Fixed Magazines - Compromise?

[ellisonz]

California law requires that so-called "semiautomatic, centerfire rifle" must have a fixed magazine i.e. non-detachable magazine with a capacity no greater than ten rounds. I would be willing to accept an assault weapons reform legislation deal that allowed the continued sale of such weapons so long as all over-the-counter sales required this reform and all "private" transfers of such weapons required modification such that if you buy one you have to make the change. I think such a measure would go a long way in reducing the practical lethality of such weapons.

Would such a compromise approach be acceptable to you?

7 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, require all transfers of such weapons to have fixed magazines.
	1 (14%)
	No, I would not accept such a compromise on these types of weapons.
	6 (86%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[defacto7]

1. Honestly, I don't know.

I will look forward to some argument on this proposition. I would think that a fixed magazine would slow things down more than just limiting rounds... but then again not having such weapons would slow things down even more.

[ellisonz]

2. Oh I agree...

...but I'm not really confident we'll get that at the Federal level. I'd like to see Wayne LaPierre try to argue that there is a Constitutional right to a detachable magazine.

[BainsBane]

3. I don't know either

1. Like Defacto said I'd need to read the arguments for and against.
2. I don't live in California, so I don't feel that's my decision to make.

[ellisonz]

7. California has had this requirement for new weapons for two decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I think much lower magazine capacity limits, fixed or otherwise are what is needed.

5, for example, with no private or public sale of higher capacity magazines legal. Existing magazines can be modified to reduce capacity.

[ellisonz]

5. Well if you can't change magazines rapidly...

...that's a big impact on the functionality of the weapon for the purpose of violence against people.

[Hoyt]

6. It would help prevent mass shootings. More importantly impede gun sales.

Yahoos will not line up to purchase/fondle such weapons.

Those are good things.

[safeinOhio]

8. I'm not sure what the is now,

but I remember Ohio considered any weapon that could hold 31 rounds, 30 mag with one in the chamber a machine gun and was illegal. That might be a way to solve the high cap magazine question. Redefine guns that can hold more than 10 rounds a machine gun.

[rdharma]

9. Problem is...... they've already figured a way around the "fixed mag"....

They've already developed devices such as the "bullet button" or "magazine magnet"....... to bypass the "locked" magazine button. These are legal in CA as long as they "don't remain on the rifle".

The great thing about the magnetic version........ is you can leave it on the rifle .... OR take it off (if you think the popo might be inspecting your gatt).

Or .......they can just switch to a regular magazine release in about a minute. (Illegal in CA)

[slackmaster]

10. The question is based on a false premise

California law requires that so-called "semiautomatic, centerfire rifle" must have a fixed magazine i.e. non-detachable magazine with a capacity no greater than ten rounds.

Not true. Rifles that take detachable magazines are legal here, but magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds whether it's fixed or detachable.