Kimber Talk Forums banner
21 - 24 of 24 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
422 Posts
More deflection from you. It's a habit. Allow me to clarify and simplify:

Magazine capacity is not a right.

God doesn't care about gun magazines. I'm pretty sure he would want you to stop suggesting he does.

The original post and this conversation centered on Mako mags. The OP asked what to do because there is no ten-round mag.

The net-net of the reply was...

1.) it is inadvisable to modify a mag yourself if you aren't suitably skilled;
2.) Put the 13 round away and out of reach and wait for this to play out for the next 180 days; and,
3.) Nobody is going to get busted for an 11-round Mako mag (it was pointed out that the mag says 10 on it).

If a firearm (most likely a newer pistol) has no ten-round option, demanding the owner turn in the mags is an infringement on the 2A. Because giving up the magazines makes the firearm useless. Some full-sized pistols do not have ten-round mags. That will be challenged in the courts.

In the broader sense, I went on to suggest mag capacity laws are likely going to happen everywhere. While nobody likes it, it does not meet the bar of infringing. Don't agree with my prediction? I don't give a shit. It's going to happen. I don't like it either. But I also don't make a habit of wishing things away. Delaware changed their law to 17 rounds within days of the original legislation. I believe this or something close to that will probably become the norm. Maybe 12, or 15.

My final note which is not relevant to the OP is the battle is going to be over long gun mags. These new mag capacity laws don't differentiate handguns from long gun magazines. That's going to be messy and my guess is some elected officials on both sides who vote for this may get booted in November. I suspect the compromise will be to ban future sales and grandfather existing mags. That makes enforcement difficult but the bottom line is no new rifle mags beyond a certain capacity will be sold and existing mags above a certain capacity cannot be traded, gifted, or transferred by civilians. Will this happen? I'm pretty sure that's how it plays out. Nobody is going to be happy.

I've had my fill of ridiculous banter on this topic. Over and out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,384 Posts
More deflection from you. It's a habit. Allow me to clarify and simplify:

Magazine capacity is not a right.

God doesn't care about gun magazines. I'm pretty sure he would want you to stop suggesting he does.

The original post and this conversation centered on Mako mags. The OP asked what to do because there is no ten-round mag.

The net-net of the reply was...

1.) it is inadvisable to modify a mag yourself if you aren't suitably skilled;
2.) Put the 13 round away and out of reach and wait for this to play out for the next 180 days; and,
3.) Nobody is going to get busted for an 11-round Mako mag (it was pointed out that the mag says 10 on it).

If a firearm (most likely a newer pistol) has no ten-round option, demanding the owner turn in the mags is an infringement on the 2A. Because giving up the magazines makes the firearm useless. Some full-sized pistols do not have ten-round mags. That will be challenged in the courts.

In the broader sense, I went on to suggest mag capacity laws are likely going to happen everywhere. While nobody likes it, it does not meet the bar of infringing. Don't agree with my prediction? I don't give a shit. It's going to happen. I don't like it either. But I also don't make a habit of wishing things away. Delaware changed their law to 17 rounds within days of the original legislation. I believe this or something close to that will probably become the norm. Maybe 12, or 15.

My final note which is not relevant to the OP is the battle is going to be over long gun mags. These new mag capacity laws don't differentiate handguns from long gun magazines. That's going to be messy and my guess is some elected officials on both sides who vote for this may get booted in November. I suspect the compromise will be to ban future sales and grandfather existing mags. That makes enforcement difficult but the bottom line is no new rifle mags beyond a certain capacity will be sold and existing mags above a certain capacity cannot be traded, gifted, or transferred by civilians. Will this happen? I'm pretty sure that's how it plays out. Nobody is going to be happy.

I've had my fill of ridiculous banter on this topic. Over and out.

I'll make it simple since you don't seem to like to read:

The Government only has the power granted to them in the US Constitution, by the people.

The 2A doesn't give anyone a right.

The 2A clearly and succinctly forbids the Government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

It was specifically written that way, because the founders knew that a tyrannical government needs to disarm the populace in order to abuse them (see the revolutionary war as an example).

Now, of you had been paying attention, and not trying to be edgy, you just agreed with me.

Personally, I wouldn't give up a single mag, nor would I be concerned with being charged, but I live in rural, conservative GA with very few gun laws, and zero chance that the same Sheriff, Prosecutor, Judge and Deputies that I go to church and shoot with would charge me with that unconstitutional bullshit, nor would a law like that pass here.

That why I suggested moving.
Hoping a liberal DA in a blue state won't charge you after passing a virtue signaling mag ban, isn't a plan, it's down right stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Fearmongering nonsense.

A felony record requires first that one is charged and convicted. The most rabid liberal gun-grabbing ADA in Rhode Island looking to make a name for him or herself would not be stupid enough to base a prosecution on a citizen with no criminal record over an 11 vs. 10-round pistol magazine, based on a law that in other states has been successfully challenged or revised by the lawmakers who tried it. Why? Because that case would be dismissed. Even more ridiculous is the possibility of law enforcement knocking on doors and asking where the 13-round magazines are being hidden.

I don't think you understand how the legal system works or what it takes to actually bring someone up on charges like this. Who would lead the investigation and enforcement? What would the probable cause be for investigating someone? There's a difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. It begins with being able to prove criminal intent. The world is not black and white. Neither is the law. As much as some people are inclined to want it to be.

I'll say it again. 180 days from now Rhode Island will do what Delaware did. Because the law as written is unworkable. Read it. So... everybody who is experiencing anxiety over this matter can now unpucker their o-ring and stop shit-stirring until that deadline. Delaware did the same thing then changed it to 17 rounds

BTW: The RI House and Senate ignored the Judiciary committee rejecting the magazine bill. Went around them instead, basically circumventing parliamentary procedure to jam this bill thru. For that reason alone, the magazine bill is going to be challenged. The governor hasn't signed anything yet.

Gun purchases in RI doubled from 2019 to 2021. A lot of those guns came with magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
Before this law is changed or overturned, and if a RI citizen legally defends him/herself and does so with a 10+ magazine, I'd almost guarantee that a RI DA/ADA (most all are liberal) would bring felony charges against that individual. Even if not, should the perp that was legally shot, and/or his family, file a civil suit against the legal shooter, the perp's legal representation could, and almost certainly will, use the 10+ magazine issue as evidence of intent and disregard for existing law. Trust me...with all the crap a citizen is going to have to deal with after a legal shooting in self-defense, you do not want to have to deal with these kinds of potential legal complications. Especially if the shooting resulted in the death of the perp.

Be very careful playing "chicken" with DA/ADA's looking to climb the political ladder. They don't give a crap who they try to destroy on the way up. Especially in the current political atmosphere surrounding gun ownership and general 2A rights issues.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
422 Posts
Before this law is changed or overturned, and if a RI citizen legally defends him/herself and does so with a 10+ magazine, I'd almost guarantee that a RI DA/ADA (most all are liberal) would bring felony charges against that individual. Even if not, should the perp that was legally shot, and/or his family, file a civil suit against the legal shooter, the perp's legal representation could, and almost certainly will, use the 10+ magazine issue as evidence of intent and disregard for existing law. Trust me...with all the crap a citizen is going to have to deal with after a legal shooting in self-defense, you do not want to have to deal with these kinds of potential legal complications. Especially if the shooting resulted in the death of the perp.

Be very careful playing "chicken" with DA/ADA's looking to climb the political ladder. They don't give a crap who they try to destroy on the way up. Especially in the current political atmosphere surrounding gun ownership and general 2A rights issues.
I agree with the spirit of what you said. There are plenty of prosecutors who want to be perceived as champions of gun control in support of their political ambitions. But in a practical sense, the defendants lawyer would have to be an idiot to lose the case on the basis that the only magazine available for a handgun purchased legally held 11 rounds - but says ten on it (as the Mako flush mag does) and they would also have to show that it actually did have 11 rounds in it.

Imagine showing that magazine to the jury and saying, see.. it says 10 right here. And that's all it had in it. The defense rests.

Contempt for the magazine limitation law wouldn't be material in a civil case. The plaintiff has to prove negligence or some sort of willful attempt to injure in order to collect compensatory or punitive damages. How many rounds were in the magazine would not support that argument. Unless of course there actually were 11 rounds in it and the defendant put them all into the bad guy. That might be a little hard to defend.

Given todays SCOTUS ruling, I'm not sure any of this matters. Gun control law is always going to be a roller coaster. The answer is to take the long view and start educating young people about guns because there is an entire generation of young adults about to get their turn to be in charge who have been told their whole lives that guns are evil.

If that doesn't happen, 30 years from now I predict almost nobody will be able to own a firearm. Most of the people here be dead by then. The gun community spends too much time talking to each other about shit they all agree with instead of talking to people who need to be educated.
 
21 - 24 of 24 Posts
Top