and come take their guns, when the NRA will sell their names and addresses for 6 cents each?

I trust them about as far as I trust any large, single-issue corporate flunky lobbying organization.

"Cigarettes are good for you", remember that one?

Worked, Oh! so well for the tabacco lobby.

Same deal here.

there are already many, many guns out there. at this point a government would need to go door to door, house to house to collect the weapons. specific addresses would not be enough.

that a national registry of guns will be used to confiscate them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022536621#post11

ironically, the names on both lists would overlap.

but after Katrina I changed my mind. It happened then and I was really surprised at that. I never before would have thought that the information would have been used in that way. I am ambivalent on the subject for that reason.

I'm about as Yankee as one can be without eating baked beans for breakfast.

Which I have done.

Also, my state of Ohio sent "Little Phil" Sheridan, some guy named U.S. Grant, and a real first-class sonofabitch of a soldier named Sherman on a tour of Dixie a few years back.




And they never got over it.

Well written.
Sensible solutions.

One area of concern:
Would you support mandatory registration
IF that included a Fee?



...a yearly fee?



....a license?



....liability insurance?



...confiscation penalties for non-compliance?

There is valid concern that this is a Slippery Slope.

A renewable license to stay current? Not a totally insane idea.

I already carry a million-dollar liability rider on my homeowner's.

And if I breaks the law, I takes my chances.

...could be punitive to somebody not so fortunate.

to legally own and use firearms.

For those that claim hardship due to poverty, I'm fairly certain we can make exceptions for that, maybe from the transfer fees of others.

That would be a Progressive solution, like free fishing licenses in Ohio for seniors and others:

You have a MIB AR-15, assuming with the original 20 rounds mags.

If you lived in NY, you could certainly keep the AR, as long as it is registered (which you have no problem with). But the magazines have to go.

IF you ever wanted to shoot your AR as more then a single shot straight-pull, in NY, you would need to buy 7 round magazines for it. {I don't know of any (ETA: 5 rounders available)}. Of course if you wanted to purchase that AR-15 today in NY, you couldn't.

If you wanted to buy an M1 Garand like your father used in Korea (and probably has or wants atleast 1 of now), in NY, you couldn't. Its fixed capacity is 8 rounds.

If you wanted to buy an M1 Carbine like your father used in Korea (and probably has at least 1 of now), in NY, you could, but you couldn't have any of the original 15 rounds mags for it. You would need to dump those 70yr old original mags and buy 7 round M1 carbine mags in order to shoot it. {I don't know of any - maybe Kahr will make some}.

If one of the handguns you owned was, say, a Browning BDA in .380, with grandfathered 12/13rnd magazines, in NY, you would have to get rid of those 12/13 rndrs and wait for someone to make 7 round mags in order for your pistol to be used. {I don't know of any}.


Do these or similiar types of restrictions bother you?

How would you deal with them?

There are lower capacity magazines currently made for all the rifles you mentioned above. There goes that argument!

And lower capacity magazines can be made for any semi-auto pistol....... including the double row mags.

SO ......... that's how you would deal with the restrictions in NY.

Any other questions? Or can we get back to the topic of the thread?

The topic of the thread is that the OP is a gun owner, and one who is open to reasonable restrictions. Why are the questions posed not on topic? These are not "arguments", they are about real-life gun owners dealing with real-world reasonable restrictions.

His response may be different then yours.



Thank you - I was not aware of 7 round mags being made for the M1 Carbine, the AR-15.
As for the BDA?

ETA: I do see 5 rounders for the AR-15, likely for hunting.

I guess other mags could be permantly altered to accept 7 rounds or less.

No help for the Garand though.

edit: major restructure

"Thank you - I was not aware of 7 round mags being made for the M1 Carbine, the AR-15."

not 7 round ......... but 5 round

" As for the BDA?"

Like I said above ...... reduced cap mags can be made for any semi-auto pistol...... including the BDA.

"No help for the Garand though."

They make 5 round en-blocks for the Garand. And I think they still make the 2 round en-blocks that HP shooters used in competition.

SO .... as you can see...... there is no problem that can't easily be dealt with.

The clips used to load them make no difference.

Reduced cap mags CAN be made for anything...but will they be?

Not so easy, in some cases, I think.

No it doesn't.

You can load a Garand for a single shot without the clip. But you need the en-block clip to get the 8 shots.

..........and you can still buy M1 Garands in NY.

With a clip.
Typically 10 round for the SKS, 8 rounds for the M1.

Are SKSs still legal to purchase? (after the enforcement date)


ETA: and if they are, then I apologize profusely, as I do not read the new law that way. Why exempt 'tubular magazines for .22 rimfire' if all other fixed mags are just fine?

My life doesn't depend on my access to x weapon with x rounds in the clip

Since the OPs pop is vet who collects guns, very likely an M1 and Carbine are on his list. Such a person may want to know if they can buy one or how those they already own are affected.

I also figure someone who owns a gun they can longer possess a magazine for, which would render it useless, may care too.


Important part of laws...how they affect the people subject to them.

The point is the hobby of collection and not the magazine limits.

So...I think this thread can go back to discussing the larger points of the OP, such as that we need better gun control.

But I would love to know how such a gun owner open to restrictions feels about those that may actually affect him and his dad and the guns they own and collect.

Many 'law abiding' owners admittedly say they won't be if a law is passed they don't like.
Curious how the OP wold react when/if actually affected to some degree.

I have been battling for months (and tons today) saying that some inconvenience to gun owners is well worth new regulations. Here is a chance to see what others who are actually affected have to say.

Edit. Ipad typos

lower capacity magazines. I have an idea, if you think there is a market for them invest some money and produce them yourself. I am sure if there is a market for lower capacity magazines someone will make them just like they started making the larger capacity magazines when they found a market. I have a Springfield XDM in 40 cal that has a 16 round magazine I am sure if they limited them to 15 they would either grandfather the old ones in or someone would make a 15 round magazine for them. I am a lifetime firearms owner and shooter and former NRA member that also left when they went nuts in the 80s and I agree 100% with the OP.

Others are though. And I do find it interesting how they will deal with it. It seems dealers are selling guns without mags, and potential buyers are buying 10 round mags while they can. That capability will end though as the date comes. Others apparently plan on breaking the law.

Usually someone steps up if there is money to be made, but someone may also think that creating a new product for a very limited 1 state market might not be worth it. I guess they could charge whatever they want though if buyers decide its worth it instead of dumping the guns.

ETA. Thanks for your input! I agreee with the OP also, and having even more restrictions would be fine.

shortly after.

Is that a problem?

Seriously, how many rounds do you need in your magazine? Moreover, if the guns are simply for collection and/or hunting how many rounds do you need? It might be a problem

An SKS can also be fitted with a 5 round magazine.

Solved. You would need to permantly block the magazine, which has an 8 round capacity, in the rifle.

Read my lips!

Though you may be right...Per FM 23-5, the clip is fed into the receiver, not a magazine.

Brilliant!

So the clips aren't considered ammunition feeding devices (by DOJ, CA DOJ anyway), and it doesn't have a magazine.

Cheers, and apologies!

I know....... I had an M1 Garand.

Why didn't you say so?

The M1 Garand has a fixed magazine. The magazine is an integral part of the receiver, but it is still a magazine. Any receptacle that holds rounds in the firearm, ready for delivery into the chamber by the cycling of the action, is by definition a "magazine." That is Firearms 101. (A semantic exception may be made for revolver cylinders, since each round contained therein is actually already in a "chamber," whether or not that chamber is aligned with the barrel.)

The Garand magazine technically holds only seven rounds, since insertion of an en bloc clip of eight rounds automatically closes the action, feeding one round into the chamber and leaving seven in the integral fixed magazine. Since the integral magazine contains only seven rounds, it is not considered a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in NY State.

The question of whether a fully-loaded eight-round en bloc Garand clip is a "feeding device" has yet to be determined in NY State. The latest word from the state police is that it is not considered a "detachable magazine," so the Garand is not an "assault weapon." But the fact remains that if an en bloc clip is deemed to be a "feeding device," then possessing one loaded with eight rounds would be illegal as long as it is outside the rifle, but legal once it is inserted into the rifle.

It is clear that the drafters of this legislation did not consider the M1 Garand. If they had, they would have addressed these issues.

FWIW - DOJ and CA DOJ have never considered the clip a feeding device.

"The Department does not consider the en bloc clips used in the M1 Garand to be ammunition feeding devices because their purpose is to enable the loading of the cartridges into the fixed magazine, rather than into the firing chamber. "

"Although people affected by the regulations understand ammunition clips are clearly not considered magazines, use of the statutory term “ammunition feeding device” caused the affected parties to speculate that clips may be included in the definition. The exclusion of clips from the definition is necessary to keep the legislative intent of the statute intact...Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.”

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf

It seems NY is the same.

that should end this slight hi-jacking of the thread...again...my apologies.

I learned a lot about the differences in gun owners in that locality. Some country people were no more likely to shoot anyone or anything for any reason. It was a tool there.

Others were the rural version of gangsters and were indiscriminate in their use of guns, shooting animals for the hell of it, intimidating neighbors and hunting illegally. At that time and place, admittedly years ago, a gun rack mounted in the back of the pickup window was not a threat or show of belligerence. Guns were respected because of their lethality and not brandished by anyone, in fact, there was no CCW or open carry at the time.

As far as crime, I've already described the local criminals, who others had to just endure and stay out of the way of. Perhaps this is what people in city areas with gangs do to endure, as law enforcement in either locale is sketchy and allegiances within communities won't permit them to do much about it. Complain to the law about someone shooting out a yard light for kicks in the country, or hunting from the side of the road at night, and they'll be back at all hours of the day or night, unable to be restrained, unless an agency outside the local area sends in their agents - into a mine field of opposition.

Because of the NRA, the GOP has refused to allow the ATF a regular director:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-atf-director-20110907

They promote lawlessness by not allowing regulation of anything. There are no absolutes in how people are living, no black and white answers.

I have since moved to an area with plentiful law enforcement. As I have said before, and not to be dismissive of anything, I pay for the best weapons training and guns in the area. We don't have any trigger happy police, we have community policing. The people here do turn in anyone who has hurt anyone - pretty quickly. The PD do welfare checks to make sure elderly people whose friends can't reach on the phone are doing okay, things are relaxed.

Americans live in many different ways, we can't have one size fits all but we can use common sense and remember equality. No one deserves to lose their life because of a gun culture that won't listen to reason - that sees ownership as a sacrament and the only way to be a patriot. I currently know no one that owns - are we not patriots who care about our community?

I agree with your post, Ikonoklast, but you also have a luxury there that many don't have. History and the ability to afford these things, perhaps a home large enough and safe enough to accomodate all that you and your family do. I do appreciate your statement on the anti-government sentiment that is fueling reckless ownership.

What we're seeing a gun culture based on consumerism - status - and intimidation of everyone in view or reach of a bullet. This is an invasion of civil society by right wing media distortion.

What I wish would happen, as well, is that gun owners pay for insurance. Homeowner's insurance pays for loss or damage or accident by most causes at home, but carrying weapons outside the home is not insured, probably. I think insurance should be required to buy a gun, just like a car - and with a background check to determine the likelihood said owner will act recklessly.

True, that may fail. But it may make some think twice. If the law can mandate women go through all kinds of invasive questions and procedures (which I say is wrong) to ask for an abortion, why are no questions asked or no procedures mandated for gun owners?

The argument too, that criminals won't do any of these things, is not valid. Because they could be prosecuted or lose their weapons by not acting responsibly just as a vehicle owner would be.

The problem is the media and the NRA, GOA, conspiracy pundits, etc., fueling fear of government and other people to increase gun sales. A con job was done to get the USA into war in the Middle East. Do any of us think that these lobbyists and media pundits would not sink to that level to sell guns?

I don't.

She could bing a snake from 15 yards away.