Friday, January 14, 2011

Notes on Magazines

Man, I'm SWAMPED by last minute SHOT Show press releases, invitations, blah blah! If there were 27 hours in the day...etc.

Anyway, I wanted to post some thoughts on magazine capacity before I slithered into Las Vegas Hell. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has posted the text of her antigun legislation to be introduced in the House next week. As expected, it bans the sale and transfer of magazines holding more than 10 rounds; unlike the Clinton Ban, the McCarthy bill closes the loophole that let us purchase greater-than-10 round magazines made before the Ban went into effect in 1994. Obviously, a companion piece of legislation will be introduced in the Senate by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

A key point here is, again, I don't think even a magazine capacity ban can get through the Republican House, especially since House leadership has already stated flatly that they want no additional gun legislation...period...exclamation point. So far, our lobbyists have remained on the sideline — the correct move, I think. But nobody believes that progun forces won't "spin up" if and when a real threat develops. It will be interesting to see whether Obama steps out of the shadows on this one. He is unequivocally the most antigun politician ever elected to high office, but he also wants to be reelected really badly, and his spinners have to know that all the good will bump after the Arizona shootings will vanish like rainfall in the desert if he gets on the antigun train.

A couple of areas to watch out for — one of my sources tells me that Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch has in the past supported such legislation, which might explain why Fox commentators have been pretty quiet on the gun front.A couple of days ago Robert Levy, on the board of the Cato Institute and co-counsel in Heller, said that a magazine capacity ban would likely pass Constitutional muster, a little tidbit that the antigun hounds have really picked up on.

The issue for us is that a magazine capacity ban seems, on its surface, to be a much lesser deal than as lot of other antigun proposals. In fact, a magazine ban is step one in banning all magazine-fed semiauto firearms (obviously the real intent here).

Magazine capacity is actually a non-issue because 99% of all firearms, magazine-fed or otherwise, are designed to be reloaded efficaciously. Like, duh! Guns are made to be reloaded easily. We already know that, because we are gun people...we shoot guns and we know how to reload them. Here's the ringer, though...even the most clueless antigunners, Paul Helmke certainly comes to mind, also know this simple fact.

That point is probably worth restating — there's no need to race around the Internet and post videos of people reloading various and sundry guns really quickly...that plays directly into the debate meme we talked about a couple of days ago. This isn't about the facts! Antigunners already know that a magazine capacity ban is nonsense; they know we can reload firearms quick like bunny. That's not the point of the exercise.

Think of a magazine capacity ban the way the kids in South Park would, a simple bulleted (no puns, please!) list:

1) BAN "extra" capacity magazines.
2) DISCOVER that, OH MY GOD, semiautos can be reloaded quickly with even 10 round magazines.
3) REDUCE allowed magazine capacity to 6 rounds, because, "It was good enough for Wyatt Earp..."
4) DISCOVER that, OH MY GOD, semiautos can be loaded quickly with even 6 round magazines.
5) BAN semiauto anythings.
6) DISCOVER that, OH MY GOD, other non-semiauto firearms can hold more than 6 rounds.
7) BAN lever action rifles and pump shotguns with "extra" capacity, along with any "extended tube" type device.

You get the drift.

DO NOT get caught up in "proving" how quickly we're able to reload this gun or that gun! Yes, you can run a Remington 870 single-feeding it from a bag all day long, but understand what the game is here!


Unknown said...

Michael, I get your point on Rupert Murdoch. The New York Post, owned by Murdoch, has been going wild regarding the extended magazine (30 -33 rd) used with the Glock pistols. Numerous editorials demanding that Glock stop selling the extended magazine to non-LEO. And an article re the Mayor of Bridgeport, Conn. demanding that Glock stop selling the long magazines or face a boycott by his city's Police Force.

Kansas Scout said...

Good call Michael. The obvious is not always the real.

Gunmart said...

I think that you are putting way too many steps in that process... I think they would go ahead and jump on the full ban after things were limited to 10 rounders

*Great post. Thanks!

Gunmart said...

I will also point out...

Truth be known, if that nut job in AZ did not have such a huge mag that he was trying to reload with, then that woman probably would not have been able to get her hand on it and then eventually take it away from him. Lets not forget that a standard size mag would have fit the shooters hand pretty nicely and would not have left much of anything for someone else to grab onto.

Bottom line here is that if he had a standard size mag he would have reloaded without problems and would have been up and running again and killing more people.

founders said...

We need to make it clear to the gun manufacturers that if the law passes, no standard caps for cops, period.

In fact, we can start with McCarthy & Lautenberg's districts respectively. Whomever the manufacturers are that are supplying their law enforcement should take a stand with gun owners and tell their law enforcement that if it passes, they'll be getting 10 rounders just like us.

nj_larry said...

My little paranoid mind says the following: Fox News Channel ain't what it seems. I've had the privilege to stay home and watch lots of TV the last 2 years. Besides the Military, Discovery, History, and Outdoor :) Channels I've watched Fox a lot. I've concluded that most of the commentators AND reporters are in fact liberals. I've been really turned off by them. When Lou Dobbs comes on board I think he will be the only semi-pro-gun commentator there. The others know nothing about guns. When they speak on 2A issues the best to expected, is that it sounds like it's been filtered thru the upper West Side of Manhattan.

In fact I watch Fox with the same little mental red flag waving as I do for CNN. I was validated on this when I saw that they hired John Roberts from CNN and CBS last week. You can not get more left wing than him. So like the saying goes...caveat emptor

Anonymous said...

I agree with nj_larry about Fox. Right after the Tucson shooting, one of Fox's less experienced newsmen asked if this will be a new call for gun restrictions, which is a fair question, but he tried to act as if he knew what he was talking about, but he got all tangled-up with "automatic" / "semi-automatic", adding to the public's confusion. Fortunately, the liberal guest recommended focusing on the condidtion of the victims and figuring out the facts surrounding the shooting.

Fox also has a new show hostessed by a judge. One of their advertisements features a "perspective" that the Florida "Hold Your Ground" law may be used as a cover-up for murder? From the pre-views, I'm betting that they "spin" the facts to incorrectly portray the true situation down there. Watching it will tell the whole story.

Last, they have Geraldo. He has stated that he does not support citizens owning guns, even though he was heavily armed when he was on his global cruise with his family. I watched his documentary on the trip and it showed him having to arm himself with guns that he took along for that purpose, to protect his family during a potential pirate raid.

The "left" must confuse and mislead the public at all times, in order to trick them into supporting them. It worked well for them in the 2008 election. Those same people did turn out for the GOP in the 2010 elections, but it has been proven that they are easily fooled. We need to NOT write-off the Democrats pushing every gun-control measure that they can. Keep in contact with your Congressional Represenatives and Senators. They need to know right now what you are thinking.
Life Member

George said...

Don't be so quick to dismiss anti's. This may be propaganda, check the video at this link:

Don't underestimate their resolve to pass something, anything to restrict guns.

Anonymous said...

where is the video of Jerry Miculek with a S&W revolver where he shoots six, reloads, and shoots six more in under three seconds?

OMG! revolvers can be reloaded fast too.

what we need is common sense moonclip control.


Jesus is my rock said...

If it is true (I'm not saying it isn't) that Fox News is infected with liberals then what is Glenn Beck? He is a gun owner and shooter. Believes in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe Fox News is walking a tight rope in this media mess and it's coming out all wrong. The liberals made the shooting political hours after it happened and the juggernaut is perpetuating forward. I would hope that what we see on Fox is them covering their a*s and not switching sides.

If it were true and Murdock is liberal and he is directing his network to switch over the conservative side's point of view on guns then we have only Talk Radio left as a newsworthy outlet for what is really going on. It is dangerous in my opinion that the liberals try to stifle information in any form, the people will not stand for it. If it were true that all media is controlled and governed by liberals at all levels then that would lead me to believe we are being manipulated to such a large scale that most would find it inconceivable. What then do we believe? Who then do we listen to?

If I am cut off and have no one to trust on either side of me then I will become the paranoid zealot that the liberals already say that I am. I do not want this to be so.

Gunmart said...

"Don't underestimate their resolve to pass something, anything to restrict guns."

He is right.... this is a crossroads and we need to treat it with the importance of such. Historically this is very much along the same lines as when Brady was shot. If we dont take this seriously and put everything we have at stonewalling their efforts, we will lose a big battle.

BTW - I fully agree with what you are saying , Bane, about not wasting our time with the faux debate. Two words are all we need... "HELL NO!".

MikeO said...

Sorry, but Devil's advocate is way too much fun w this one!

This one nut did more damage, and did it easier and faster, all by himself than all nine men did at the OK Corral, and most people know why even if they won't admit it.

Bringing up how fast JM can shoot his wheelguns, or how many TM killed w a bomb doesn't really do you any good. Might as well argue the jawbone of an ass is a deadlier weapon than a bomb or a Glock cuzz Samson killed a thousand w his.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns? So what!? London may have more shootings than before, but still waaaaay less than LA, DC, Chicago, or NYC.

The USA was safer before the NFA and GCA? So what! Get rid of them and most people know some parts of America will look more like Somalia than Switzerland.

With arguments like those, it's a wonder we aren't Canada already!

The slope is slippery. If every tragedy is a reason for more gun control, then eventually there is nothing left to control.

Thank the deity of your choice for the SA and Heller! It's not perfect, but it's what we got so far. Reasonable restrictions are not infringements. Some restrictions are off the table, but not all of them. Time will tell?

kmitch200 said...

This one nut did more damage, and did it easier and faster, all by himself than all nine men did at the OK Corral, and most people know why even if they won't admit it.

OK, I think I know this one!

Because all the participants were looking for a fight, were armed and more importantly, dangerous even with their bare hands?

Some restrictions are off the table, but not all of them.

Pardon me but - bullshit.
Who do we trust to wield the yardstick on what is reasonable? This current bunch of wet finger wavers who "govern" by poll results and "think tanks"?

No thanks.
A spineless twit who can't make a decision based on what's right and ONLY stand for something or vote for something in order to keep their face in the trough is not who I want appointing a career bureaucrat to administer "reasonable".

seeker_two said...

+1 on the Fox liberals....I can't even stomach watching their "fair & balanced" morning show d/t the limo-liberal hosts....

As for the anti-gun legislation...I don't think we'll see much from Congress...but I'm sure the Obama-nation will do what it can through the exec-branch agencies to squeeze FFL's and manufacturers to limiting the number of standard-cap-mag-type guns that they sell to the public.

Be very afraid...and very politically-active....

Dave S. said...

My co-worker likes the 10-round magazine idea. I told him that if 17-round 9-mm mags are banned, then people will just buy 10-mm (shhh, I was trying to make it scary) pistols to fill up the empty space.

Anonymous said...

Glock 19 and Glock 33 rnd mags sales are up..

nj_larry said...

Oh Sweet Jesus...this is just too good to be of the Giffords shooting victims of last Saturday just threatened to kill a tea party guy in Tucson. Then the cops arrested him and brought him in for mental observation at a hospital. And apparently its all on videotape. It was at a meeting staged for the ABC Sunday morning news show with Christine Amanpore. I can't wait to see how dear Christine plays this out on tomorrows Sunday show.

Anonymous said...

I'm telling ya, the banners think there's traction behind a hicap ban. Without a whole lot of squawking, the house could easily get squishy and let it by.

James said...

One thing I'd like to see is gun owners taking ownership of this debate. Instead of explaining why we "need" high capacity mags, the other side should be forced to make their own case, something that doesn't pass muster if they have to go an inch beyond the emotional talking point of "more bullets equals more killing power!"

If nothing else we should expose the arbitrary nature of such a ban. One of their oft cited arguments is, "Who needs more than 10 rounds to go hunting?" Beyond the obvious stupidity, no one ever seems to ask, "Why 10? Why not 12, or 7?" Of course, we all know that their preferred number is 0, which is why those on the side of right here can't ever budge so much as an inch.

Pro-gun rights victories over the past decade are great, but the downside is that those on the other side of freedom and right have been taking notes. Look at that vile with McCarthy's proposed law: it closes up several of the weaknesses of the prior existing Assault Weapons Ban. Right now we have a friendly House (perhaps even Senate), though the Court isn't as reliable as everyone seems to think, and we all know what our president thinks.

Cemetery's Gun Blob said...

If you read the bill closely, you'll see not mention of semi auto, and the only exemption will be for mag tube feed .22cal.

Kiss you're leverguns goodbye.

nj_larry said...

Great catch on the levergun implications...

draft copy of the bill

Anonymous said...

On the day of the Tucson shooting, in the community where our church is, a madman stabbed his mother and father. When the police arrived, he threatened them with the same knife that he used on his parents and was shot and killed. This weekend, also near where I live, another madman strangled his wife and smothered his two kids before killing himeself. NO GUNS WERE INVOLVED IN EITHER CASE, so forget the mass-killing ability of semi-automatic guns. You can also drop the typical "suicide prevention" arguement often applied to gun bans.

In other areas, explosives have been banned from use by the general public and now we have terrorists fabricating homemade explosives and trying to bring down airplanes. Heavy artillery and bombs are not available to street-level terrorists in Iraq and we have "improvised explosive devices", or IUDs. NO GUNS ARE INVOLVED. Banning guns won't solve the problem, it will only succeed in making some of us "less equal". Guns make us all equal!

The moral of the gun ban story? We need to focus on the root cause of the problem(s). The root cause isn't the availablilty of guns, or magazine capacity. We need to take the lead in this discussion and stop waiting to defend ourselves AFTER we get attacked by the gun controllers. The public is actually hungry for the facts. Right now, they're eating up the drama of a story that they may not fully understand. This isn't to say that they're stupid, it only says that they aren't informed.

Last, "Reasonable restrictions are not infringements."? I would disagree! If the restrictions do not resolve the problem, they are infringements. If the restrictions cause more problems than they fix, they are infringements. If the restrictions cause even one new problem, they are infringements. We need to focus on the problem and that is the personal responsibility of the criminal. After that, we need to look at those that surrounded the perpetrator and examine what they knew and when. We need to ask ourselves if they took reasonab;e responsibility to prevent the perp' from acting. That's a ripe area for trial lawyers to go after, rather than suing an un-involved gun company that is engaged in lawful business. Sue the ass off of some enabling and protective mother, or father a few times and I'll bet we see a big drop in occurrences of these type of crimes. Let's start by going back to the Virginia Tech shooter's family and move forward from there.

Life Member

DamDoc said...

Gotta get me one of those .223 Surefire 100s like you have pictured (of course the $150+ price looks a little steep!).. will "they" still let us have one by the apparent april release date? We sure hope so!

Rastus said...

You were obviously tired and in a rush when you posted.

Not to be pissy, but it's not a loophole to be closed! It's a right to be infringed upon and lost!

This goes with other "Freudian slips" we make. Actually, Freud is pretty much discounted in the psych community...but Hollywood loves him. BF Skinner and the like with conditioned response are the true heroes of psychology. I say that to reinforce that we've been conditioned by the incessant barrage of newspeak to inadvertantly internalize such things as the concept of "loophole" and to casually use such you've said before.

Have A Great Day,