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.

tayers 01/20/2011 9:19am
Link Reply
+ 16
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

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.

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.

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.

Dbwhctx 02/02/2011 10:22am
in reply to kc0itf Jan 19, 2011 11:09am
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.
anonymous_stang 01/19/2011 12:38pm

No, it would basically screw over the American populace…

Patriot16 01/20/2011 6:18pm

I think that it is disgracefull that she used the tragedy in Arizona to push her anti-2nd Amendment agenda, an agenda that she has pushed her entire career. No class at all.

Also, it is a good thing that MSNBC aka “the gun control network” has very low ratings and no credibility.

Mophatt 01/26/2011 4:08am
in reply to tayers Jan 20, 2011 9:19am

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.

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.

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!!!!

kevinmcc 02/09/2011 1:15pm
in reply to Mophatt Jan 31, 2011 6:42am

That is called Tyranny.

Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:42am
in reply to kc0itf Jan 19, 2011 11:09am

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

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)

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?

guidofanconi 02/05/2011 11:18am
in reply to Dbwhctx Feb 02, 2011 10:22am

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?).

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.

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.

Crusader33 01/23/2011 11:42am

If Congresswoman Giffords had securty, they could have prevented the whole tragedy. The look in that mad man’s eyes would have alerted any law enforcement officer.

The progressives’ answer to the tragedy is to ban high-cap mags from law abidding citizens. Obviously they are just using this event as an excuse to attack the 2nd Amendment by all means available. I don’t think that even Congresswoman MacArthy believes her own lies. She has spent her entire career attacking the 2nd Amendment, just read H.R. 1022. The real arrogence is that she believes that she can use the tragedy in Arizona to advance her progressive agenda. How ignorant does she think the American people are?

As for high cap mags, it is not about need. Rather it is a right! The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd bill of rights that re-enforces the 1st Amendment. When they place enough “resonable restrictions” to make the 2nd Amendment ineffective, the next right to fall is the 1st Amendment. Then we truely have nothing.

Mophatt 01/26/2011 4:12am
in reply to kevinmcc Jan 21, 2011 3:10pm

This is the truth. The gov’t was established for the sole purpose of enforcing the laws that the PEOPLE decided on. Somewhere along the line, the gov’t became the law makers and we lost our control and freedom. There is nothing free about this country. We are under the gov’t thumb on every issue you can think of. More people need to open their eyes and realize, we didn’t start having these problems until the gov’t gained control.

DCW 01/23/2011 2:15pm

This is just another example of a representatives reaction to a tradgedy instead of doing something proactive. The representatives in this country need to take a lesson on our constitution and bill of rights since they obviously fail to recognize they took an oath to uphold. 2012 is on it’s way with more change!

kevinmcc 01/21/2011 3:10pm
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

How I am I supposed to defend my community, my county, my state, my country if I can not be armed with nothing more than a rifle with 10 rounds?

The citizens of this county are the defenders of this country. Without weapons we would be completely defenseless.

As for the wild shootouts, taking a bullet, that is a risk you take for defending you fellow Americans. I’d rather accidentally be shot saving others than be defenseless watching people getting killed or running like a coward.

Research shows if you own a knife you more likely to be stabbed — by accident, by suicide or by homicide.

Research shows if you live in a tall building you more likely to fall to your death — by accident, by suicide or by homicide.

anonymous_stang 01/19/2011 4:15pm
in reply to Altereggo Jan 19, 2011 1:13pm

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

DCW 01/23/2011 2:30pm
in reply to gunamok Jan 20, 2011 6:35am

Your an idiot if you believe what the the NY Times prints. An armed society is a polite society. Why dont you do some real research and see how much the crime has risen in the countries that have gun control and while your at it take a good look at Mexifornia (california), D.C. and Chicago. Some of the strictest in the nation yet some of the highest crime rates. Our 2nd amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure we have measures in place to protect our country from tyrants.

sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:31am
in reply to MayorofAngryTown Feb 09, 2011 6:25pm

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.

Patriot16 01/21/2011 3:54pm

This article articulates the falicy of this anti- 2nd Amendment bill really well.


MayorofAngryTown 02/03/2011 4:04pm
in reply to YankeeQuipper Feb 01, 2011 12:15pm
“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.

Crusader33 01/27/2011 3:35am
in reply to MayorofAngryTown Jan 26, 2011 5:08pm

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.

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


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?).

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

Patriot16 01/31/2011 4:17pm

What a stupid bill!!

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

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