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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 104 total comments.

mhicaoidh 02/08/2013 3:22pm
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

Ask the Korean shop owners during the LA riots if they “needed” the high capacity magazines they used to successfully defend their shops from getting burned to the ground. When all was said and done, the Korean shops were the only ones left standing.

In the aftermath of Katrina, there were gangs of looters roaming the streets breaking into houses and assaulting people. In such cases you would need more than 7 ~ 10 bullets per magazine to effectively defend yourself.

Violent confrontations are not always one-on-one.

jasonlsprague 02/06/2013 11:58am
in reply to tayers Jan 20, 2011 9:19am

Really, and I’ll bet the presence of a knife increases your chances of being stabbed. Didn’t need a bunch of research to figure out the obvious.
As for the wild shootouts, tucson was not even close. An armed citizen made the right decision. anti gun zealots keep pointing to that story because they can’t find one where the wrong decision was made by a law abiding citizen.
Then there is the high cap mag. Who decided that standard capacity was high capacity. Anything over 10, or is it 7. Soon anything that is not single shot will be high capacity.

jasonlsprague 02/06/2013 11:47am
in reply to guidofanconi Feb 05, 2011 11:18am

12 bullets? The new limit would be 10. Often trained police officers can’t do it in that many, due to the stress of the situation. fight or flight kicks in, and fine motor skills are greatly diminished. If trained officers on duty can’t accurately hit their targets, I’m sure a homeowner awakened in the middle of the night might have a little difficulty also. It’s very easy to hit paper that doesn’t move or shoot back.

md123180 02/05/2013 1:09am
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

False, gunamok. In cases where a person is being brutally attacked, there are many occasions where possessing a magazine of more than ten rounds can be very beneficial. Judging by your comment, you have never seen a squad of Taliban on any street, and have never been in a combat situation. Let me enlighten you. Your fine motor skills go to crap. Your bullets don’t work like they do in movies. Your aim isn’t auto-corrected like in HALO. You fire to get yourself and innocent bystanders out of harm’s way. This is even more the case when attacked by a drug-addled perpetrator. Have you ever TRULY seen a man take more than a dozen bullets and stand? It happens. It truly happens.

Finally, gunamok, your “credible research” (which you obviously failed to read/properly analyze) has widely varied control measures, or I would say a lack thereof, which inaccurately represent the data. You see, when you hear the word “statistics”, it is often followed by crafted variables, not truths.

Spam Comment

Kickedout 01/22/2013 6:31pm

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.

subxero 12/24/2012 2:51am

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.

subxero 12/24/2012 2:49am

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.

Stravonski 04/17/2012 9:03pm
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

I have my weapons for the reasons our Founders gave us the right to have them, to protect us from a tyrannical government, just like the one they had just finished fighting a war of independence against. A gun is a tool, nothing more. People died before guns were invented. If you want to live in a country without guns, pack your bags and move because there are a lot of them. In this country, we consider freedom and liberty something that God gave us that no President can take away. You want to disarm Americans, Molon Labe!

MayorofAngryTown 02/29/2012 10:21pm
in reply to mattyboy82582 Dec 16, 2011 9:14am

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.

mattyboy82582 12/16/2011 9:14am

(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?

visera01 11/14/2011 6:34pm

“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

roadkill68 07/12/2011 1:53am

Everyone keeps saying how fast they can change mags, but what about people with disabilities like myself.I also have the right to defend myself.Evan though i can change my mag, i can’t do it with the speed as a normal person.With that said it means with a bigger mag i dont have to change mags.No one carries 30 rounds in a pistal anyway but the more the better.Whats the differance between hav’ing a 30 round mag as to carrying 3 10 round mags.I’f you can change mags so fast,would be the same i think.HELLOOOOOOOOOOOO!

sunflowery 07/03/2011 11:10pm

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.

DWSOrum 05/31/2011 5:58pm

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.

faheem2774 05/23/2011 10:42am

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.

faheem2774 05/23/2011 10:38am

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

adrianazagreb1 05/10/2011 2:02pm

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!

SignOfTheDollar 05/06/2011 2:05pm

McCarthy is the post child for the phrase, “Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants”.

aaestep 04/07/2011 3:53pm
in reply to kevinmcc Mar 12, 2011 5:18pm

AMEN!!!!!

aaestep 04/07/2011 3:52pm
in reply to dankennedy73 Mar 10, 2011 12:14pm

Actually, our founding fathers meant the 2nd Amendment for us Citizens to have the Military Weapon of the Day available and guaranteed to us to own to be able to defend ourselves. The weak kneed liberals need to learn a vary important concept, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With this fact stated, enforce the laws we have on the books, if someone commits a Heinous crime, then convict and punish them appropriately, don’t punish the entire nation for the actions of the few. If our founding fathers didn’t have access to the Weapons of the day then they wouldn’t have been able to kick the King’s military’s buts and establish this great nation. READ your history books, not the Politically Correct liberal interpretations of our Constitution!!!!

Realsoccr 03/19/2011 6:02am
in reply to guidofanconi Feb 05, 2011 11:18am

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government

MayorofAngryTown 03/13/2011 11:44pm
in reply to kevinmcc Mar 12, 2011 5:18pm

This bill disarms’s citizens? I’ve read the bill and it doesn’t dictate how many guns, how many mags, or how much ammo you can have.

kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:36pm
in reply to Mophatt Jan 26, 2011 4:08am

Have to conserve fresh water, you get two trips to the restroom.

kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:18pm
in reply to dankennedy73 Mar 10, 2011 12:14pm

I suppose when the federal government decides on the standard that every soldier carries a nuke into battle, we’ll have them at home.

Just look at what is happening in Libya. That is exactly why we have a second amendment.

kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:18pm
in reply to dankennedy73 Mar 10, 2011 12:14pm

You sir should learn the definition of Tyranny before accusing others of being ignorant of such knowledge.

Tyranny – arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power;

Arbitrary – based on preference, bias, prejudice, or convenience rather than on reason or fact.

A law that applies only to the people and not the government is biased, and rather convenient for the government. Such a law is a demonstration of arbitrary exercise of power, i.e. tyranny.

When are you going to learn that the people are our national defense and state, not the army. We are supposed to have a military similar to Switzerland. Trained volunteer militiamen, weapons and ammunition at home, ready to go to war at a minutes notice.

People like you instead would rather disarm the citizens and make our defenses weak, not to mention give criminal that do not care about laws the upper hand.

usabornfree57 03/10/2011 2:14pm
in reply to guidofanconi Feb 05, 2011 11:18am

quidofanconi,

I am worth my muster as a gun owner! There are a number of factors involving ammunition (bullets) capacity issues depending upon the situation at hand. Have you ever trained in high stress life or death firearms combat? Most likely not!

Gang members do not care about limited magazine capacity laws, do they?).

dankennedy73 03/10/2011 12:14pm
in reply to kevinmcc Feb 09, 2011 1:15pm

Before throwing words like tyranny around perhaps you should look up there meaning. There is nothing tyrannical about this bill. It makes good sense, the second amendment was never meant to provide us with the the most powerful weapons of any type, if you honestly believe every one has the right to possess any kind of life ending technology they want then why aren’t you fighting for laws that would put nukes on the commercial market? Please think before you speak

WasMiddleClass 03/01/2011 3:57pm

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?

therebeunicorns 03/01/2011 7:28am

Heh. I’d better start stalking up soon as I can. Our government is headed towards tyranny. They have no right to say how big my clips can be or how many rounds I need. I’m not saying everyone needs to load up, but we should be able to buy what or as much as we need in case of a war on home turf and citizens need to become warriors. Heck, if the government goes to tyranny, they’re the ones I’ll be unloading my clips on.

On the other hand, I agree that I don’t see how you need a bazillion rounds for defense from criminals. If you are a good shot, you only need a few. All citizens should attend gun training, or some sort of self defense training. :D


Vote on This Bill

17% Users Support Bill

164 in favor / 778 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments