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 31-60 of 104 total comments.

Patriot16 01/31/2011 4:17pm

What a stupid bill!!

Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:51am
in reply to DCW Jan 23, 2011 2:30pm

A few points. Crime in these areas are higher because the amout of people living there are so much more than other places. Second, I know if I were a criminal, I am not, I would be much more likely to go somewhere I know there won’t be guns if I want to break the law. I would feel safer.

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

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

Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:43am
in reply to scen Jan 19, 2011 7:31pm

Here, Here!

MayorofAngryTown 02/03/2011 3:02pm
in reply to YankeeQuipper Feb 01, 2011 12:15pm

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.

JermG85 01/30/2011 8:50pm

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.

MayorofAngryTown 01/27/2011 12:22pm
in reply to MayorofAngryTown Jan 27, 2011 12:15pm

Everyone is falling in love with their own passion for a fight they feel is legitimate. We are concentrating on the passion and not the means (if they exist) to fix the problem. I understand it’s a slippery slope once the government starts limiting (not eliminating) freedoms and people get very protective. I feel our passion can be better used on a topic that has more promise for substantial change.

Mikel1 01/31/2011 6:42am

All that said, I am for the licensing(provide it gaurantees some amount of actual training) of those wishing to carry loaded firearms in public. You can own as many cars as you want, but have to be licensed to utilize them in public. The same can be applied to firearms.

I do not agree with weapon registration. It makes it all the easier for governments to confiscate them should some trumped up “need” arise(ei Katrina). Besides, you can haul a vehicle to a track, course, etc. without it being registared. You can even drive it around your own property without registration. This covers going to the range, etc. or your backyard for target practice, competitions, training and/or just plain old plinking.

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?

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!

fakk2 02/09/2011 2:00pm
in reply to kevinmcc Feb 09, 2011 1:15pm

Correct, and that is a path we do not want to tread lightly on

Homebuilt7 02/12/2011 8:25am

Funny how this bill is number 308 which happens to be my favorite caliber. In a bannana clip of course. :D

YankeeQuipper 02/01/2011 12:15pm

@ 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.

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.

Mophatt 01/31/2011 7:28am
in reply to JackCox Jan 25, 2011 1:29am

That is rediculous. Well then, we have the freedom of press but we’re not allowed to have paper. That is no statement to start an intelligent debate with.

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.

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?

Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:47am
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

There really is no such thing as a “credible” research. Research is always bias even though they claim not to.

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.

fakk2 02/09/2011 2:26pm
in reply to guidofanconi Feb 05, 2011 11:18am

Guidofanconi, I wouldn’t say, “anyone worth their muster as a gun owner should be able to defend themselves with fewer than 12 bullets” as most gun owners do not use their guns professionally or recreationally, but instead have it for self defense. This means the majority of gun owners are not proficient in handling their weapon, because let’s face it, it’s one thing to shoot against a target outlined like a human; but it’s completely another thing to pull the trigger at a live human, and when someone is scared enough to do so, they’re not aiming or counting their bullets. Also, if someone did take the time to pick where they would shoot, it’d turn the shooting into a case of premeditated murder because self defense would be spontaneous and not precise. This is why the majority of shooting victims are bystanders.

Mikel1 01/31/2011 6:41am

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?
.

JermG85 01/30/2011 9:02pm

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.

MayorofAngryTown 02/16/2011 6:46pm
in reply to bdg333 Feb 16, 2011 2:28pm

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)

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.

kevinmcc 01/21/2011 3:14pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Jan 20, 2011 3:29pm

Where does this exempt historic weapons? I read this test again, nothing mentioned about historic weapons.

piket99 01/25/2011 11:45am
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

There is no credible research that shows that a gun in a home makes you more likely to commit suicide. It takes a certain kind of person to end their own life. Why is it the governments job to make sure people don’t accident;y shoot them self’s in the foot? There are over 2 million reported cases each year in which a gun is used in self defense.

Its your right to be a victim if you choose to be, but don’t pull the rest of us down with you. move to a different country if you hate guns so much, and you will find even if you move to a country like Britain were most guns are illegal to own, not only are you more likely to get mugged than you are in south central LA but you are more likely to get shot buy a GUN as well.

BTW: these mass shootings never happened until some retard Progressive like your self thought it would be a great idea to create GUN FREE ZONES.

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.

Patriot16 01/27/2011 2:50pm
in reply to MayorofAngryTown Jan 27, 2011 12:15pm

Cooler heads will prevail in this case and the bill will die out. Just look at the current support for the bill on this websight. People are not willing to let their constitutional rights get erroded with so called “common sense restrictions” when there is not a real benefit. Most people know that its foolish and a disingenuous politician is pushing the issue. Therefore most will not even entertain the merit of such a proposal. Most politicans know that support for such a foolish bill will mean that they will be replaced in 2012. That is why Rep McArthy will only have about 67 co-sponsors, with is about the same that supported H.R. 1022 (so called Assault weapon ban re-instatement back in 2007). These 67 co-sponsors are from liberal enough areas to get away with this foolishness. Any politician that values their job will not support such a measure. Notice that President Obama knew to avoid the subject in the State of the Union speach?

MayorofAngryTown 02/03/2011 4:15pm
in reply to Azrial Feb 01, 2011 6:26am

“As a 25 year police veteran I assure you this is nothing more then an attempt to disarm the people of the USA.” Citations please. Your assurances do not hold water. It may be my intuition that liberals truly want to limit guns to law enforcement only but until my intuitions are rooted in fact, these assurances are conjecture.


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