Posted on 01/20/2011 6:35:25 AM PST by RC one
In the aftermath of the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this month, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have proposed a cluster of gun control measures ranging from a ban to knowingly carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials to a proposal to allow members of Congress to carry firearms in the U.S. Capitol.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy formally introduced her own bill on the House floor Tuesday that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one Jared Loughner used to gun down 19 individuals in the Tucson shooting Jan. 8.
McCarthy, who is regarded as one of the toughest gun-control proponents on Capitol Hill, has dedicated her congressional service to reducing gun violence after a tragic incident in 1993 in which gunman Colin Ferguson unleashed a hail of bullets aboard a packed Long Island Railroad commuter train, and used 15-round magazines to kill six people, including McCarthy’s husband, and injured 19 more, including her son.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Define “high capacity”. One? Two?
anything over 10 rounds.
I’m pretty sure such a ban would cover clips or magazines if that’s what you are implying.
Come on NavyCanDo,
You gots to know Obammy is trying to take away our F250’s
Anything that can’t get under 60 mpg.
Toyotas probably.
Guns.
Incident?
How about well known psycho/nutcase that should have been locked up long before that.
Why is it always “gun control” and never “nut control.”
Oh wait, I know: banning nuts would roundup too many liberals, better ban guns!
Chip, chip, chip, chip and soon it will be no more.
Her bill would go one step further than the 1994 law “banning” high capacity magazines which only banned magazines produced AFTER the effective date of the 1994 law (other than for law & military use).
Her law would make it a crime to buy, sell, trade, ANY high capacity magazine after the effective date of her proposed law. Individuals could keep the high capacity magazines they currently own but could not sell or trade them.
This would result in the same result the 1994 law caused: criminals would still get high capacity magazines, they would just have to pay more for them...
Most people understand no law stops criminals intent on breaking the law.
I can’t imagine how many metalshops would set up production in Mexico turning two mags into one high capacity then paying illiterate guys $500 to backpack 250 of them at a time across the border.
High capacity Ford vehicles?
Also belts?
I'll bet MagPul's website is dragging today.
I forgot drums and hoppers. What about them?
Last time around, people just swapped out the 10-shot magazine "innards" for pre-ban springs, followers, etc. Sometimes you had to drill out a rivet, sometimes not.
We gotta have more feel good legislation to make everyone feel good. Don't we all feel safe and good now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.