U.S. Congress - H.R.308 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
H.R.308 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)
All Bill Titles
- Official: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
- Short: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 91-104 of 104 total comments.
McCarthy is the post child for the phrase, “Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants”.
Guns have put the United States in constant danger and large capacity ammunition feeding devices are regularly used. In my opinion, H.R. 308 is needed. I am currently residing in the Middle East and it is a shame that the streets here in Jordan are safer than those in California, my home state. Large capacity ammunition feeding devices have gotten out of hand and are used too frequently. However, this act is an opportunity to prevent the growing number of fatalities that occur daily throughout the United States. I completely support it!
This bill is needed because of the many unfortunate mishaps which occur in our country each year. This is not about restriction – the second amendment was not written to allow people to have unlimited access to firearms. The Framers (read the Federalist Papers) stated that the reason for including this amendment was due to the PA Constitution and allowed for males to have guns to allow for no standing army and a citizen militia which could also provide both national and domestic (cops) security.
No one is taking any guns – but ironically the same people who wish not to have this right always remove other rights – and act as if this is the only right that the Constitution provides. WE THE PEOPLE also regulate milk to avoid contamination, poultry to ensure no deadly viruses, create safe roads, provide for adequate housing – so guns – weapons and ammo – can and must be regulated. Start with this bill, and let us move forward
Since they would need to reload after ten bullets the process of reloading would require two hands so the moment in this action the armed individual cannot fire.
I see no reason for any ban on “ammunition feeding devices” as a whole or in part, regardless of capacity. Any restrictions that are imposed on the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS will NEVER pertain to the criminal elements within society. Making laws that make something criminal to possess, then only criminals will possess them. Leaving the aforementioned law abiding citizen less able to defend themselves, their loved ones, their property, and their livelihood.
Not to mention…How could this bill ever be enforced? It just means that the selling and trading of these items will be done under the table and the government will subsequently loose the added benefit of the taxes collected on the selling of these items on the open market.
What if I sell my weapon? Does that mean I can not sell the magazines to the buyer as well? Do I have to now own them forever?
This bill should, at the MOST, be a state level bill. Trying to redo a failed law is a waste to the taxpayers.
Correct. Less people would have died on the LIRR attack, like Senator and Registered Nurse Carolyn McCarthy’s husband. Maybe her son would not have been injured as well. 31 bullets in 14 seconds kill more people faster.
Spam Comment
“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” this is a second amendment issue you can not make common sense a law this 2nd amendment was put in place for LAW ABIDING citizen to have and keep arms that were on par with the military has we are the best defense for this country congress has no right to say how much ammo we can have in our weapons at one time
(1)If it is reasonable for a former Law Enforcement Officer to own a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” upon his/her
retirement, how do you justify denying an equal right to Citizens who chose a path other than Law Enforcement?
(a)I spent more than 4 years in the U.S. Army’s Infantry and have more firearms training than your average Law Enforcement retiree. I have lived by an equally high moral code.
(b)If your rationale for justifying a ban on these items is that they are for the purpose of “Assaulting” rather than “Defending”, It should not matter what Citizen is committing the “Assault”. And equally, if you believe the item would be used for “Defense” purposes only by Law Enforcement retirees, do I not have the same inherent right to defend myself and my family?
Is this bill denying your inherent right to defend yourself?
No.
It’s simply modifying the means in which you do so. The same way the Government modifies the way in which you can safely perform your job or drive to work. Once again there is no law that I am aware of that limits the amount of magazines or ammunition you can have.
Usually law enforcement AND military are exempt from certain laws pertaining to firearms and related items due to the experience they have with them.
To be honest as a former law enforcement officer I would never carry these ridiculous magazines because they are made third party where reliability becomes a factor. I know a magazine is hard to mess up but your true concern should be with actually dispensing the rounds you have, not how many you can potentially dispense.
The weapons used in the Sandy Hook Elementary school were taken illegally. He stole the weapons from his mother. At that point, he was a criminal. Then he took her life, now a felon. Though the situation at the elementary school was a tragedy, disarming or limiting things like magazines are not the answer for law abiding citizens (which the shooter, I won’t dignify his now non-existence by saying his name, was not a law abiding citizen). Criminals do not care about laws, that’s why they commit crimes. Most criminals do not go through the law system and get their guns legally, yet the law abiding citizens that do not do things like this, get trampled on time, and time again. I should not have laws restricting how I protect my family. What am I to do with a 10round pistol that needs constant reloading against a criminal with an AK47 and a drum magazine? They shouldn’t be adding more laws, they should be revising current laws to keep guns out of criminals and the mentally ill.
The weapons used in the Sandy Hook Elementary school were taken illegally. He stole the weapons from his mother. At that point, he was a criminal. Then he took her life, now a felon. Though the situation at the elementary school was a tragedy, disarming or limiting things like magazines are not the answer for law abiding citizens (which the shooter, I won’t dignify his now non-existence by saying his name, was not a law abiding citizen). Criminals do not care about laws, that’s why they commit crimes. Most criminals do not go through the law system and get their guns legally, yet the law abiding citizens that do not do things like this, get trampled on time, and time again. I should not have laws restricting how I protect my family. What am I to do with a 10round pistol that needs constant reloading against a criminal with an AK47 and a drum magazine? They shouldn’t be adding more laws, they should be revising current laws to keep guns out of criminals and the mentally ill.
The man or woman is the killer. Be it by hand, knife , fire or gun , what needs to be looked at is the ease that some many people go right to killing.
I oppose any bill that tries to limit my Rights. Support of any Bill that infringes on my constitutionally protected rights is punishable under
USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241
Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … may be sentenced to death.
Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means.
Sincerely,
SSG Ryan Sexton
United States Army