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 61-90 of 104 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/11/2011 12:15pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 02/12/2011 7:08pm

    I know we have the right to bullets, but he (Jackcox) was implying that we, for some reason, didn’t, so I was just showing an arguement against him, that is all.

  • MayorofAngryTown 01/26/2011 5:08pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Crusader33 01/27/2011 3:35am

    Thankyou for your sevice in protecting the public in your defense of the Constitution. I know that some of the rights may have been an inconvenient to your task. The reason that this issue has become so heated is due to the lack of credibility of the politicians that seek every excuse to infringe on the 2nd Amendment to the point of discracfully using tragedies for political game. This trick may have worked back in the 90’s, but not today.

    As for the mag issue, you know that criminals will always have them. It is easy to even make your your oun by cutting up smaller mags and connecting them together. All HR 308 would do is infringe on civilians with no benefit to public safety. I encourage you to read this artical http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=269&issue=005

    This bill is just another attempt to attack the constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 01/27/2011 12:15pm

    This does not violate your right to keep and bear arms. You still have every opportunity to protect yourself with smaller cap mags. I’ve heard the analogy that this bill would be similar to making smaller gas tanks to curb DUI’s. It does seem fruitless but the point I’m trying to convey is to shed light on the real reason people are in such a fever over this. In my opinion liberals truly want to limit guns only to law enforcement and had a reactive opinion on what happened in Arizona. Conservatives had a reactive opinion when liberals attempted to place a reasonable constraint on an existing freedom. Cooler heads prevail. A person’s safety doesn’t hinge on their weapons capacity to have 3x as many rounds. My duty weapon only had the capacity for 8 rounds in a magazine and yet , with that, I was entrusted with the safety of a community. If this bill is law it wont do much to stop senseless murder….but these soapboxes we have are hollow.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 01/27/2011 12:22pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Patriot16 01/27/2011 2:50pm

    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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mikel1 01/31/2011 6:40am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/09/2011 3:04pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 02/12/2011 7:16pm

    And is protected by a set of ideas (for us, the constitution) whose truth is taken for granted to ensure that the rights of the many and few are protected.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/09/2011 3:06pm

    Just look at England and how well registration and eventual banning turned out for them.

  • Patriot16 01/31/2011 4:17pm

    What a stupid bill!!

  • Azrial 02/01/2011 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. 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.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/03/2011 4:15pm

    “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.

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/03/2011 3:02pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 02/16/2011 2:28pm

    Lets assume your point is true that officers only carry up to 8 rounds. By the laws of probability, if this is the amount of ammunition an officer needs to defend himself and others, then the average civilian and an expieranced shooter will need more just to have the same probability of an officer being successful in defending him or herself. This is assuming only two things in the end:
    1) officers are better trained than the average civilian and expierenced shooters (who are not officers, just civilians as well in this point) in how to handle a gun and defend themselves and others

    We, as a society, should hope that is true.

    2) Officers carry around 8 rounds

    You stated it…

    You might be wanting to state that the expierenced shooter may be better than the officer, but the average civilian, by assumption 1, should not be, and officers are probably still better than expierenced shooters, at least most of them.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/16/2011 6:46pm

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/03/2011 4:04pm
    “People like you with your “common sense” approach to Gun Control fool no one." I am not advocating gun control. Why are you so angry with my position when I’ve ,rather calmly, didnt disagree that this bill is fruitless. Certain measures are put in place by the government to stem the tide of death. The 2nd amendment does not state your right to 30 round magazines but it also does not state the right for the Government to limit them.

    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.

  • SmilingAhab 02/02/2011 2:44pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    SmilingAhab 02/02/2011 2:45pm

    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 :(

  • Torqued 02/07/2011 11:26pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 02/09/2011 2:03pm

    (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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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?

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