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.

  • kc0itf 01/19/2011 11:09am

    Wouldn’t this outlaw the military?

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:42am

    No. the military would be exempt because they are a gov’t entity. No laws are meant for gov’t and thier officials.

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 02/09/2011 1:15pm

    That is called Tyranny.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    dankennedy73 03/10/2011 12:14pm

    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

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:18pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 03/13/2011 11:44pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    aaestep 04/07/2011 3:53pm

    AMEN!!!!!

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:18pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    aaestep 04/07/2011 3:52pm

    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!!!!

  • Comm_reply
    Dbwhctx 02/02/2011 10:22am
    Who are you to say how many rounds of ammunition I need in my gun to defend myself? Maybe I need 19 rounds, or 30 or 60. It’s not for you to decide. Do your job and come up with legislation that makes sence instead of wasting the money of your consitutes on worthless legislation like this. People who want to commit violent acts against others are not going to be concerned with what the law says. You cannot prevent a criminal from obtaining a weapon of any capacity with legislation. Want to prevent society from cranking out mentally unstable people? PAY YOUR TEACHERS MORE MONEY! GIVE YOUR TEACHERS THE TOOLS AND RESOURSES THEY NEED TO EDUCATE CHILDREN WITH GOD’S TRUTH! What is wrong with people who do these things? THE ABSENSE OF GOD IN THEIR HEART! Quit trying to eradicate god from the schools and text books and I promise you will have less people who grow up to be criminals.
  • Comm_reply
    guidofanconi 02/05/2011 11:18am

    You are funny because you think that mental illness is related to a lack of education or religion in the life of the person who’s mentally unstable. I think your position is the result of a lack of education, but I don’t think it means you are mentally unstable.

    Oh, and anyone worth their muster as a gun owner should be able to defend themselves with fewer than 12 bullets. Beyond that, you are either an extremely poor (and potentially blind) marksman, or you are intentionally trying to kill multiple people (which isn’t really self-defense, is it?).

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/09/2011 6:25pm

    “This means the majority of gun owners are not proficient in handling their weapon”. So the answer to this is to give a person “not proficient” with firearms an extended magazine capable of “shooting bystanders”. According to 2009 FBI homicide by weapon reports, handguns are used in appx 70% of all reported homicides totaling 9,146. Where in the same year Justifiable homicide by weapon (private citizen) totaled 215. So if you want to argue numbers this law is 45 times more likely to affect those innocent bystanders rather than somebody justifiably protecting themselves. I understand its in bad taste to put a price on those 215 lives but to what are we fighting the greater good.

  • Comm_reply
    sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:31am

    Again, ‘Mayor’, why are we not, then, restricting law enforcement firearms capacity? None of your statistics REMOTELY support the notion that reducing handgun capacity will remotely mitigate anything. Your ‘45 times more likely’ number is a complete fabrication and bastardization of statistics.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/10/2011 10:32am

    The argument was that civilians need extended magazines in order to protect themselves. My argument was that the amount of people killed (homicide) by firearms is 45 times more likely than justifiable homicide by a civilian. None of your statistics REMOTELY support the notion that extended magazines better help people protect themselves or their community. The simplest of arguments I tried to make was the amount of times firearms are used resulting in death or injury justifiably or not. Explain to me why you , as a civilian, need a magazine capable of holding 30 rounds. If its a genuine argument I will eat my words.

  • Comm_reply
    sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:29am

    Well, genius, then why is the ‘military’ and ‘law enforcement’ exempt, then? Are they ‘not worth their muster’?

  • Comm_reply
    usabornfree57 03/10/2011 2:14pm

    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?).

  • Comm_reply
    Realsoccr 03/19/2011 6:02am

    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

  • Comm_reply
    jasonlsprague 02/06/2013 11:47am

    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.

  • anonymous_stang 01/19/2011 12:38pm

    No, it would basically screw over the American populace…

  • Altereggo 01/19/2011 1:13pm

    Not that it could ever pass, anyway. It’ll probably die in committee, like most trash legislation.
    The hard left just wants to reestablish their anti-gun credibility in areas where it’s popular: NY and CA, in particular. Real Democrats won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

  • Comm_reply
    anonymous_stang 01/19/2011 4:15pm

    That’s true… I’ve seen a few non-anti-gun democrats…

  • Comm_reply
    sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:33am

    Not if they ever want a chance of being back in majority anytime in the next decade.

  • scen 01/19/2011 7:31pm
    Link Reply
    + 10

    Saddly this is another attempt by politicians to create yet another new law when we could focus on enforcing the ones we have. Why punish the law abiding with more restrictions when we could work on putting bad guys behind bars.

    You cannot legislate people into obeying laws they are determined to break.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:43am

    Here, Here!

  • Altereggo 01/19/2011 10:20pm

    BTW, here is a gun that would be banned by this legislation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/NavyHenry1860.jpg

    Not the gun specifically, but the 16rnd magazine permanently attached to it. Think they’d raid the Smithsonian to get rid of them?

  • gunamok 01/20/2011 6:35am

    No civilian “needs” a high-capacity ammunition magazine. Whatcha expecting: A squad of Taliban marching down your street? (Maybe Martians??) (And if your neighborhood is really so crime-ridden that you gotta have assault weapons, etc. – move out, fast…)

    How many more by-standers going about their everyday lives have to be shot before some sense returns? Arming yet more civilians is not the answer, either. Think: Wild shootouts. Which almost happened in the Tucson mass shooting. (Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/)

    BTW: Credible research shows that a gun in the home makes you much MORE likely to be shot — by accident, by suicide or by homicide. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1)

  • Comm_reply
    tayers 01/20/2011 9:19am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    You are a rambling ignorant sheep. Arming civilians is precisely the answer. The anti-gun fools such as yourself are the problem in this country. The constitution was written for a reason by intelligent beings. Not like the big business bullies or the socialist people in government they were not corrupt. Unarmed civilians = tyrannical government.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/26/2011 4:08am

    You know the “people” writing these bills don’t believe it. They just want more control. Pretty soon, they are going to regulate how many times you can visit the restroom in the course of a day. Less gov’t is the right answer.


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