And so it begins in the U.S.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have proposed an amendment to the "Cybersecurity Act" to ban standard capacity magazines.
The amendment would ban import, possession, and transfer of magazines that accept (or could be readily converted to accept) more than ten rounds and that are manufactured after the enactment of the amendment. Pre-ban magazines could be possessed by the current owner, but not transferred or imported. The ban only excludes tubular magazines designed to accept .22-caliber ammunition.
This amendment is similar to the ban imposed by the Clinton Administration that expired when the failed semi-auto ban ended in 2004, but more restrictive. During the 10 years that law was in effect, it was never shown that any aspect of the ban had any impact on the criminal misuse of firearms. In the eight years the ban expired, millions more magazines have been made and sold, while homicide and other violent crimes have continued to hit near-record lows each year.
The amendment would violate the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the possession of arms that are commonly used for lawful purposes. Firearms designed to use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are among the most commonly owned and used self-defense guns today. Millions of such magazines are in circulation amongst law-abiding people. Indeed, they are the overwhelming choice of state and local police departments nationwide, contradicting ban supporters' claim that such magazines are only suitable for use in crime.
The amendment provides for fines and up to 10 years in prison for violations. That is double the possible prison term under the 1994-2004 ban.
For those who own magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, the amendment would also create a new risk of prosecution. Because virtually no existing magazines bear any markings that show when they were made, the amendment would require that magazines made after the ban be marked to distinguish them from pre-ban magazines. However, the bill's "grandfather clause" for possession of pre-ban magazines would only create an affirmative defense -- forcing defendants to produce evidence that they possessed the magazines before the ban. This nearly impossible requirement is a major difference from the 1994 ban, which put the burden of proof on the government and established a legal presumption that unmarked magazines predated the ban.
Obviously, despite the burdens it would put on honest Americans, the amendment wouldn't stop criminals from obtaining magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Tens of millions of Americans own countless tens of millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and confiscation of existing magazines would be impossible. Anything that common can be stolen or bought on the black market. And even if no magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were available, criminals could still use multiple smaller magazines, multiple firearms, more powerful firearms, or weapons other than firearms.
Finally, the proposed ban’s prohibitions are so sweeping that they prevent even those in lawful possession of pre-ban magazines from sharing the magazines with a companion at a range or training course, or taking them on a trip overseas and bringing them back into the country. Millions of people who have never committed a crime or posed a risk of harm to anyone would arbitrarily be subject to prosecution for a 10-year federal felony.

[TheLegend]

B*******. I would be p***** if i was a American. Its stupid enough here in Canada.

[Hagalaz]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Millions of people who have never committed a crime or posed a risk of harm to anyone would arbitrarily be subject to prosecution for a 10-year federal felony.

And this is how you make your country hate you.

[Ryry4]

Obama is doing his best to get punted in November. What a tool.

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Obama is doing his best to get punted in November. What a tool.

Not sure about that...this kind of stuff will likely garner him a lot of votes. People want some kind of action (right or wrong) in response to the rash of recent shootings in the U.S.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Not sure about that...this kind of stuff will likely garner him a lot of votes. People want some kind of action (right or wrong) in response to the rash of recent shootings in the U.S.

Then they would have signed the UN gun ban. The people that fell for the "Hope & Change" are singing a different toon now. Regardless of what the left-wing media reports. It's going to be interesting what happens.

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Then they would have signed the UN gun ban. The people that fell for the "Hope & Change" are singing a different toon now. Regardless of what the left-wing media reports. It's going to be interesting what happens.

Very interesting....I know a lot of my very right wing friend are very worried. I think a lot more people still believe in hope and change than the right-wing media would have us believe. He's a long ways from packing his bags and leaving the Whitehouse. This rash of shootings won't help the Republicans.

[densa44]

They would be more perspicacious if they tried harder to keep guns and what have you, out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill! But that isn't a simple solution so it is not very appealing.

I think it is very ironic that the gun club owner is the only one to see this guy as dangerous. If there had of been an effective way to pass on this information some lives may have been saved.

Banning high capacity mags would just mean that the shooter would have to reload more often. Not much of a solution.

[scrapper]

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

Just curious what classifies a rifle as an "assault-style" weapon?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

Not from everyone. I fully agree with every word you have said. Now we can both get flamed

[markg]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

Here is where i respectfully disagree with you. Firstly hunting coyotes with a AR in .223 or 204 would be amazingly fun. So would going to the range with the same type of rifle.

Secondly, rifle types and clip limits dont change the person behind the trigger. If you bought an assult rifle would you suddenly turn into a crazed killer? The firearm doesnt matter, its who is behind it. If a lunatic intent on doing harm chooses to go on a rampage there is nothing society can do to stop him. (unless we had conceal carry and could shoot back) If he didnt have a gun he could buy a sword and chop people up running around in the mall yelling "Banzi" He could make a bunch of bombs at home and yell Allah Akbar. Crazy people intent on murder cant be stopped with gun control.

[Ryry4]

I don't see a need for cars that go 200 mph but I'm not about to hop on the "ban train"

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Very interesting....I know a lot of my very right wing friend are very worried. I think a lot more people still believe in hope and change than the right-wing media would have us believe. He's a long ways from packing his bags and leaving the Whitehouse. This rash of shootings won't help the Republicans.

It never helps the Republicans when something like this happens. The economy is front and center right now. If this election is a referendum on Obama he'll loose. If it becomes a Obama vs. Romney smear campaign (which Obama already has started) he may win, but I don't think he'll get a majority in the house and senate.

[duceman]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

yup, brilliant thinking.
i'm a hunter , i see no need for a handgun with a barrel shorter than 4";
and now no one can buy or use one unless you were lucky enough to be grandfathered.
i'm a hunter; i see no reason to own a hand gun; anyone that wants one should have to jump through twice as many hoops as me, and only be able to use them at approved ranges.
i'm a hunter; i see no reason for a magazine to hold more than 4 rounds at a time.
i'm a hunter, i only shoot 6 rounds a year, i see no need for any one to have more than one box of ammo for the gun they have locked up in the house at one time.
i'm a hunter, and i live in the city. i see no reason why any one would need to have a firearm any where except trigger locked in a safe in a locked room in their house, unless they were hunting.
the erosion of our rights and freedoms are to kiss goodbye, one at a time, as the government bodies chip away at them a little at a time, one 'minority' at a time.
i have no desire in owning a glock, ak47, or longbow for that matter. does that mean i should stand by and watch fellow sportsman who do be stripped of the privilege of owning them if the powers that be deem it so?
absolutely not!
the 'community' better start sticking together on some of this stuff; one day you will be in the 'minority', and ripe for the picking, lee

[Coiloil37]

Originally Posted by duceman

yup, brilliant thinking.
i'm a hunter , i see no need for a handgun with a barrel shorter than 4";
and now no one can buy or use one unless you were lucky enough to be grandfathered.
i'm a hunter; i see no reason to own a hand gun; anyone that wants one should have to jump through twice as many hoops as me, and only be able to use them at approved ranges.
i'm a hunter; i see no reason for a magazine to hold more than 4 rounds at a time.
i'm a hunter, i only shoot 6 rounds a year, i see no need for any one to have more than one box of ammo for the gun they have locked up in the house at one time.
i'm a hunter, and i live in the city. i see no reason why any one would need to have a firearm any where except trigger locked in a safe in a locked room in their house, unless they were hunting.
the erosion of our rights and freedoms are to kiss goodbye, one at a time, as the government bodies chip away at them a little at a time, one 'minority' at a time.
i have no desire in owning a glock, ak47, or longbow for that matter. does that mean i should stand by and watch fellow sportsman who do be stripped of the privilege of owning them if the powers that be deem it so?
absolutely not!
the 'community' better start sticking together on some of this stuff; one day you will be in the 'minority', and ripe for the picking, lee

Nailed it.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Coiloil37

Nailed it.

Yup, 100%.

[elkhunter11]

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

First of all, by definition,any rifle that does not have fully automatic capability, is not an assault rifle. Secondly, the style of a firearm does not make it any more dangerous. An AR-15 is no more dangerous than a mini 14, but the AR is banned because it looks like an assault rifle.

As for the purpose of firearms existing, why do you think that they were developed in the first place.

[hardy]

Originally Posted by duceman

yup, brilliant thinking.
i'm a hunter , i see no need for a handgun with a barrel shorter than 4";
and now no one can buy or use one unless you were lucky enough to be grandfathered.
i'm a hunter; i see no reason to own a hand gun; anyone that wants one should have to jump through twice as many hoops as me, and only be able to use them at approved ranges.
i'm a hunter; i see no reason for a magazine to hold more than 4 rounds at a time.
i'm a hunter, i only shoot 6 rounds a year, i see no need for any one to have more than one box of ammo for the gun they have locked up in the house at one time.
i'm a hunter, and i live in the city. i see no reason why any one would need to have a firearm any where except trigger locked in a safe in a locked room in their house, unless they were hunting.
the erosion of our rights and freedoms are to kiss goodbye, one at a time, as the government bodies chip away at them a little at a time, one 'minority' at a time.
i have no desire in owning a glock, ak47, or longbow for that matter. does that mean i should stand by and watch fellow sportsman who do be stripped of the privilege of owning them if the powers that be deem it so?
absolutely not!
the 'community' better start sticking together on some of this stuff; one day you will be in the 'minority', and ripe for the picking, lee

Could not agree more. All of the anti's plans/laws and red tape still lead to one singular conclusion. NO GUNS PERIOD! These laws and bans are all just stepping stones!

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

First of all, by definition,any rifle that does not have fully automatic capability, is not an assault rifle. Secondly, the style of a firearm does not make it any more dangerous. An AR-15 is no more dangerous than a mini 14, but the AR is banned because it looks like an assault rifle.

As for the purpose of firearms existing, why do you think that they were developed in the first place.

And the AR's and mini's are no more dangerous than the Ruger #1's and Sharps' out there.

[cbc_anderson]

Very well said Duceman!

The anti-gun crowd wants all guns banned except for police and military. They are the same crowd that would ban hunting in all forms. Rights are lost bit by bit, not in sweeping fashion.

I know that some on this forum want to keep hunting rights and are less worried about broader gun rights, but we need to stick together.

Also worth noting that the Founding Fathers in America weren't protecting the rights of hunting in the 2nd Ammendment. They were protecting the right for individuals to bear arms as a defense against oppressive government rule. They understood that the rights of free men and women are much more fragile than some have come to believe in our time. The fact that we can use guns to hunt is just an added benefit that we all on this forum appreciate very much in Alberta and elsewhere.

Let's hope this goes nowhere.

[insurgus]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

The second ammendment right to keep and bear arms was not designed so people could hunt. It was designed to allow the citizens of that country to keep their government in check.

If I want to head out for some “AR rock and roll” at a movie screening in Canada, I can do that all the same by unpinning my mags. This does nothing but make honest, law abiding citizen’s criminals by the stroke of a pen.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

Probably don't remember Jim Zumbo. Used to be an outdoors writer, kind of like Sheephunter, His taking this kind of stand, put a severe crimp in his career. Hunting is only one legitimate use of firearms and there are a lot of people who enjoy shooting these things for their own sake. Many of those who take your position would just as soon make you hand in YOUR weapons and quit hunting. Remember that.

Grizz

[elkhunter11]

Probably don't remember Jim Zumbo. Used to be an outdoors writer, kind of like Sheephunter, His taking this kind of stand, put a severe crimp in his career.

It cost him his career, and rightfully so. Either all gun owners stick together, and support each other, or the anti gun crowd will turn us against each other and end up with us losing all of our guns.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It cost him his career, and rightfully so.

A guy rightfully loses his career because he has a differing opinion? Gimme a break.

[elkhunter11]

A guy rightfully loses his career because he has a differing opinion? Gimme a break.

When your career is based on using firearms, and you don't support other firearms owners, yes, you deserve to lose the support of all other firearms owners.

[Comstar]

I think you should be able to put as many bullets in a gun as you want and pack a handgun on you.

A while ago when I was in the states I was in a store that carried guns (of course most stores do down there) anyway we got talking about handguns. He brought up the point if someone was going to walk into the store with a gun he could easily have 5+ shoppers with concealed carrys pull guns on him.

I would like the feeling of knowing I have a way to protect myself if I needed to.

I like being able to go to the range with a semi auto .22 with lots of ammo and have fun.
I would like to be able to have an sks or Ar with the same larger mags.

For those who don't think they need high capacity mags they wouldnt have to use them.

[rugatika]

always amazes me that people can be so blind. Once they ban high cap mags, then they ban military cartridges...308, 30/06, 223, assault lever actions that can fire 10 rounds almost as fast as a semi and so on and so on. Then you have to leave your guns in a community locker and can only retrieve them at the leisure of a bureaucrat upon presentation of a valid hunting licence, at certain times of the year.

Zumbo got everything coming to him. Too bad it happened at the end of his carreer instead of the beginning. I have no time for people that are only too happy to trade away the liberty of their fellow citizens for no other reason than they are unable to comprehend the outcome of their actions.

Some people just don't get it...frustrating.

As for Schumer...his law is going no where. Most democrats are running from gun laws because they know what will happen to their electoral campaigns this fall. Schumer can get away with it because he's in a liberal jurisdiction. Most democrats don't have as secure a spot as he does. Americans have no appetite for gun control despite the recent tragedy.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinio...uns/index.html and this is from left wing Rino David Frum...for CNN.

[Rod1960]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons and high capacity magazines it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.

First of all, if you or anyone else thinks the 'A' in AR stands for assault you're sorrily mistaken. It stands for Armalite, the company that initially designed it before selling the patent to Colt.

Secondly, as said before, after they come for my AR and my handguns they'll go after your neighbour's semi auto anything and in the end they will get your single shot bolt action.

UNLESS ALL GUN OWNERS STICK TOGETHER.

.....and just out of curiosity, how would you feel if someone said to you, 'I don't hunt but I compete in 3 gun and enjoy target shooting. Nobody should have a gun with a bigger caliber than .223'.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It cost him his career, and rightfully so.

Hardly, the guy is right back on top now. He made a heartfelt apology and all was forgiven.