H.R. 308

[BWT]

ETA:

Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced her bill yesterday to ban standard capacity magazines, drums, belts, tubes, stripper clips, or anything else that contains more than 10 rounds. Exemptions are made for police and military. All devices made for military or police uses if the bill passes would now be serialized.

(I forgot to mention)

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...mmunition.html

I thought I had read also, and I was correct, unfortunately.

It prohibits transfer from individual to individual after the ban.

Also the burden of proof is on the individual, no longer the government, to prove you have a legitimate pre-ban magazine or illegitimate magazine.

Meaning before, they had to prove that your magazine was illegal. Now you have to prove it isn't when confronted by law enforcement, and receipts basically means nothing if you think about it. They will all illegal because there are no SERIAL NUMBERS ON MAGAZINES (and there shouldn't be, but, just saying). (ETA: (For clarification) So even if you have a receipt of 500 magazines... how can you discriminate that those are the 500 magazines you had before the ban? There's no magazine registry, and again, there shouldn't be, but just saying or serial numbered magazines)

How are you going to prove what magazines you bought before the ban? I know I have receipts for most of my stuff probably, but... nothing other than the date stamp on the side of the magazines to say that I originally bought them. (Which again, to remind you, you can no longer buy pre-ban magazines from other individuals, you must be the original purchaser)

I can't believe this wasn't posted earlier.

63 Co-Sponsors, from your usual suspects.

But this one's ugly, really ugly.

Contact your representatives.

[500grains]

Also the burden of proof is on the individual, no longer the government, to prove you have a legitimate pre-ban magazine or illegitimate magazine.

This is unconstitutional because in practice is becomes an ex post facto law. I have bunches of magazines that I purchased but for which I have no "proof" of prior ownership because I threw the receipts away. I cannot go back in time to get the receipts, yet the mag ban bill would criminalize my failure to have kept them.

Carolyn McCarthy is a nitwit.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The bill number is 308, kind of funny.

I worry about a mag ban. Even my wife is like"Why do you need so many rounds?"

"Why do you have so many black shoes?" doens't sway her opinion.

The way the law is written, it basically means that if you have hi-caps, they can pull you in if they want.

Let's say you serialized your own mags, what's to keep them from saying that you sold those mags and made new markings up?

[Caeser25]

Pmags have dates of manufacturing on them, if you have your receipts.

[Gutshot John]

It's not a "law", it's a bill.

A bill that's been referred to committee to die.

That said if you live in one of the districts of the co-sponsors, then give them a call. My rep is on the list and I'll be contacting him.

When being charged with a crime the burden is ALWAYS on the government to prove that a crime has been committed, NEVER on you to prove your innocence.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this, it's kabuki theater.

[Iraqgunz]

There is always a danger when trying to guess what politicians will do, but I think you are right.

It's not a "law", it's a bill.

A bill that's been referred to committee to die.

That said if you live in one of the districts of the co-sponsors, then give them a call. My rep is on the list and I'll be contacting him.

When being charged with a crime the burden is ALWAYS on the government to prove that a crime has been committed, NEVER on you to prove your innocence.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this, it's kabuki theater.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I forgot what they call it, but they make them all illegal, but say that if you can prove that you meet some criteria you can use that as a defense. LEOs should leave you alone if you meet the requirements since they won't win in court, but they could make you take the ride and win the case in court.

It really isn't guilty till proven innocent, it just works like that

I think we will see a lot more activity from the dems on gun control, and if they were smart they'd wait till the election and make RINOs in close districts vote for 'machine guns' and 'weapons of mass destruction' and paint them as extremists. The Dem leadership doesn't care really one way or the other- if they did they would have introduced the legislation when they had total control. They'll just use the issue now to try to pick off some vulnerable Republicans and hope that nothing actually gets passed because then they poke the big bear with a stick.

[Gutshot John]

There is always a danger when trying to guess what politicians will do, but I think you are right.

I know they won't do anything that will jeopardize their chances of getting re-elected.

This issue is a dog and most of the Democratic party knows it.

[Gutshot John]

I forgot what they call it, but they make them all illegal, but say that if you can prove that you meet some criteria you can use that as a defense.

I think people are letting internet hype get in the way of basic common sense.

If that's actually the way the law if written (which I doubt) allowing an affirmative defense is different than requiring one. As such it would be completely unenforceable and would create as much a nightmare for LEOs as anyone else.

Assuming that this bill is made into law, it's basically just another thing they can charge you with if you get caught committing another crime with your hi-cap magazine. No one is going to waste their time checking your purchase receipts of hi-cap magazines sitting around your house. That said this bill isn't going anywhere.

Politicians aren't big into political suicide and what you can get away with in a liberal district doesn't fly in the rest of the country.

[BWT]

It really isn't guilty till proven innocent, it just works like that

Well the problem with the bill as it is written, is you can't sell any pre-ban mags to anyone else and can only hold them.

Date Stamps are inconsequential, while classifying any magazine as it's time of purchase it doesn't mean that you were the original purchaser.

That's the MAJOR problem with this type of bill, in addition to it being more gun control.

For instance, say I have 5 magazines, or let's say the 5 magazines I bought for my AR Last week?

Right they'll have a date stamp on the body, I'll have a receipt, but what distinguishes those as the 5 magazines I bought? (ETA: Because again, remember under that bill, it's legal to have these magazines as long as you owned them before the ban, but how can you prove those are the magazines you had?)

They'll all have the same date stamp. Nothing on my Bill of Sale/Receipt says when those magazines were made.

Now let's look at the Chinese AK magazines I ordered last week. None of them have a date stamp so I can't even prove their pre-ban, and then I run into the other issue.

You see what I'm saying?

This is a very dangerous law, and even though I suspect it will go nowhere, I do everything I can to see to it that it goes nowhere.