Friday, July 27, 2012

Opportunity to act against high-capacity ammunition magazines

The Hill reports that seven Democratic senators have filed an amendment, S.A. 2575, to the proposed Cybersecurity Act that would ban the further sale and transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. 

The proposed amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.
Please consider contacting your senators to support this amendment.


Dear Senator _____:
I urge you to vote in favor of S.A. 2575 which would restrict high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used in the tragic mass murders in Aurora, Tuscon, and Blacksburg. High-capacity magazines serve no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. Bipartisan legislation restricted these engines of death from 1994 until 2004. Those sensible restrictions should be restored.

Respectfully,

________

4 comments:

Cdog Zilla said...

I sent my note to Sen. Burr, assuming he needs to hear the message more than Sen. Hagan does.

Jeri Johnson said...

Bad idea; won't go anywhere.

Had the theater not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been limited by trustworthy citizens.

Further limiting trustworthy citizens from the ability to protect the unarmed from the insane is, as said previously, a bad idea.

On the other hand, it is a good idea to confirm the foolishness of the foolish party.

Dave Ribar said...

Jeri:

Colorado has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, including a "shall issue" CCW policy.

Colorado also has a relatively high proportion of people with CCW permits (about 25 percent higher than NC).

Colorado also allows business owners and their employees to possess guns.

So it's absurd to describe the theater as a gun-free zone.

Those loose policies did not help anyone in the theater. Even if someone had pulled out their gun, there is almost no chance that it could have helped. The theater was dark, crowded, and obscured by smoke. In addition, the shooter was covered from head to toe in body armor.

Bans on high-capacity magazines can give the victims precious seconds that could save their lives.

In Tuscon, Jared Loughner was stopped after he emptied his first 33-round magazine and as he was attempting to load a second magazine.

Jeri Johnson said...

The theater chose not to allow concealed carry. That is their right within the law. And for the law abiding and trustworthy that is the definition of a gun-free zone.

It is within this gun free zone that the shooting took place.

Furthermore, the shooter was not dressed in body armor head to toe or otherwise. He did have a tactical vest on but only to the press would that mean "body armor". To the shooter it meant pockets for what the media often call "clips" but are really magazines. The magazines were for what the press called his "automatic weapon" but is really a semi automatic requiring a single pull of the trigger for each round. One wonders how many magazines of "reasonable capacity" the shooter's vest could have been home to. One wonders how a lowered magazine capacity would have helped matters in a situation where the shooter had pockets and disarmed victims.

Additionally, even in the poorly lit gaseous state of the theater even some minimal incoming fire from the good guys or even guy would have distracted the shooter from killing lowering the body count.