So, you say you would let us keep 10 round magazines? You are liars...

[Rustic]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

Slippery slope

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And if this bullshit somehow becomes law, cops will happily enforce it.

Lol, oh, no they wont as much as possible.

This will trigger a revolution.

Would you 47 clowns in that clown car please start that Revolution so the rest of us can end you and get back to living our lives?

You, coward, aren't going to do anything.

I'll keep an eye out for a clown car with 47 barrels pointing out of it. That can't be normal.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

Slippery slope

I am commenting on the legality of it, not whether I agree with it or not. Something like that would never be tolerated in this state nor yours. But as Judge Young said, "If you don't like the laws, Move".

 

[Marion Morrison]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

Dammit man! I cannot find any 30- round 30-.06 or .270 magazines!

 

[miketx]

And if this bullshit somehow becomes law, cops will happily enforce it.

Lol, oh, no they wont as much as possible.

This will trigger a revolution.

Would you 47 clowns in that clown car please start that Revolution so the rest of us can end you and get back to living our lives?

You, coward, aren't going to do anything.

I'll keep an eye out for a clown car with 47 barrels pointing out of it. That can't be normal.

You'll do nothing but spew bullshit.

 

[SavannahMann]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

I wondered about revolvers. Thanks

Once the Libs learn about Speedloaders, look out.

 

[2aguy]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

You are wrong on all counts....these magazines are in common use...which places them under the protection of the 2nd Amendment...as explained in Heller.....

Also, they want the revolvers too...

“Large-capacity magazine” means an ammunition feeding device, whether fixed or detachable, with the capacity to accept more than five rounds of ammunition, but does not include any of the following:

A cylinder is "Fixed" and on most pistols holds 6 bullets....

 

[2aguy]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

I wondered about revolvers. Thanks

Once the Libs learn about Speedloaders, look out.

Doesn't matter......daryl didn't notice this....

“Large-capacity magazine” means an ammunition feeding device, whether fixed or detachable, with the capacity to accept more than five rounds of ammunition, but does not include any of the following:

 

[2aguy]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

Slippery slope

I am commenting on the legality of it, not whether I agree with it or not. Something like that would never be tolerated in this state nor yours. But as Judge Young said, "If you don't like the laws, Move".

Yes...all those Black people who didn't like the law about sitting in the back of the bus should have just moved.....Judge young is a moron and shouldn't be sitting on the bench....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dammit man! I cannot find any 30- round 30-.06 or .270 magazines!

You went fishing again?

 

[sealybobo]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

My ruger 450 bushmaster has a three round clip and you can put one in the chamber so 4. Can’t see how you need more than this.

 

[sealybobo]

Also...most revolvers hold 6 bullets....this now scoops them up......it would also end concealed carry, since almost all of the compact and sub compact guns hold more than 5 bullets........

this is a back door gun ban...and it needs to be stopped.....

This is exactly what the Judge in California pointed out when he put a stay on the California magazine ban...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope
What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.
They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.
Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.
Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.
If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.


If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers.


All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.
The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.


Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy.

Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

And you can keep what you have we just aren’t making them anymore.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

My ruger 450 bushmaster has a three round clip and you can put one in the chamber so 4. Can’t see how you need more than this.

You're a Commie faggot?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Also...most revolvers hold 6 bullets....this now scoops them up......it would also end concealed carry, since almost all of the compact and sub compact guns hold more than 5 bullets........

this is a back door gun ban...and it needs to be stopped.....

This is exactly what the Judge in California pointed out when he put a stay on the California magazine ban...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope
What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.
They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.
Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.
Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.
If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.


If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers.


All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.
The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.


Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy.

Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

And you can keep what you have we just aren’t making them anymore.

Because when 6 blacks home invade you, all you need is 5 bullets, amirite? Sorry, I was just watching this documentary about a home invasion gang in Detroit. Not only did they come 6 deep, they had automatic weapons ..machine guns and body armor.

Outlawing the good weapons for citizens doesn't stop criminals from getting them.

 

[sealybobo]

Also...most revolvers hold 6 bullets....this now scoops them up......it would also end concealed carry, since almost all of the compact and sub compact guns hold more than 5 bullets........

this is a back door gun ban...and it needs to be stopped.....

This is exactly what the Judge in California pointed out when he put a stay on the California magazine ban...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope
What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.
They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.
Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.
Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.
If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.


If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers.


All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.
The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.


Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy.

Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

And you can keep what you have we just aren’t making them anymore.

Because when 6 blacks home invade you, all you need is 5 bullets, amirite? Sorry, I was just watching this documentary about a home invasion gang in Detroit. Not only did they come 6 deep, they had automatic weapons ..machine guns and body armor.

Outlawing the good weapons for citizens doesn't stop criminals from getting them.

If they come that deep you’re dead.

And you are wrong because most criminals find these weapons and steal them from your homes. If we don’t sell you ten round clips then criminals won’t get their hands on your shit.

 

[sealybobo]

Also...most revolvers hold 6 bullets....this now scoops them up......it would also end concealed carry, since almost all of the compact and sub compact guns hold more than 5 bullets........

this is a back door gun ban...and it needs to be stopped.....

This is exactly what the Judge in California pointed out when he put a stay on the California magazine ban...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope
What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.
They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.
Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.
Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.
If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.


If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers.


All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.
The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.


Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy.

Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

And you can keep what you have we just aren’t making them anymore.

Because when 6 blacks home invade you, all you need is 5 bullets, amirite? Sorry, I was just watching this documentary about a home invasion gang in Detroit. Not only did they come 6 deep, they had automatic weapons ..machine guns and body armor.

Outlawing the good weapons for citizens doesn't stop criminals from getting them.

Why do they have to be black? Your fear of black men is duly noted

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

You are wrong on all counts....these magazines are in common use...which places them under the protection of the 2nd Amendment...as explained in Heller.....

Also, they want the revolvers too...

“Large-capacity magazine” means an ammunition feeding device, whether fixed or detachable, with the capacity to accept more than five rounds of ammunition, but does not include any of the following:

A cylinder is "Fixed" and on most pistols holds 6 bullets....

You are back to quoting things about Heller that aren't there to quote. Do you really want to go through this once again? Stop making shit up.

A Cylinder is NOT a mag. You are trying to use something to justify something else. You are trying to spread panic when there is nothing there to panic about. I can think of more than a few more important things that are more important than this but none are even close to approaching the degree you keep manufacturing over and over. Stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we have a bill from Oregon...banning all magazines that hold more than 5 bullets. The anti gunners can't help themeselves...they can lie all day long that they only want "common sense" gun laws, but their irrational fear of guns will drive them to ban them when they get the power. Here we see the lie that is the "we will let you keep your 10 round magazines." By banning anything over 5, they are banning all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....a back door ban without having to expose themselves to a ban against the actual guns...

Instead of making a law that would actually impact criminals...this law is directed at law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime, they have not used their gun to harm anyone...but they will become criminals for mere possession of a piece of equipment that has been in existence since the creation of guns capable of semi auto fire.......

We know what you want, we know who you are......lie all you want, your lies are known to us....

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both

I see only one thing that won't hold up in court and that is the locking trigger guards. Heller V will be used to throw that out. Otherwise, everything else may stand.

I do find the 5 round a bit troubling. We have a 15 round in this state. I notice one person trying to make a point that revolvers have at least 6. I looked at new revolvers and most only held 5. But the law is for detachable mags, not cylinders. So the revolver is exempt.

But that proposed law does follow Heller V DC pretty close with the exception of the trigger locks so most of it will go through if that's what Oregon wants.

I wondered about revolvers. Thanks

Once the Libs learn about Speedloaders, look out.

Doesn't matter......daryl didn't notice this....

“Large-capacity magazine” means an ammunition feeding device, whether fixed or detachable, with the capacity to accept more than five rounds of ammunition, but does not include any of the following:

I know of a couple of rifles made overseas with high capacity fixed mags that use clips to load. They are weapons of war. these are battle rifles and there are civilian versions that are semi auto. Obviously someone wrote this that knows more about the subject than you do. The only thing I find odd is the limit of 5 rounds for the Mag, not the fact they want a limit. What's the matter, someone trying to take away your toys again? That's the way you sound. If that is the fact then maybe you, personally, should be looked at whether you are mentally capable of having those toys.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My ruger 450 bushmaster has a three round clip and you can put one in the chamber so 4. Can’t see how you need more than this.

You're a Commie faggot?

Probably, but the main thing is that he is an ideologue.

He believes that because some behavior is outside of his experience, like needing a 6 shooter, he therefore supports banning and throwing in prison anyone who thinks they need more.

Same logic Stalin used.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Also...most revolvers hold 6 bullets....this now scoops them up......it would also end concealed carry, since almost all of the compact and sub compact guns hold more than 5 bullets........

this is a back door gun ban...and it needs to be stopped.....

This is exactly what the Judge in California pointed out when he put a stay on the California magazine ban...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope
What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.
They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.
Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.
Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.
If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.


If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers.


All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.
The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.


Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy.

Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

And you can keep what you have we just aren’t making them anymore.

Because when 6 blacks home invade you, all you need is 5 bullets, amirite? Sorry, I was just watching this documentary about a home invasion gang in Detroit. Not only did they come 6 deep, they had automatic weapons ..machine guns and body armor.

Outlawing the good weapons for citizens doesn't stop criminals from getting them.

If they come that deep you’re dead.

And you are wrong because most criminals find these weapons and steal them from your homes. If we don’t sell you ten round clips then criminals won’t get their hands on your shit.

These idjits think their arguments are original. Actually, these same arguments were done in 1933 and 1934 over the Thompson SMG. This is why that law looked so peculiar. They didn't go out and actively seek the Thompsons. They Grandfathered them in. It made it illegal to manufacture them, make replacement parts for them, sell them, trade them, bequeath them. But if you had one, you didn't have to go turn it in. But in the event of a crime, they did gather those weapons up and destroy them. Like many other Fully Auto Weapons, the Thompson required quite a bit of maintenance but without replacement parts as the broke, the became wall hangars. For awhile, the ones in the homes were prime targets for criminals to steal. But after a period of time, that supply dried up since no replacements were forthcoming. It took about 10 years before the problem was finally taken care of. And even today, that same law deals with the same problem the same way is is quite effective.