Skip to comments.Himes introduces legislation to ban high-capacity ammo magazines(NC)
Posted on 01/25/2011 4:17:50 AM PST by marktwain
U.S. Rep. Jim Himes (D-4th) has introduced legislation that would restore the prohibition on high-capacity gun magazines, such as those used in the tragic shooting in Tucson, Ariz.
The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (H.R. 308) was cosponsored by more than 40 Members of Congress and is supported by a wide variety of leading national advocates for reducing gun violence, according to Himess office.
A long series of tragedies, including the attack on my friend Gabby Giffords, makes amply clear the need to restrict access to dangerous weapons that are built specifically to maximize the users ability to kill people, Himes said. No one outside of law enforcement or the military needs access to guns that shoot dozens of rounds without being reloaded. I support Americans constitutional right to bear arms; the bill we introduced this week will limit access to weapons solely intended for mass killing.
This bill brings the nation to the same 10-round-maximum standard currently used in four states and reinstates the ban that was in effect nationally from 1994 to 2004, until it was allowed to expire, the news release said. The bill also closes a loophole that allows magazines manufactured before the previous ban went into effect to be sold or transferred.
In addition to the bills precedent in state and federal law, prominent second-Amendment rights advocate Robert A. Levy said in a published report earlier this month, I dont see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines. Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.
A number of advocacy groups also support the legislation, including the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), the release states. In fact, the VPC cites high-capacity magazines as the common thread that runs through the most notorious and deadly mass shootings in America, including the massacres on the Long Island Railroad, at Lubys Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, at Columbine High School, at Virginia Tech, and, most recently, at Fort Hood. According to the Brady Campaign, banning magazines is simply a matter of public safety.
Providing access to high-capacity magazines is beyond the pale. There is no Second Amendment or God-given right to be able to maim and kill your fellow Americans with military-style ammunition, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign said. When the high-capacity magazine restriction was in place until 2004, it was effective. If our nation can agree that machine guns, cop-killer bullets, and plastic guns ought to be banned, surely we can agree that high-volume magazines have no place in our society.
The bill is available here thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.308:. Companion legislation will be introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) later this month.
In the leftist mind, the government is god. How else can you explain such a stupid statement? Government by not outlawing something, does not "provide access" to it.
“Gun control” is back in fashion. The “Miracle in Tucson” is starting to pay big dividends for the commie’RATS. Exploitation works every time it is tried.
The second Amendment is in place specifically to give citizens access to the same arms a tyrannical Gov might use against them.
No where does it say “The Gov gets full auto, but the people are restricted to flintlocks”
Gang Bangers and Urban Predators WELCOME this kind of legislation cause they don’t give a damn about laws in the first place.All this crap does is give advantage to the bad guys over law abiding citizens.
Just FYI, this isn’t a North Carolina topic; the “NC” in the article is New Canaan, CT. Jim Hines isn’t the 4th District rep in North Carolina...unfortunately, down here, it’s the execrable David Price, who is just as liberal and will no doubt support this legislation. (I live in his district.)
No where does it say The Gov gets full auto, but the people are restricted to flintlocks
Made perfectly clear in 1934 and 1986 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By paying a 200 dollar fee, one can have a pre 86 machinegun, but you have to be active police or military to have anything made after 1986. The number of pre 86 guns available is a finite number so it is essentially a ban, and the public is by virtue thereof outgunned.
When I go out, I carry a pistol. I carry a Colt .45 ACP. I go out with four, eight round mags; one in the gun, two in the holders in my shoulder holster, and another in my hip pocket. The bullets in those mags are Federal 230 grain Hydro-Shok’s.
I’ve never timed myself, but I can expend those 32 bullets PDQ, and I don’t miss. Maybe I should make a YouTube video to send to these morons of me on a combat range. I’m an old man, just imagine how quick someone younger who doesn’t have a very pronounced limp could do it.
Yeah, let’s limit mag capacity, that’l fix it, /s
Hillary Clinton: "Never waste a good crisis"
Rahm Emanuel. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”
Could someone tell me who gets to define what high-capacity means?
Isnt that along the lines of the nebulous definition of an Assault Weapon?
It is actually philosophically proveable that liberals view government as god, and it stems from their rejection of objective truth and morality.
Objective truth and morality come from GOD.
When you reject these objective concepts and instead view all truth and morality as subjective, ie, an individual opinion,
then what is true and right is determined by who has the power to enforce it on others. And you do this best through the government. Government acts as the role of God for leftists/relativists.
Thanks for posting (good to know what the enemy is up to), but in this Congress, this bill is going nowhere. This is a bunch of wee-weed-up Democrats following the Brady magic unicorn.
Which bullet[s] hit Giffords?
Was it in the first 10?
The first bullet, maybe?
From what I’ve been able to find out, she was the first person who was shot. I think that we could safely assume that it was the first bullet.
I thank our Lord God that she wasn’t shot with a gun that was loaded like mine is. She would not be recovering right now, she would have been missing her skull from the eyebrows up.
That guy who was hit in the knee, he would be trying out his brand new leg right now and the dead would have been in the dozens.
So why would I load my pistol with such lethal rounds? Because if someone is going to try and take my life I only want to have to shoot them once, I don’t want them to recover, I want them dead.
So why carry so many mags? Sometimes there is more than one perp. And, I like the way 32 rounds of lethal force feels when I carry it.
Good luck with that.
Excellent! Leverage other wrongful infringements to "justify" your next one. Good work, comrade!
Guess we won't know unless we try! ;-)
Per the United States Supreme Court:
In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Heller, had this to say:
A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If bear arms means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (for the purpose of self-defense or to make war against the King). But if bear arms means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add for the purpose of killing game. The right to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game is worthy of the mad hatter.
Accordingly, the following applies to Mr. Himes' activities:
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 - Treason Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
I say Himes' actions are treasonous. That's one.