Ammo For Sale

« « Another ban on America’s most popular rifle | Home | In Illinois » »

Bill banning standard capacity magazines

Introduced by Carolyn “shoulder thing that goes up” McCarthy:

As lawmakers return to Capitol Hill today to kick off the start of the 113th Congress, Democrats are already priming for a renewed battle over gun control, announcing the introduction of a bill banning high-capacity ammunition magazines before the first House session had been gaveled in.

The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which is being introduced by Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and is co-sponsored by Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That standard was the federal mandate between 1994 and 2004 under the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Ten is a magical number for some reason. Why not one?

23 Responses to “Bill banning standard capacity magazines”

  1. Phelps Says:

    Terms which defy definition and actually USED in this article:

    Assault magazines
    Multiple Ammunition Magazine Cartridges

  2. Dave Says:

    10 is what they seem to think is the compromise amount, the goal is zero, but they have to get to 10 first. This is the same bill she’s introduced every year for the last 8 years.

  3. bluesun Says:

    So few people in that picture, and so many hippies…

  4. Ancient Woodsman Says:

    Gee. Never saw that coming.

    What a surprise.

    I’m also interested to see what the creative geniuses in the firearms industry will come up with next that will certainly comply with whatever new law is passed – if any – to which we can hear the usual whiners already complaining of a ‘loophole’ that ‘needs to be fixed’.

  5. mikee Says:

    In one of his Jack Ryan novels, author Tom Clancy explains the futility of the magazine limit thusly:

    Imagine I am pointing a Glock at you. It holds 17 rounds of 9mm ammo in its magazine and one in the chamber, a total of 18 rounds.

    You feel threatened, right?

    Now imagine I am pointing that same Glock at you. It now holds only 10 rounds of 9mm ammo in its magazine and one in the chamber, a total of 11 rounds.

    Do you now somehow feel only 11/18 as threatened as in the first example?

    It isn’t the last several rounds in the magazine one has to worry about with criminal violence, it is the first few.

  6. Ron W Says:

    Does this bill apply to our employees, government officials and agents, pursuant to “the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment)? Surely Crolyn McCarthy supports justice and equality.

  7. Ron W Says:


    I suppose the “reasoning”, and I used that term advisedly, is that in a legally imposed “gun-free zone” (like a public school) a mass-murderer could kill more of the unarmed victims.

  8. ATLien Says:

    New rules for congress: Every time a member introduces unconstitutional legislation such as this, the sponsor(s) receive 1 (one) punch to the face, close-handed.

  9. Chas Says:

    A 10-round limit is abritary and capricious; courts don’t like arbitrary and capricious, but we cannot count on the courts.
    They chose 10 because it’s a nice, round number that they think they can get away with for now, until they come back for a 5-round limit.

    I have a new view of the Second Amendment now, inspired by the antis. It’s not that our ARs should be replaced with muskets because ARs didn’t exist at the time that the Second Amendment was written, as the antis would have it; it’s that we should have the means to counter government’s enormous increase in heavy weaponry that didn’t exist when the Second Amendment was written. For starters, I want full auto weapons. They want my AR? I want a machine gun that shoots bullets the size of a fire hose!
    Yes, the Second Amendment, as it has been whittled down over the years, is indeed obsolete. We need to update it, by doing nothing more than allowing as it means what it says. I want my own Patriot missile battery in my backyard! Okay, I’ll settle for a brand new MG42. I can afford that.
    And yes, I really do mean that, “The Democratic Party needs to stop killing schoolchildren to advance its political agenda.”

    my comments at the article:

    As for “high-capacity ammunition magazines”, the US military has a 30-round magazine as its standard issue magazine. 30-rounds is standard capacity.
    If they get a 10-round magazine limit, they’ll be back for a 5-round magazine limit, and then a no magazine limit. I say we don’t need limits. We need armed security in schools to protect our kids like the liberal elite have for their kids.
    The Democratic Party’s “gun free school zones” were created to give the Democrat politicians the body count that they need to advance their gun ban agenda. Unfortunately, their plan is working, so kids are being killed.
    Tell your Congressman that the Democratic Party needs to stop killing schoolchildren to advance its political agenda. We need our gun rights back, so that our kids can be protected.

    We need a much stronger Second Amendment that takes into consideration the fact that government now has things like attack jets, main battle tanks, assault helicopters and armed drones. These days, the Second Amendment needs to mean more than merely the modern day equivalent of a musket. We need serious firepower to counter the serious imbalance in power that has developed between the American people and their government since the Second Amendment was written.

  10. Sigivald Says:

    chas: Much in that line, I like to remind such people that private artillery was legal at the time of the Founding, but perfectly acceptable (thus the “letters of marque” clause in the Constitution – they’re worthless without private cannon on ships).

    Not only that, but muzzle-loading artillery is still perfectly legal for the average citizen to own at the Federal level and in most (almost all?) states.

    Breech-loaders are superior for true military use, of course, but a muzzle-loader with bags of powder still re-loads pretty fast.

    Somehow, those Weapons Of Mass Murder (zomg!) are not causing a nationwide epidemic of slaughter… even though you can buy one mail-order, without so much as a NICS check.

  11. Sid Says:

    What I do understand is why they think that magazines are hard to manufacture? You don’t need a 3D printer or a milling machine or really anything mechanical. A sheet metal brake would make it easy to make a magazine.

  12. Jake Says:

    A sheet metal brake would make it easy to make a magazine.

    A wooden block, a mallet, and a little skill would make it easy to make a magazine.

    Of course, she probably thinks you need an extremely expensive and hard to get shoulder-thing-that-goes-up to make a working magazine.

    Legislating from deliberate ignorance should be a hanging offense.

  13. Mike V. Says:

    IIRC, it was because thats the capacity of most .22s

  14. Mike V. Says:

    Also IIRC, the ink in Clinton’s signature on the 94 AWB wasn’t dry before the Antis were talking about registration of all guns. Their hubris over the AWB helped cause their defeat later that year.

  15. emdfl Says:

    Why 10? Because that’s all the higher most of those wannabe tyrants can count without taking off their berkenstocks.

  16. Firehand Says:

    Because, as noted, they figure 10 is a step on the way to 1, and then 0.

    Jake, that’s exactly what she thinks. I’ve run into a number of these people who think anything connected to a firearm requires a massive facility with state-of-the-art equipment to make; try to tell them the facts, and they’ll either call you a liar or ignore you.

  17. jim Says:

    Everyones missing the big picture here. 10 Round magazines allow the gun to cool down with more frequent reloading thus less likely to have a malfunction. 10 Round magazines in an AR- 15 are faster for the untrained to reload. 10 Round magazines save ammo, if a 30 round magazine malfunctions your out as many as 30 rounds. A 10 round magazine will only lose 10 rounds max during a malfunction of the magazine. 10 Round magazines are easer for the untrained to keep in pockets. The weapon is lighter, and faster to come on target. The less weight means more shooting is possible. And 10 Round magazines are less likely to get hung up on clothing or objects. Think of how much lower to the ground you can lay being less of a target with a short 10 round magazine.

  18. Chas Says:

    I prefer a 20-round magazine in the rifle to start with, since they allow the rifle to be lighter, more maneuverable and faster on target at the initial moment when it’s needed. A 20 should get you to cover, then you can load a 30 so that you can fire and maneuver, provide cover fire, or whatever. 10-rounds seems way too few for home defense because you never know who or how many you’ll need to defend yourself against. A 10-round magazine can be a death sentence in some situations. The US military has 30 rounds as standard.
    I understand that when the New York State Troopers were involved with the Akwesasne Mohawk stand off, they were running into local gun shops to get themselves 30-round and 40-round magazines for their Mini-14’s. I’d rather have them to start with than try to find them in an emergency. It’s best to be prepared.

  19. Jim Says:

    I agree that 10 round mags are not optimal for normal users. But in the hands of the untrained mass killer who shoot the unarmed, 10 rounders may make things worse.

  20. Kdawg Says:

    In McCarthy’s state of NY I have heard rumblings already that they seven round max magazine capacity. You can bet your last round that blue states with a current 10 or 15 round capacity will push to get those limits lower to stay ahead of the curve.

    And once the next mass murder inevitably happens there will be a push to lower it yet again… and again… and again, until…

  21. Kdawg Says:

    Sorry, that first sentence should read, “In McCarthy’s state of NY I have heard rumblings already that they are already prepping a bill for a seven round max magazine capacity.”

    Here are those rumblings:

    I know this is a busy time of year for everyone, but I need a favor. We are in serious trouble as sportsmen and women here in our home state of NY. I don’t know about you but I haven’t killed anyone recently and neither have my firearms. Unfortunately that’s not how we are being treated as a community by the media, “misinformed” citizens and our leaders in government. Governor Cuomo has called the legislature back to a special session and wants them to vote on a proposal BEFORE NEW YEARS that would expand the definition of an assault weapon to include any firearm that is capable of holding more than seven (7) rounds, regardless of action type. This measure would eliminate “grandfathered” firearms and magazines. There would be a grace period to dispose of such firearms, after which you are a felon if you are in possession of any banned item.

    Such banned firearms would include, under this proposed definition, any firearm with a detachable box magazine since they make or could make a magazine for it with a capacity of greater than 7 rounds, some .22LR revolvers that hold 8 or more rounds, most tube fed pump or lever action rifles or shotguns. If you are happy that doesn’t effect your side by side bird gun, please don’t be as ignorant to think they will stop there.

    Mr. Wayne LaPierre was heckled and interrupted during his speech by the new “culture of civility” as our President would call it. These people will not stop and if we don’t get very very loud in the next few days, they will win. Please, please take ten minutes today to email your assemblyman and local politicians. If you wish to maintain your freedom of sport, hunting, fun, security and investment, write several emails.

    The left is signing petitions and screaming to take away our rights. We have been quiet out of respect. It’s time to let our voices be heard.

  22. Ron W Says:

    “This measure would eliminate “grandfathered” firearms and magazines. There would be a grace period to dispose of such firearms, after which you are a felon if you are in possession of any banned item.”

    According to the Constitution, such a retroactive provision is UNLAWFUL. But hey, criminals break the law, so what do they care?

    “An ex post facto law (from the Latin for “from after the action” or “after the fact”), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

    Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.”

  23. Dirk Says:

    Ron W: You think they’ll let something silly, like the Constitution, get in their way?

    The good news, at least, is that the Supreme Court would blow it out of the water unanimously.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges