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 61-90 of 104 total comments.
But you do have the right to bullets. You’re making it seem as if bullets are rationed or even outlawed under this bill. As for freedom of speech….the day you put paper in a gun and kill someone is the day paper is then closely monitored.
Why is everyone jumping to the exaggerated conclusion that this bill outlaws bullets. It outlaws the capability to dispense a large amount of them in a single serving. You still have every right to buy as many guns AND AMMO you want.
Spam Comment
Speaking as a former law enforcement officer I’m surprised that nobody can find middle ground here. It’s understandable that limiting the amount of rounds in a magazine “might” save lives but a criminals answer to that is to carry more magazines or more weapons. I’m even more surprised that conservatives are furiously fighting to keep a magazine with 30 rounds. To think that the only way you can defend your family, property, or neighborhood is to have 30 rounds in a single mag is idiotic. If you are truly that suspicious I’d put money down that you have purchased more than 1 mag already. It takes a novice approximately 5 seconds to change a magazine in almost any concealable weapon. Why are we so divisive on a matter that if put into law, it’s intent can be circumvented within 5 seconds. It’s obvious that both sides are using this to further their own agenda which is truly sad. I own many weapons and without hesitation give up my high cap mags if it would save 1 life.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
1: It bans the production and sale of something that is so widely owned that makes it impossible to enforce.
2: It bans the production of something that is largely made in the USA, sold all over the world, and in one of the few industries that amazingly is one of the few that is actually growing (job killing).
3: Since the end of the AWB ban, shootings have dramatically decreased not increased…. not my facts but the FBI’s and the CDC’s (more likely to be killed by your doctor).
4: Magazines do not have a “made on” date. and this bill and its cohort S:32 takes away from the burden of proof from the government and puts it on the individual to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that the magazine was purchased and made before this bill would be enacted. This in turn makes you guilty until proven innocent which goes against every principle of law in our country.
5: It’s being sold based on a shooting where the one used was legally purchased during the AWB.
6: Unjustifiably shooting someone is already illegal and punishable by death. so a couple of years extra for using a “high capacity magazine” is going to stop someone…
7: A person with a semi proficient training on the Glock 19 as used in the shooting can be reloaded and back on target in under 2 seconds. Is firearms training next on the “ban list”?
8: Heroin and knives are illegal in jails and they still get in all the time. What makes people think that if someone on the street wants a “high capacity magazine” if they were illegal cant get them?
9: 100s of times more people are killed by drunk drivers. I don’t see Psyche evals being demanded to get a drivers license or MADD calling for the ban of car engine size alcohol sales limits.
Every ruler in history has loved “Arms Control”. From Egyptian Pharohs, Ceaser and Japanese Emporers to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and beyond. When criminals and potentianly tyranical governments lay down their arms, so too …will I. Until then, I will obey what laws are just, and try to change those that I believe are unjust. Greater restrictions on law abiding citizens are unjust and do NOTHING but punish all for the crimes of an extreme few.
Our Founders set down the Second Amendment not just for hunters and home defenders but so that their descendants may have a greater chance of putting a stop to tyrany like that mentioend above and which they themselves endured. Our government is not as stable as we would all like to think. With each swing of the pendulum from Dems to Reps, our freedoms are eroded, one little bit by another little bit. Each side seeking to take away our liberties and all justified for whatever reason currently available. Full on tyrany is insedious and inevitable.
This is why we should strive, not to praise a democracy, which will inevitably implode as it is government by virtue of the mob, but instead we should praise the virtues of a republic, where it is a government of law voted on by the people.
Spam Comment
With all the hoopla about the Tucson “Massacre”, I’ve noticed that no one has seemed to consider that it could have been SO VERY MUCH worse. If for instance the perpatrator had not had a firearm and had instead chosen to use a car bomb. Would we then seek to outlaw cars?
No law in the land can stop a relatively intelligent and determined killer. Only persistant vigilance by EVERYONE and a will to act by those closest to the situation can have even a chance of protecting ourselves and those around us.
As for the 30rnd mgazine(aka mag), a “clip” is what you put on a chip bag or in your hair, it is but a part of a tool. If he had used a car, would you seek to outlaw tires? And the same holds true for the ammo he used, would you outlaw gasoline?
.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
As a 25 year police veteran I assure you this is nothing more then an attempt to disarm the people of the USA. It has nothing to do with “crime control” and everything to do with “citizen control.”
If you want to see a real weapon of mass destruction in the wrong hands I submit to you usage of the ordinary automobile by the inebriated. One car may selectively used to run over one person or for mass carnage into a large crowd.
The answer is to quit trying to invest inanimate objects with intrinsic criminally and start realizing that we must do everything possible to find and punish the perpetrators.
It is that simple.
Spam Comment
@ MayorofAngryTown
Have the guts to name the town that you are the mayor of so they can be rid of you! People like you with your “common sense” approach to Gun Control fool no one. The people of this country have spoken loud and often that we do not agree with you, and yet you keep coming!
The day when law enforcement officers carry 8 rounds in a duty firearm is long since gone. The day a citizen has to defend their or their families life is just as serious as any faced by any cop. I should know, I sent over 10 years a one.
The day a law enforcement officer carries 8 rounds in a magazine is now. Many officers choose to carry a weapon with that capacity. I’m assuming your last sentence was supposed to read" I’ve spent over 10 years as one". If you chose to read or understand my posts even a simple person would understand that I was pointing out the anger of each sides words rather than the foundation of wisdom in them. I’m not trying to fool people, you assume I am, rather than trying to be objective. Your ability to defend your family DOES NOT hinge on your weapons ammunition capacity of more than 10 rounds. How dare you manufacture fear to try and prove your point. “Silence the talk of ignorant men”….thanks to you sir…I will always keep coming. In the good book it says “Men’s hearts failing them for fear” and you good sir are behind it’s megaphone.
Spam Comment
I said officers can carry 8 rounds in a magazine, in this case, the officer will undoubtedly carry a minimum of 5 magazines. It seems that your argument is to give less skilled shooters the capacity to shoot 30 rounds without reloading because this would give them a better chance to fend off an attacker? It seems amazing to me that everyones ability to justifiably defend themselves relies on 30 rounds in a single magazine. Its completely unfounded and illogical when most people are aware that these extended magazines contribute to murder by handgun. I made the argument earlier that you are 45x more likely to be murdered by a handgun than use one justifiably resulting in death. (FBI crime stats 2009)
I’ve used many words to attempt to prove my point now if you would be so kind, give me a legitimate reason why you NEED extended magazines. I dont wanna hear that its eroding away our 2nd amendment rights when that is downright false. You have the same right to the same arms with or without this bill as law.
I don’t see much problem with ammunition magazine size. If one makes clips smaller, the disturbed will simply bring more clips.
As a socialist that agrees with the NRA on who really kills people, I feel the real problem is the abysmal state of mental health in this country, or any health for that matter. Nobody takes it seriously, and because of it a Senator nearly died. If the Powers That Be were to apportion the taxes they take from us instead of sacrifice it on the altar of the Fed and feed a bit into neuroscience and mental health, we’d be a much better-off nation. If the boy in AZ had been mentally cared for and restricted from owning firearms on account of his emotional perturbations, would this have happened? I can’t know, but I’m guessing it wouldn’t have.
I forgot to mention that drum shotguns usually have drums in multiples of 3, and not having my 12 round shottie for skeet shooting would make me sadface :(
I do not know if I even want to put my 2 cents in on this topic. If possessing magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is going to be enforced as a Federal law, It is going to make a lot of Americans “criminals”. I believe it will be too many freedom loving Americans that will not want to give them up. We are not fools, we know that once the high cap mags are banned, soon the firearm will be banned. One little bit by bit “they” will erode them away… either that, or Civil War. Would really suck to have to sign the Declaration of Independence all over again as the result of silly laws made by silly politicians.
(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
Funny how this bill is number 308 which happens to be my favorite caliber. In a bannana clip of course. :D
Spam Comment
I keep hearing Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC say he blames the law for for every bullet fired after ten.
I think that argument is based on ignorance.
Anyone that is good with handling a gun can reload a new 10 round magazine in less than a second.
So what is the point?
Didn’t we go through this once before?