So, when the CA assault weapon ban went down, a thing called a "bullet button" was created so that gun enthusiasts could get all the fun/ergonomic features on their guns (forward hand grips, pistol grips, flash suppressors, adjustable stock, etc.) which stopped the shooter from ejecting their magazine without a tool and therefore allowed the gun to not be an "assault weapon". To make a bullet button weapon legal, you must use no greater then a ten round mag.
SB 249 is trying to change the law so that weapons with bullet button/magazine locks are categorically illegal. If it passes, the gun in your safe which was legal yesterday, becomes a felony today.
Not only that, but it encourages people to add a simple plastic sleeve, take off the forward grip/collapsible stock (mass murderers prefer a more comfortable gun you know) making their guns "featureless" and then be able to use "high capacity" mags, with regular, non tool needing ejectors legally.
Now, here is how it is about mags. Over ten rounds is "high capacity". With the 1994 federal assault weapons ban expiring in 2004, only six states (and DC, and some cities in a couple more states) ban high cap mags. Although CA doesn't ban the possession of them, just making them, buying them or importing them.
Of course that puts the burden of proof on the state to -prove- your mags are newer then the ban, which basically means they will see when you registered it, and if it was post ban, they may try and charge you. Likely not though.
You can legally buy a "rebuild kit" which is basically a high cap mag that has been disassembled for shipping. To refurbish your legally owned preban mags, of course.
So, this proposed law would make legal weapons a crime, requiring they be turned in for destruction with no compensation (or more likely modification to conform to the new law) AND encourages people to make their weapons -more- easy to use to take out groups of people.
I wish both sides of this issue would get real. One side is committed to stripping rights no matter if they matter or not, the other to protecting them, whether they are dangerous and stupid or not. What we need is more mandatory safety training, psychological evaluations and safe storage and transportation laws (this is one area that CA is doing right), with the shooters flipping the bill for the extra costs.
Does not allowing someone to make their gun comfortable really make anyone more safe? Is a lack of pistol grip or an adjustable stock ensure public safety? Does denying CA shooters ergonomics really help anything at all?
At least I can understand the thinking behind limiting to a ten round mag, even if I don't agree with it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhC8LpHPbRQ sums this up a lot better. I don't like guns, but understand the world I am living in. This law definitely won't make our world safer.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I am pretty far from being an expert or even a practitioner of fire-arms, but I know that the shooter who killed six people while trying to assassinate Sen. Giffords was able to fire thirty three rounds from a pistol without reloading. I have a hard time believing such hardware is for recreation and self-defense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
AH...What you are talking about is not really relevant...to this law,as bullet button guns must use 10 round mags, and "featureless" rifles (what this law would force people to convert to) can use 30 rounders, with faster magazine ejectors.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heck, you can get 60 round wider mags or 100 round beta mags.
30 is just standard.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I understand, I also understand that I am not qualified to argue the rifle argument. Instead I voiced my concern over something easily concealable and legal.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Welp, the problem isn't finding the appropriate balance of lethality, it's better screening and training. Because let's face it, taking a ten second break to reload is much less effective public safety measure then a psych eval.
Also was the gun uses in that shooting legal and legally obtained?
When planning a shooting spree, I imagine, conforming to the legal weapon restraints is not a paramount concern.
[ November 12, 2012, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I have a hard time believing such hardware is for recreation
I don't. People like convenience, and the independence they feel when they mod a gun and create something that is exclusively there's. They get to hold this teched out thing, clean it, fire it, reload it, put it in it's special case, whatever. I'm not saying it's terrible, but any ban on this stuff would be a compromise with independent rights.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh and I looked up the shooting, you mentioned AH, and it was Glock 19 (15 round standard capacity). If he got off 33 shots without reloading he was using a Glock 18 mag, which is the full auto variant, and the magazine extends six or so inches below the gun, making it very hard to conceal.
It would look like this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I don't. People like convenience, and the independence they feel when they mod a gun and create something that is exclusively there's. They get to hold this teched out thing, clean it, fire it, reload it, put it in it's special case, whatever. I'm not saying it's terrible, but any ban on this stuff would be a compromise with independent rights.
Well, yeah. All arms restrictions of any sort are.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh and I looked up the shooting, you mentioned AH, and it was Glock 19 (15 round standard capacity). If he got off 33 shots without reloading he was using a Glock 18 mag, which is the full auto variant, and the magazine extends six or so inches below the gun, making it very hard to conceal.
So how many would have died if he only got off 10 shots?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote: quote: Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh and I looked up the shooting, you mentioned AH, and it was Glock 19 (15 round standard capacity). If he got off 33 shots without reloading he was using a Glock 18 mag, which is the full auto variant, and the magazine extends six or so inches below the gun, making it very hard to conceal.
It would look like this. So how many would have died if he only got off 10 shots?
Well couldn't also say how many would have died if guns were illegal and he got off no shots?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Depends on how many spare mags he brought.
I can complete a mag change in 2-3 seconds.
Again, the hardware is not the issue, it's the user. And a psych eval might have entirely prevented this tragedy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Depends on how many spare mags he brought.
I can complete a mag change in 2-3 seconds.
Again, the hardware is not the issue, it's the user. And a psych eval might have entirely prevented this tragedy.
With an M9 Beretta, I can eject the spent magazine, insert a new mag, send the slide forward and fire in .8 seconds. It's not especially difficult to get that fast, it just takes a couple hours of practice. (it's part of our pistol qual) I can carry and conceal 5 or 6 spare mag pouches on my belt comfortably. I fully agree with you that anyone intent on killing large numbers of people isn't going to be deterred by any pesky 10 round limit. (especially considering how easy it is to buy magazines online)