H.R. 308

[skyugo]

given the number of "high" capacity mags out there there's really no way to stop someone bent on doing harm from obtaining one. a bill like this would do much to keep joe citizen from having a standard cap mag in his EDC glock though. I'd hate to have to prove to the cops post shooting that my mags were all legal.

dear americans-
your life is only worth defending with 10 rounds

signed,

Carolyn McCarthy

[BWT]

given the number of "high" capacity mags out there there's really no way to stop someone bent on doing harm from obtaining one. a bill like this would do much to keep joe citizen from having a standard cap mag in his EDC glock though. I'd hate to have to prove to the cops post shooting that my mags were all legal.

dear americans-
your life is only worth defending with 10 rounds

signed,

Carolyn McCarthy

You know what I watched about 20 minutes ago? Infrared video of drug smugglers catapulting kilos of cocaine over the border.

It amazes me that people believe, truly believe that laws will stop an individual, they truly only bind the law-abiding, us. Following the law is a personal point of view and perspective.

Because truthfully, you could break it constantly, but we often don't. (Let me clarify this, I'm referring to driving, jay-walking, whatever, when I do)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDppu3Mcj6E

Here's a youtube video of a guy making an AK-47 receiver from sheet metal. (Perfectly legal, but to say if you banned guns, or really anything that it couldn't find it's way into civilian hands is well... stupid, or that if one weren't motivated they couldn't find a way around those things)

Oh yes, we're the ones you have to worry about, the guys who pay their taxes, support non-profit organizations, write letters and follow the law.

[Iraqgunz]

Just like the days of the Clinton AWB there is NO WAY to prove if someone came into possession of said magazines prior to the bill becoming law.

There have been so many magazines pumped out post Clinton AWB that the task would be as absurd as attempting to round up everyones guns.

Someone tell me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall one legit case of someone being convicted of violating the 1994 AWB/ Magazine ban that wasn't engaged in other illegal activity.

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.

[BWT]

Just like the days of the Clinton AWB there is NO WAY to prove if someone came into possession of said magazines prior to the bill becoming law.

There have been so many magazines pumped out post Clinton AWB that the task would be as absurd as attempting to round up everyones guns.

Someone tell me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall one legit case of someone being convicted of violating the 1994 AWB/ Magazine ban that wasn't engaged in other illegal activity.

While I agree, this has portions of the bill that are different than the Clinton AWB.

Namely, you aren't able to trade/sell pre-ban magazines. If you don't have it at the time of enactment you can not buy it afterwards from other civilians, pre-ban or not, it doesn't matter if the magazine was made in 1912 for a 1911, if it has more than 10 rounds, you could not buy it if this ban went into effect.

This is similar to the Clinton AWB in that they ban magazines with over 10 round capacity.

But different in that you're unable to transfer any pre-ban magazines.

Meaning, no more gun shows/stores where you get gouged. Because you'd be committing a felony with the same repercussions as having an illegal MG.

Anyway, I just wanted to spread awareness of this bill, more than get in an argument over it.

By the way, as for,

This is unconstitutional because in practice is becomes an ex post facto law.

... From the same people that can't understand "Shall not be Infringed"?

Color me shocked.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

We are legally one Supreme Court Justice away from being limited to a single action revolver limited to our house.

I'd love for one of these laws to be struck down because they used the word 'clip' and not 'magazine'.

IF you can't transfer them, start getting a corp or trust together that can hold them and allow officers or trustees to use them.

I've always had problems with mag bans like Cali and this one. It seems to violate the equal protections principle. HE can have them, but I Can't because of some date? Doesn't that discriminate against the young?

[Iraqgunz]

I understand what you are saying, really. My point is that it means JACKSHIT because there is no way for anyone to trace or otherwise prove if the magazine was in your possession or not.

You know as well as I there would be an undergound market that would flourish, so what happens in the open is irrelevant.

It could also never be enforced unless you were actually caught red handed.

On a final note, it will never happen.

While I agree, this has portions of the bill that are different than the Clinton AWB.

Namely, you aren't able to trade/sell pre-ban magazines. If you don't have it at the time of enactment you can not buy it afterwards from other civilians, pre-ban or not, it doesn't matter if the magazine was made in 1912 for a 1911, if it has more than 10 rounds, you could not buy it if this ban went into effect.

This is similar to the Clinton AWB in that they ban magazines with over 10 round capacity.

But different in that you're unable to transfer any pre-ban magazines.

Meaning, no more gun shows/stores where you get gouged. Because you'd be committing a felony with the same repercussions as having an illegal MG.

Anyway, I just wanted to spread awareness of this bill, more than get in an argument over it.

By the way, as for,



... From the same people that can't understand "Shall not be Infringed"?

Color me shocked.

[BWT]

So I waited to reply, there's a discussion on another forum, I know a member there that can interpret the language there a lot better than I. (ETA: I forgot to mention, I waited to get permission from him to post his reply)

He summed up my concerns.

I'm talking not about regulating underground hi capacity pre-bans, I'm talking about your out on a Saturday with your family at the gun range, or whatever, and a state trooper or police officer shows up, let's say this is 8 years after this bill passes. It's once again common perception they're all banned, like NFA items, right? You're shooting and the only thing you have to show is a receipt (of course you don't have it on your person, you have it at home, it's not a MG, it's a magazine, right? Well they carry the same charges for having them under that Bill)

But here's the language to express a bit more coherently than I can do.

Here's the heart of the matter:

(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

Thus, possession and transfer are illegal. That was the case from 1994-2004, however, there were two major differences: transfer of pre-ban mags was not illegal, and that law had a provision that made it virtually impossible to prosecute for having pre-ban mags:

Originally Posted by formerly 18 USC 922(w)(4)
If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).
This provision is absent from HR308.

This bill is the result of their having learned their lesson with the old AWB. It was full of holes and easily bypassed. This one is not. If it passes, we're ****ed. And its odds of passing are not zero, because you have a lot of useful idiot Republicans who want to be cooperative and bipartisan and ask "why does anyone need a clip that holds so many bullets?"

Transfer is illegal. He also shows where the Language that protected you under the old AWB is gone.

Thanks.

[Gutshot John]

(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

Uhm your friend needs some work on his reading comprehension...the language explicitly makes it legal to possess/transfer a hi-cap magazine if you legally possessed it before the date the law was enacted.

It's a classic grandfather clause.

How do you get to the exact opposite interpretation?

The government ALWAYS has the burden of proof to secure a conviction. The language not only doesn't change that, but seemingly reinforces it.

[Iraqgunz]

I agree. It spells it out fairly clear right there. They know it is impossible to enforce. So all they are really doing is "feel good" legislation.

Uhm your friend needs some work on his reading comprehension...the language explicitly makes it legal to possess/transfer a hi-cap magazine if you legally possessed it before the date the law was enacted.

It's a classic grandfather clause.

How do you get to the exact opposite interpretation?

The government ALWAYS has the burden of proof to secure a conviction. The language not only doesn't change that, but seemingly reinforces it.

[BWT]

Uhm your friend needs some work on his reading comprehension...the language explicitly makes it legal to possess/transfer a hi-cap magazine if you legally possessed it before the date the law was enacted.

It's a classic grandfather clause.

Because there is no magazine serial number, there is a manufacture date, that's it. Which proves that it was pre-ban in time, but not pre-ban in your possession.

There is nothing that proves which magazines you had. Sure they could've been made before the ban, but you can't buy other pre-ban magazines before the ban.

That's what I was saying when I said, in the first post.

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)

There's nothing to say that you had that particular magazine before the ban, just a receipt that says you had a magazine.

Kind of like if I had an Thompson (a real one) unregistered before 1934, that I bought. It doesn't mean shit if I had the gun before the NFA went into effect in '34.

If I didn't register that MG, that's illegal, because it wasn't registered to me or anyone. But it could've been owned before that law by anyone.

Same principle.

There is no Magazine registry to prove which magazines you had, you only have receipts to prove you bought some. (ETA: It doesn't discriminate which magazines you bought)

There is no magazine registry, but there will be if they pass this bill.

(d) Identification Markings- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.'.

Do you understand now?

There will be no magazine amnesty period to register magazines in this bill.

Get it?

ETA 2: It's like having a Thompson, NFA passing and there being no amnesty to register what you have, basically. Because you can't prove you had it before the ban, you simply can not. No FFL kept serial numbers on which Magazines they sold, and no manufacturer put serial numbers on them, and your receipts don't have those same serial numbers, so it might as well have been bought illegally for all intensive purposes.

You can't prove you had it before the ban, so it doesn't matter that you truly did buy it before hand, that's what I'm saying.

ETA 3: What really makes this a threat is, you can't buy other pre-ban magazines (within this bill), you can only keep the ones you had before the ban. But you can't prove through any registry or legal documents that you had those particular magazines before the ban, so... They're illegal for all intensive purposes.

ETA 4: There's also no infrastructure setup currently to register magazines, that would have to come after the ban, so, there's no way to register them and this bill has no amnesty period, that's the problem.