10 Round Magazine Limit for National CCW Reciprocity

[JohnnyBoots]

Would you be OK with it? If a CCW in the shall issue state it was given in was recognized without infringement in all other 49 states, would you agree to a national 10 round mag limit? Grandfathered hi-cap mags would be legal. Would the gun control side agree? It would be putting their money where their mouth is, if mag bans are truly to save the children/innocents it would be little for them to give up to achieve their goal.

[Duckhunter935]

1. ok

[Pullo]

2. Why, your proposal is an actual compromise

BOTH sides giving up something and BOTH sides getting something in return.

Me giving up less of my rights than somebody else would ideally like to take away from me is not compromise, its appeasement.

[Eleanors38]

4. Unsure, but do note it as a rare give-and-take compromise proposal.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. No. Such a limit accomplishes nothing.

If I am to give something up, I want what I am surrendering to actually acomplish something.

[JohnnyBoots]

5. I agree with you

if it was a 20 round limit I would do that deal in a heart beat as anything bigger than 20 rounds will jam like a bastard.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. And many pistols have magazines between 10 and 20 rounds.

At 20 rounds I would be strongly tempted. At 30 rounds I would take the deal.

[JohnnyBoots]

21. My 9mm takes 17+1

ask for 30...take 20. I doubt either side tries to make a deal. They will just try to destroy each other and waste political capital.
Agree 30 for rifles though is not crazy to ask for.

[baldguy]

6. How about a 5 round magazine limit & reciprocity for gun restrictions?

So that way, a resident of NY can't walk into a gun shop in a RW NRA-freindly state where they give out CCWs like candy and walk out with an assault weapon to take home & slaughter his neighborhood with it.

[JohnnyBoots]

7. What does that jumble of words even mean? NT

[baldguy]

8. Ah, an awesome display of the celibrated reading comprehension skills of the domestic RW gun nut.

Shall I repost it in words with two syllables or fewer?

[JohnnyBoots]

10. You can insult me all you want, but the AWB is not going to pass

I doubt a 'high cap' mag ban will either. So you can jump up and down and scream with righteous indignation all you want. It doesn't fucking matter. We are a pro gun country, always have been. Deal with it, there are bigger fish to fry.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. You forgot about the part of having blood on his hands

Your presumption that all gun owners are collectively guilty is unseemly as is the assumption that all gun owners intend death and destruction to their neighbors

[Straw Man]

33. "Celibrated"?

Ah, an awesome display of the celibrated reading comprehension skills of the domestic RW gun nut.

Is that when they cheer for their chastity or something? Sheesh.

An awesome display of the celebrated writing skills of the domestic Prohibitionist.

[baldguy]

42. If you can't attack the substance of a post, attack the spelling.

Grammar Nazis are well named.

[Straw Man]

45. But can't you see the irony?

You were going all "Reading Comprehension Nazi" on his ass, but then you stuck your foot in it. Good for a chuckle, at least.

[Duckhunter935]

9. I am speechless

What does CCW have to do with assault weapons? Some people need to chill. Do you even understand what CCW reciprocity is. It just recognizes one states licenses in another state. It has not one thing to with buying a rifle.

[gejohnston]

15. Read the Gun Control Act of 1968

A resident of NY can not legally buy a gun in AZ without committing a federal felony. At the same time, a resident of AZ can not buy a gun in NY.

[Clames]

18. Well what would you do about revolvers that carry 6 rounds? n/t

[sylvi]

22. Is that a pressing problem in New York?

Neighborhoods being slaughtered with assault weapons, that is?

[holdencaufield]

35. Bad idea ...

... to carry a revolver with a round under the hammer -- even with a transfer bar.

For carry purposes -- standard revolvers are a 5-shot weapon.

[Straw Man]

39. I beg to differ.

That's precisely why transfer bars were created. I've not heard that they are failure-prone. Would you also recommend carrying a five-round snub-nose with only four?

[holdencaufield]

41. Mechanical safeties fail

It's a fact of life. I just feel better walking around without a bullet under the hammer. That's the way John Wayne would have done it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. I would not support that

The matters are functionally unrelated. National concealed carry should be required regardless

[Starboard Tack]

13. No!

Mags should be restricted to 7 and there should be no federal CCW reciprocity.

[JohnnyBoots]

14. What color would you like your Unicorn in?

Dreamworld that you live in...

[Starboard Tack]

20. What would life be without dreams?

I've spent most of my life making my dreams come true and many have come true, but none have been about unicorns. Of course, they haven't been about guns either. Enjoy the rest of your stay.

[JohnnyBoots]

23. Been here way before you have.

Life is good, doesn't mean you shouldn't have a means to protect yourself and your family.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Never said anyone shouldn't have the means to protect oneself or family.

I support gun ownership. I do not support lunacy.

[JohnnyBoots]

29. Bullshit. Nice revisionism.

'Ennjoy your stay'...Fuck you.

[holdencaufield]

36. Not all dreams are healthy ones ...

... ask Dr Freud.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Speak for yourself

Mine are of a better world where folk don't live in constant fear of each other. That is also the reality of the world I live in. Healthy minds usually have healthy dreams...ask Dr. Freud.

[Straw Man]

37. Seven.

The funny thing is that Andy Cuomo pulled that number out of his hat. Now suddenly everybody's trumpeting it as our salvation.

Mags should be restricted to 7 and there should be no federal CCW reciprocity.

Even for lever guns? This Winchester holds ten:



Illegal to buy in NY State after this year. Can't have people running around with that 19th Century technology, y'know. The Founding Fathers never envisioned lever-action rifles.

[Starboard Tack]

44. I would make an exception for lever action rifles.

7 seems a good number for semi-autos. Hard to imagine a situation where more than 7 might be necessary unless one is intent on committing mischief, which is kinda the whole point.
I think the best solutions strive for a better, safer world, without spoiling anyone's fun. There will always be crybabies on either side, but reasonable minds will hopefully prevail.

[Straw Man]

46. Glad to hear it.

If only Andrew Cuomo would see the light.

[Starboard Tack]

47. I saw nothing that indicates Cuomo banning lever action rifles.

Do you have a link? All I saw was restricting the capacity of detachable clips.
Otherwise, I support Cuomo 100% on this. It takes guts to stand up to the NRA or any terrorist organization.

[Straw Man]

48. Two parts to the law.

One defines and restricts "assault weapons." The other defines and restricts "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," regardless of the type of firearm, whether semi-auto, pump, lever, or other. The tubular magazine underneath the barrel of a lever-action rifle is a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" if it can hold more than seven rounds, which many of them can. Furthermore, it's integral to the rifle and can't be easily detached and replaced.

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, [manufactured after September thir-
teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four,] that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition, OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION; provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition OR A
FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A CURIO OR RELIC.

-- http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s2230-2013

The seven-round provision doesn't go in effect until this April. As of now it's still ten. There's an exemption for .22 rimfire, but most of the rifles used in Cowboy Action shooting (yes, it's a sport) are in centerfire pistol calibers, like .38 or .44. Curio and Relic would cover a 50+ year-old rifle, but not the replicas that are currently popular.

If you have a rifle with a capacity over 10, you have one year to get rid of it. A rifle with capacity over seven can be kept but can't be sold or otherwise transferred in-state, and no new ones can be bought or brought into the state.

"Terrorist organization" is a bit much, don't you think? That kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. It makes you look like the extremist rather than the other way around.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Still sounds reasonable enough. Leaves plenty for sport, SD and hunting.

And a small price to pay if it saves only one life.
There is nothing extremist about labeling the NRA a terrorist organization. I am in no way indulging in hyperbole. Their purpose has morphed from being a reputable organization into an organ of RW propaganda and fear mongering. I call it as I see it. They feed off ignorance and irrational fear, in the same way as the Taliban and AQ, promoting hatred and intolerance. Their goal is to arm as many people as possible and they are succeeding. Their goal is for America to become a failed state and they are succeeding.

They need to be denounced by every progressive gun owner for what they truly are and brought to their knees, instead of them bringing the country to its knees.

[gejohnston]

50. that pretty well describes

They feed off ignorance and irrational fear, in the same way as the Taliban and AQ, promoting hatred and intolerance.

Brady and VPC as well. Come to think of it, it describes all propagandists to varying degrees.

[Starboard Tack]

51. No, it does not describe Brady or VPC

Neither of those organizations preach intolerance or hatred.
I understand your love of guns, but those who want a safer society are not trying to ban all guns or take away the sport and fun of gun ownership, or hinder those who hunt for food.
It's about saving lives without giving up any fundamental rights. The NRA is backed by corporate money, RW crazy money and whackos like Nugent. Comparing the NRA to VPC is like comparing the the Taliban to the Salvation Army.

[gejohnston]

52. they equate gun ownership and CCW

with murder and vigilantism. They are hardly the bastion of logic and honesty. Since they concentrate on guns instead all violence or suicides tell me they are at best intellectually bankrupt and dishonest.
The VPC is closer to Scientology than the Salvation Army.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Do you have links showing gun ownership = vigilantism?

[Straw Man]

55. I used to think you were a reasonable person.

Their goal is for America to become a failed state and they are succeeding.

But you seem to be succumbing to the hyperbolic hysteria. Good luck with that.

Be careful of the "if it saves one life" criterion. First of all, it is impossible to prove. Second, by that line of reasoning, there is no reason why we shouldn't have Breathalyzer-lockouts on every automobile ignition in the country.

You wouldn't save one life: you would save thousands. Where is the hue and cry? Where is the outrage?

[Starboard Tack]

56. Breathalyzer-lockouts are an excellent idea.

As are biometric locks on firearms. In fact, put those in place and I'll up my mag number to 10. Until then, the bad apples will establish the rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. How about limiting magazines to "no extended magazines".

For auto-loading firearms with magazines that reside within the grip or within the bulk of the stock, any magazine that extends more than one caliber width below the grip/stock of the firearm shall be considered to be "extended". I would say mags that do completely fit into the firearm they are originally designed for would be considered "standard capacity". Anything else is just an artificial effort to increase a firearm's lethality. This will effectively eliminate all of these truly long high capacity magazines.

I think revolving cylinder and tubular magazine weapon laws should remain constant. Most every revolver out there is anywhere from 4-8 shots and reloading is typically slower than a magazine fed-weapon - no worries here. And tubular magazine type weapons are almost entirely representative of shotguns, lever-action rifle, or other hunting type long-guns.

And for auto-loading firearms where the magazine resides OUTSIDE of the pistol grip (or stock) then the limit should be 10 or 15 rounds. A 10-15 round limit would be on par with what sort of capacity the new pistol magazine requirements would end up allowing.

I would gladly trade these magazine capacity limitations for nation-wide Concealed Pistol Carry recognition.

[immoderate]

26. I like that. "What fits in the grip."

--imm

[Glaug-Eldare]

31. What prevents a manufacturer

from creating an extremely long grip?

[immoderate]

38. Cute.

Perhaps they could. But the gun manufacturers have no stake in making a gun that is hard to shoot.

It would interfere with the concealability and handling of the gun. I have a 30 round magazine. I never shoot with it because it severely diminishes the handling of the gun.

Why don't you draw up a picture of your gun with a foot long grip and see which of the manufacturers show interest? Sounds like a winner.

--imm

[Glaug-Eldare]

40. Uncle Ted's Pistol Manufactory & Auto Repair

lawful holder of an FFL-WTF

[gejohnston]

17. 20 round limit

without a five dollar AOW tax and registration under NFA

in exchange for repealing Hughes amendment and making SBRs and SBSs title one.

[sylvi]

24. How about this?

I keep my 30 rd. magazine, which has virtually no aggravating effect when it comes to the totality of gun crime, and the grab nuts can keep the thousands of federal, state and local laws already on the books restricting the freedom guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S Constitution. I won't even try to have any of them repealed. Might even throw in an extra one or two regarding NICS checks and the like. How's that for compromise?

[JohnnyBoots]

25. Fuckin' Right, brother!

Could not agree more. OP was suggested to see how far apart both sides were. If they actually enforced laws and executed guys who kill family memebers with hammers all would be right with the world.

[2on2u]

27. 2 x 10 = 20. NO. n/t

[iiibbb]

30. I'd do it, sure

always the talk about treating guns like cars.

I'd do it for 7

[Glaug-Eldare]

32. Nope.

I'm not willing to trade away my state's power to regulate the manner and qualifications for carry in exchange for giving up EXTREMELY common and useful magazines. I have confidence that, in time, we're going to win both battles here without needing interference.

[S_B_Jackson]

34. I don't believe that the federal government

should have a say in reciprocity in state-issued concealed carry licenses.
Most states seem to be doing just fine in arriving reciprocity agreements without input or interference from the feds.

[customerserviceguy]

53. I'd like reciprocity

And making firearms ownership requirements standard throughout the country. My driver's license is good in all fifty states, why shouldn't a carry permit be the same?

[ileus]

57. For ccw pistols 10 would be okay

I wouldn't want to intentionally limit my ability to protect my family at home with silly horseshit mag limits at home.