guns – which likely have a rifled barrel, could quality, particularly those from Savage, I believe.
All of the above accept 3-5 round removable magazines. They are out there.
I’ve got a Winchester Model 1910 in my safe that’s a semi-auto with a 4-round detachable magazine. Of course, it’s a century old, and if I want to shoot it, I’ll have to make my own ammunition (.401 WSL), so in a way, this idiot is right: it’s very unlikely my rifle will be used in a mass shooting…
And it’s not incremental , noooo of course not. 10 rounds is just “common sense”! Until it isn’t ….
Until 10 is “hi-cap”. Until its 7, until its “three or four”.
Heeeere we goes.
Of course, NY has already proven your point.
And NYs 7 round was a “compromise”. Cuomo originally called for 5. In his eyes, he gave gun owners a “gift”.
Boy, that was utterly predictable.
Can you say “slippery slope”? Sure, I knew you could….
The next sentence in the article: Brown correctly pointed out that the proposed ban would have covered “low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting, firearms training and marksmanship practice.
…Thus implying that modern sporting rifles aren’t used for hunting, firearms training and marksmanship.
And implying that these are the only legitimate reasons for a private citizen to own firearms.
If “three or four” rounds is “common-sense” according to this buttdongle, does that mean that if they get their way I’m going to have to weld shut two of the cylinders on my revolver so that it can’t fire six shots without reloading? (which would obviously make it an extremely dangerous assault weapon that nobody needs)
You can have a six shot revolver, but you can only load it with four rounds. That way it’s SAFE.
My eight shot .22 revolver is not to be fully loaded in NY, that makes it far SAFEr than if it had that magic eighth round in it.
Just thinking out loud here, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think revolvers are covered under the “SAFE” Act because they don’t have “detachable ammunition feeding devices”.
Just watch for the old cap and ball guns with removable cylinders to be next on the list.
because they don’t have “detachable ammunition feeding devices”.
If the cylinder can be removed, it’s a detachable ammunition feeding device. I’d bet the law would even apply to the ability to reload with speed loaders, if the capacity were higher than 7 rounds.
Certainly, if the limit were four rounds, the law would extend to all 6 round speed loaders.
This guy needs to watch the NY biker video, it would have taken more than 10 shots there.
Nah. Would’ve only taken one round. Why?
There’s 10 crows on a fence. The farmer shoots one. How many are left? ZERO, because the rest fly away at the sound of the gunshot.
No because the LEO in the group that joined in the beat down would have been shooting at that point. In general bad guys in groups are cowards, and most do run when they watch a buddy take lead. However in states where mag cap limits are being enforced how long before 12+ armed thugs break in hoping you only have the ability to take down half their horde?
Talking about hyperbole. When we get to 12+ thugs breaking into random private homes you can dig up your hidden 30 round magazines because there won’t be a functioning government to enforce the cap. We don’t win by making up ludicrous tactical situations.
tdiinva–The other side considers protecting ourselves against government tyranny ludicrous and hyperbole. And protecting ones home and property an impossibility under any circumstance. Just what sort of argument can you make that won’t be dismissed, by them, as the rantings of an extremist.
We should not make arguments for the grabbers. WE need to be making plausible arguments so we can influence the fence sitters in our direction.
I don’t think crows ride motorcycles, break through windows with their helmets, drag the driver out and beat him.
Although the choice of crows in the analogy is interesting. Anybody know what a group of crows is called?
Murder. I see what you did there
um I do believe they are a “Mob” and never underestimate a crow at the sound of gunshots they fly to the nearest “cover/concealment” and await an appropriate return however if you give chase and shoot they will unass the AO asap
Its simple. First its “factory capacity”, then its 15, then 10, then 7, then 5, then 2, then 1, then 0.
When we get to a limit of one round, then I’m switching to one of those 37mm “flare guns” and getting a bandoleer of buckshot.
And people wonder why the pro-2A crowd is so reluctant to have an ongoing dialog about gun violence (or whatever the phrase of the moment is) – see previous post on Coonan & Evolve.
Get betrayed enough and you learn to never offer any compromise or quarter.
Not sure where the compromise is.
Gun owner, you can’t have X or conceal carry and we’re going to take away A,B and C. What are gun owners getting in return as part of said compromise? Nothing.
A person that has nothing to lose is a dangerous opponent. Fight back! No more of this supposed “compromise”.
Exactly! Its time the anti-gun crowd came half-way to us a few times. It seems there is no end to the common-sense compromises that can be made – screw that non-sense. Not one more damn inch…not one!
And they wonder why we won’t “compromise” in the race to the bottom.
They’ll get their pound of flesh soon enough.Hopefully the CA gun owners can get their gear before Browns replacement signs in more laws next year.
Meanwhile cops still carry 16 in the gun and another 30 on their hip. Multiply by the number of cops on the scene and it can get expensive arresting one person, or two.
You got to wonder whether these California Pols live in Cloud Cuckoo land or whether they deliberately want to to turn the streets over to criminals. One of the bills that Brown vetoed would allow Oakland to have stricter gun laws, i.e., total ban on private ownership, than the rest of the state. Oakland, you may recall, is where the people are now fending for themselves since the bankrupt city government can no longer provide effective law enforcement. It’s actually worse than Detroit where at least you can defend yourself.
I know logic doesn’t play into the grabber thought process, but for the sake of argument: what exactly is less dangerous about 15, 10, or even 5 rounds? Are they thinking you can jump someone during a mag change? Seems difficult when their approved strategy is cower and hide….
Feinstein, Steinberg…. I’m starting to see some kind of déjà vu all over again here…
“Defective people” not being allowed…
Take away guns…
Gimme a minute, it’ll come to me.
George Skelton, LAT super tool. F him.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Skelton is a Democrat.
or a magazine salesman!
stockpile stockpile stockpile…
Incrementalism is neat when it means you get to first base on the first date, second base on the second, and third base on the third, because you know where it’s leading.
It’s less fun in this context.
If he wants to reduce the number of people killed in spree shootings, what he should really do is require that only Beta drum mags be used in AR rifles. Nobody would be able to get more than three or four shots off before stopping to clear the gun.
The quote is taken out of context ; the author said that Brown was RIGHT to veto the bill because it was way overbroad. In fact, the only semi-autos NOT covered by the bill are rimfires. Now true, this dipwad thinks EBRs should be banned, but as with all other banners, he fails to recognize that these “mass killing machines” simply are not used for such purposes on other than rare occasion.
The bill he thinks Brown should NOT have vetoed is one that would have added a ten year gun ban for certain alcohol and drug offenses, noting that “studies” have shown a correlation between alcohol abuse and gun crime. The idiocy of the article is in its recognition that a third DUI may result in a felony conviction, and results in a lifetime ban–so what purpose is served by this “pre-crime” bill? None.
Great idea, dude! As we all know, concern for legal limitations and restrictions is always, always at the forefront of every spree killer’s murderous plans! Now, if we would just make spree killings illegal we can solve the whole problem overnight!
How’s that “compromise” working out for you, California…?
Evil libtard turd.