TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:Magazine leases?

Time shares. Maybe you could even sell magazine rights under a handgun you still own (like mineral rights under land).

The possibilities are endless ...

but I still like current law better

Well, apparently McCarthy reads CNN. She is going for broke this time. Won't make possession illegal per se, but whatever high-cap mags you have if the bill passes become yours for life.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47565.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) bill also goes further than than the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, outlawing the sale or transfer of clips that hold more than ten rounds, even those obtained before the law takes effect, according to a copy of the bill obtained by POLITICO.

The bill closes a loophole in the expired assault weapon ban that let gun owners buy high-capacity magazines made before the ban took effect in 1994.

The bill carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Might want to think twice about stocking up on high-cap mags as a business investment this time. If you don't need them for your own guns, you'll own a lot of non-transferable gun parts.

Under this bill, I wonder who takes possession of all your high-cap mags when you die? Probably the same people who take your money when you die - the gubmint.

VMI77 wrote:Not that the Constitution means that much anymore, but I suspect the reason the previous ban "grandfathered" high capacity magazines is that banning them is essentially confiscation, and the government can't legally take your property without paying for it. I don't image they want to pay for these millions of high capacity mags.

At the risk of sounding like an anti-government nut, which I am not and which is NOT my intention, I think a bigger fear that would prevent confiscation is the actual physical confrontation of "give me your contraband" .... not only would MANY armed citizens resist this, many paid police and even soldiers would likely refuse to carry out such confiscation orders. It's one thing to raid Ruby Ridge or Mount Carmel (again, just citing often used examples not intending to start anything) it's another thing to mount a nationwide "turn in your stuff" campaign. Even pseudo-voluntary 'turn in your mags" campaign with a threat of criminal charges for failure to comply could bring a rash of violent resistance from some folks.

Again (third time couching this as it is a very touchy subject) not condoning anything, just saying it's a thought I'm sure has run through the heads of even the most ardent gun grabbers, who seem more intent to "starve us out" by denying new supplies of things like magazines until over time it renders all our guns useless, than starting a nationwide law enforcement nightmare of confrontation and confiscation.

powerboatr wrote:and since when do economist think they know gun control?

uh, careful there. John Lott is an economist.

Obviously these two economists have no ability to pass legislation of any kind, but this kind of thing is out there in the zeitgeist and many sheeple are reading it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/c ... tml?hpt=C1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.

Also interesting how they twist John Lott's words to suggest that how many bullets a gun holds is unimportant to self defense, because (as Lott has stated) most crimes are deterred by a potential victim merely brandishing a gun (no shots fired). Heck, by that logic, perhaps we just don't need bullets at all so might as well go ahead and ban all ammo because all you really need to do is show a gun - there's never a need to actually shoot again to stop an attack.

Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.