Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[toshiro]

This does not happen among the unexpecting and the unarmed.

You cannot show this - therefore you cannot use it to support your position. We could go back and forth here. But I'm betting it'll be a draw. I know what I've read.

So, you DO plan to confiscate all the 7+ round magazines and 4+ round shotguns.
How do you plan to do this, and how does doing so not violate the constitution?

Just make it illegal, I suppose. There'd be appropriate fines to gain compliance. Much like any other law that limits use, consumption etc. I'm not saying you'd like it.

The very best example of a weapon protected by the 2nd in the AR-15 rfle and the M9 handgun. The military issues these (or similar) weapons w/ 30- and 15-rd magazines because they are necessary for these weapons to be effective in their intended role - that is, they are an integral part of those weapons. As such, it is imposible to argue that these magazines are also not similarly integral to the civilain versions.

The intended role, is for the soldiers wielding these weapons to be able to put down suppressing fire, clear houses etc. That's not what civilian people would be doing. What matters is not that they are 'civilian versions', it is that they would be wielded by civilians, who do not have the needs of soldiers in these weapons.

Remember: the 2nd protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms so, among other things, that the militia will always have access to weapons useful in mission to assist/resist the standing army whenever called to do so. if the military issues 30-rd magazines an an intergral part of the M16, then the 30-rd magazine is an equally intergral part of the AR-15.

The militia/nat guard etc probably would have 30 rd mags. They would not, however, be allowed to keep such mags in their homes. They could, however, keep the standard 6 shot mags. Same for their handguns and hunting rifles.

How does forcibly taking away weapons protected by the constitution not violate it?
how does faoribly taking away an item that is an intergral part of a weapon protected by the constitution not violate it?

Again, not taking away the weapons. 'Integral part' is subjective. I'm saying, as a civilian, with 6 shots, you'll have all you need.

The 2nd states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see anything about 'an integral part of the weapon' being protected. You are adding your words to what the Fore Fathers wrote down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This does not happen among the unexpecting and the unarmed.

You cannot show this - therefore you cannot use it to support your position.

The various instances of mass shootings clearly illustrate this very thing - the victims simply do not go after the shooter when he reloads.

Just make it illegal, I suppose. There'd be appropriate fines to gain compliance.

So, you don't plan to actively confiscate the magazines, therefore leaving them in circulation. This means people will continue to have access to them, doing nothing to prevent mass shootings with them. Your idea therefore fails because it will have no effect on the problem you stated.

Much like any other law that limits use, consumption etc. I'm not saying you'd like it.

You are also not saying how it does not violate the constitution.
Remember that you plan to ban every shotgun that holds more than three rounds, which includes just about every lever, pump, and semi-auto shotgun in use today; banning and confiscating these guys would inarguably violate the constitution.

The intended role, is for the soldiers wielding these weapons to be able to put down suppressing fire, clear houses etc. That's not what civilian people would be doing
What matters is not that they are 'civilian versions', it is that they would be wielded by civilians, who do not have the needs of soldiers in these weapons.

You deliberately miss the point - the 2nd protects weapons that are part of the oridunary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for effective service in the militia; to be efefctive in militia service, because the military weapons must have hi-cap magazines for effective service, those civilian-owned weapons that are able to use hi-cap magazines must also have said hi-cap magazines. Thus, to ban these magazines then violates the 2nd because said magazines are an integral part of the weapons so protected.

The militia/nat guard etc probably would have 30 rd mags. They would not, however, be allowed to keep such mags in their homes.

The national guard is not the militia, so any refernce to same is meaningless.
The militia is expected to use weapons supplied by its members, kept ready for use by those members; not allowing the people to keep those weapons violates the constitution as their right to do is is protected.

I don't see anything about 'an integral part of the weapon' being protected. You are adding your words to what the Fore Fathers wrote down.

Under similar logic, banning words does not volate the 1st amendment because the constitution metions speech, not words.
:doh:

 

[toshiro]

The various instances of mass shootings clearly illustrate this very thing - the victims simply do not go after the shooter when he reloads.

An assault rifle is thought to be a fierce weapon at this time. The movies show this all the time, guys just blazing away, annihilating everything in their path with unlimited death. That's what us civvies think of those guns. Imagine seeing a non-elite guy try to use 6 shot mags to get through 30 shots. It would look a lot different. And like I said that people shifted their attitude and reactions after 9/11, people would shift and change their attitude when they come to understand the dynamics of utilizing 6 shot weapons. They would have more time to attack or flee and less destruction could be doled out before law enforcement could respond.

So, you don't plan to actively confiscate the magazines, therefore leaving them in circulation. This means people will continue to have access to them, doing nothing to prevent mass shootings with them. Your idea therefore fails because it will have no effect on the problem you stated.

No the magazines would be confiscated. Voluntarily or not. There will be a grace period, during which everyone can proactively, voluntarily comply with the law. If anyone is found in violation they'll face a very stiff fine and possible jail time. If you hold on to them, you'll not want to trade them at shows or on craigs list as you might be targeted by lawmakers. The velocity and proliferation of large capacity clips will slow way down.

You are also not saying how it does not violate the constitution.
Remember that you plan to ban every shotgun that holds more than three rounds, which includes just about every lever, pump, and semi-auto shotgun in use today; banning and confiscating these guys would inarguably violate the constitution.

You'll have to show me how it does violate the consitution. I don't plan to ban any shotguns. If your shotgun has the capacity to hold more than 3 rounds, you'll be in violation of the law and will have to deal with the consequences.

You deliberately miss the point - the 2nd protects weapons that are part of the oridunary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for effective service in the militia; to be efefctive in militia service, because the military weapons must have hi-cap magazines for effective service, those civilian-owned weapons that are able to use hi-cap magazines must also have said hi-cap magazines. Thus, to ban these magazines then violates the 2nd because said magazines are an integral part of the weapons so protected.

You are interpreting the heck out of the 2nd. The same ordiance that prevents civvies from having a mounted on their civilian version of the miliary humvee would be used for this bit of legislation I'm proposing. Maybe I could convince the senators to allow the Ma Deuce for private citizen consumption -- 6 shot limit, of course.

The national guard is not the militia, so any refernce to same is meaningless. The militia is expected to use weapons supplied by its members, kept ready for use by those members; not allowing the people to keep those weapons violates the constitution as their right to do is is protected.

The de facto purpose of the militia was much different in Colonial times than now. For my money, it was much more valuable back then than now. But things were a lot different. Nonetheless, any militia would be subject to the same restrictions as military or nat guard-- 30 shot mags in the armory, 6 shot mags at home (Military role vs Civilian role).

Of course any access to 30 shot mags would be outright verboten for any kind of ordinary civilian. They would use the 6 shot.

Under similar logic, banning words does not volate the 1st amendment because the constitution metions speech, not words.

So are you interpreting the Constitution strictly or are trying to expand the law through implication? If you agree to a course, I'll work off that. But it's not sportmanlike for you to switch back and forth.



Remember that the legislation I'm talking about would
1) Not take away any weapons
2) Only affect weapons with capacities higher than 6 bullets.

As a compromise, for those who are avid gun users, perhaps there could be ranges/areas where the high capacity mags would be allow for use by civilians. But outside of those areas, only 6 shot variety can be used.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Remember that the legislation I'm talking about would
1) Not take away any weapons

Lie. That is a baldfaced lie. Are you unable to understand that or are you simply uninterested in honesty of any sort?

2) Only affect weapons with capacities higher than 6 bullets.

Which is MOST OF THEM! THINK!

 

[toshiro]

M14-- Is that a foul by Jaraxle? Smells like emotion. Just asking.

 

[Brain357]

This does not happen among the unexpecting and the unarmed.

You cannot show this - therefore you cannot use it to support your position.

The various instances of mass shootings clearly illustrate this very thing - the victims simply do not go after the shooter when he reloads.

With the 30 round mags has one ever had to reload? The mass shooters always have a hi capacity magazine, why would anyone wait around for them to reload? If people knew it was a 6 round magazine it would be different. These hi capacity magazines are only being used for mass killings. I still have never heard of one being needed for defense. They need to go.

 

[candycorn]

At that time, we were both doing the same thing.

That's why it is stupid to compare two different cultures...you end up with egg on your face.

I really had hoped you would be intellectual honest...I suppose I'll have to learn to live with my disappointment.

I thought you were a liberal who could put facts above emotion and agenda...apparently not.

Okay, what is different about our cultures that makes us more homicidal?

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

 

[candycorn]

M14-- Is that a foul by Jaraxle? Smells like emotion. Just asking.

Nice!

 

[Missourian]

Okay, what is different about our cultures that makes us more homicidal?

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

Absolutely I considered it...

So I took the time and did the research and dismissed the hypothesis as not supported by the facts.

If I put you in a warehouse with every possible weapon imaginable, all at your disposal...whatever you wanted, yours for the taking...would that make you the least bit more violent?

I live where the greatest concentration of legal gun owners reside per capita, yet, we have the lowest crime rates and lowest homicide rates.

Yet, not far away in St. Louis, where the LOWEST concentration of legal gun owners reside, they have the HIGHEST violent crime rates in the state, and the highest homicide rate in the state.

The U.K. banned handguns and severely curtailed gun rights in 1997...did that make them less homicidal?

NO!

Look and see for yourself:

Debunks your hypothesis quite succinctly.

Gun control in the U.K. had no effect.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S.

Our homicide totals are steadily dropping year after year while we EXPAND our gun rights and EXPAND our conceal carry...

Weapons ..........2007 ..........2008 ..........2009 ..........2010 ...........2011

Total ..............14,916 .......14,224 .......13,752 .......13,164 ....... 12,664
Total firearms: ..10,129 ........9,528 .........9,199 ........ 8,874 .........8,583

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Please explain how your hypothesis fits these facts.

 

[Missourian]

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.[/QUOTE]


I'm not talking in circles.

I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist or a psychologist.

I don't know the reason why there are so many more violent crimes and so many more homicides in urban areas.

I do know, from researching the topic extensively that it isn't firearms.

If your goal is to reduce homicides and violent crime, you should be working to answer the question you put forward.

What is the CAUSE of the higher homicide rate in the U.S.?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, you don't plan to actively confiscate the magazines, therefore leaving them in circulation. This means people will continue to have access to them, doing nothing to prevent mass shootings with them. Your idea therefore fails because it will have no effect on the problem you stated.

No the magazines would be confiscated. Voluntarily or not. There will be a grace period, during which everyone can proactively, voluntarily comply with the law. If anyone is found in violation they'll face a very stiff fine and possible jail time. If you hold on to them, you'll not want to trade them at shows or on craigs list as you might be targeted by lawmakers. The velocity and proliferation of large capacity clips will slow way down.

This is extremely problematic with regard to 5th Amendment Takings Clause jurisprudence and the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Many gun owners and collectors possess a rather significant number of magazines for different rifles and handguns, ‘confiscating’ magazines will require some form of due process and just compensation, how do you plan on administering this?

And such a law will likely be challenged in Federal court and subject to an injunction, adding years, perhaps decades, to the ‘confiscation’ process.

Last, with regard to high capacity rifle magazines, how can a law requiring their ‘confiscation’ be justified since so few crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles, as compared to handguns?

 

[candycorn]

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

Absolutely I considered it...

So I took the time and did the research and dismissed the hypothesis as not supported by the facts.

If I put you in a warehouse with every possible weapon imaginable, all at your disposal...whatever you wanted, yours for the taking...would that make you the least bit more violent?

I live where the greatest concentration of legal gun owners reside per capita, yet, we have the lowest crime rates and lowest homicide rates.

Yet, not far away in St. Louis, where the LOWEST concentration of legal gun owners reside, they have the HIGHEST violent crime rates in the state, and the highest homicide rate in the state.

The U.K. banned handguns and severely curtailed gun rights in 1997...did that make them less homicidal?

NO!

Look and see for yourself:

Debunks your hypothesis quite succinctly.

Gun control in the U.K. had no effect.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S.

Our homicide totals are steadily dropping year after year while we EXPAND our gun rights and EXPAND our conceal carry...

Weapons ..........2007 ..........2008 ..........2009 ..........2010 ...........2011

Total ..............14,916 .......14,224 .......13,752 .......13,164 ....... 12,664
Total firearms: ..10,129 ........9,528 .........9,199 ........ 8,874 .........8,583

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Please explain how your hypothesis fits these facts.

Simple;

If you didn't put a warehouse of every type of gun imaginable in ANY neighborhood, you'd have a lot fewer deaths as YOUR statistics continue to point out. That is what they have in the UK.


We have such warehouses; they're called Dick's Sporting Goods, Gander Mountain, Cubela's, pawn shops, gun shows, etc...

We also wouldn't have some people be so proud to have reduced the rate of massacre to "only" 15,000 of our citizens.

 

[candycorn]

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

I'm not talking in circles.

I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist or a psychologist.

I don't know the reason why there are so many more violent crimes and so many more homicides in urban areas.

I do know, from researching the topic extensively that it isn't firearms.

If your goal is to reduce homicides and violent crime, you should be working to answer the question you put forward.

What is the CAUSE of the higher homicide rate in the U.S.?

Easy and cheap gun availability is the leading cause; not the only cause. We glorify "stuff" more than other nations, that's for sure but that glorification is a factor of our culture which we export by the ton every second.

 

[Missourian]

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

Absolutely I considered it...

So I took the time and did the research and dismissed the hypothesis as not supported by the facts.

If I put you in a warehouse with every possible weapon imaginable, all at your disposal...whatever you wanted, yours for the taking...would that make you the least bit more violent?

I live where the greatest concentration of legal gun owners reside per capita, yet, we have the lowest crime rates and lowest homicide rates.

Yet, not far away in St. Louis, where the LOWEST concentration of legal gun owners reside, they have the HIGHEST violent crime rates in the state, and the highest homicide rate in the state.

The U.K. banned handguns and severely curtailed gun rights in 1997...did that make them less homicidal?

NO!

Look and see for yourself:

Debunks your hypothesis quite succinctly.

Gun control in the U.K. had no effect.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S.

Our homicide totals are steadily dropping year after year while we EXPAND our gun rights and EXPAND our conceal carry...

Weapons ..........2007 ..........2008 ..........2009 ..........2010 ...........2011

Total ..............14,916 .......14,224 .......13,752 .......13,164 ....... 12,664
Total firearms: ..10,129 ........9,528 .........9,199 ........ 8,874 .........8,583

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Please explain how your hypothesis fits these facts.

Simple;

If you didn't put a warehouse of every type of gun imaginable in ANY neighborhood, you'd have a lot fewer deaths as YOUR statistics continue to point out. That is what they have in the UK.


We have such warehouses; they're called Dick's Sporting Goods, Gander Mountain, Cubela's, pawn shops, gun shows, etc...

We also wouldn't have some people be so proud to have reduced the rate of massacre to "only" 15,000 of our citizens.

They had them before the ban...and now they don't...and their homicide rate is the same as before the ban.

Debunks your theory totally.

Had you not totally ignored the rest of my post, you'd know that.

 

[Missourian]

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

I'm not talking in circles.

I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist or a psychologist.

I don't know the reason why there are so many more violent crimes and so many more homicides in urban areas.

I do know, from researching the topic extensively that it isn't firearms.

If your goal is to reduce homicides and violent crime, you should be working to answer the question you put forward.

What is the CAUSE of the higher homicide rate in the U.S.?

Easy and cheap gun availability is the leading cause; not the only cause. We glorify "stuff" more than other nations, that's for sure but that glorification is a factor of our culture which we export by the ton every second.

That assertion is even easier to debunk.

The same guns are available everywhere in the United States at the same prices...

If "cheap and easy guns" were the problem, the murder rate should be similar everywhere.

We know that's not the case...Half of all homicides are committed in 63 cities containing 16% of the U.S. population.

That theory can be dismissed.

 

[toshiro]

Last, with regard to high capacity rifle magazines, how can a law requiring their ‘confiscation’ be justified since so few crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles, as compared to handguns?

The goal is to reduce the damage of a major shooting incident. As such, I'm not concerned with handguns. The goal is not to lower gun violence in general.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An assault rifle is thought to be a fierce weapon at this time. The movies show this all the time, guys just blazing away, annihilating everything in their path with unlimited death. That's what us civvies think of those guns. Imagine seeing a non-elite guy try to use 6 shot mags to get through 30 shots. It would look a lot different. And like I said that people shifted their attitude and reactions after 9/11, people would shift and change their attitude when they come to understand the dynamics of utilizing 6 shot weapons. They would have more time to attack or flee and less destruction could be doled out before law enforcement could respond

None of this changes the fact that your supposition is unsupportable, evidence by the fact that the unsuspecting and unarmed victims of the mass shootings have not tried to take down their assailant during a reload.
Never mind the fact that not one of the mass shootings was perpetrated with an assault rifle.

No the magazines would be confiscated. Voluntarily or not. There will be a grace period, during which everyone can proactively, voluntarily comply with the law. If anyone is found in violation they'll face a very stiff fine and possible jail time.

So, again you don’t plan to go after the magazines, just take the magazines that happen to surface. This leaves them - huge number of them - in circulation, and access to them is maintained. Your plan therefore fails at preventing mass shootings as people so motivated can still obtain hi-cap magazines.

You are also not saying how it does not violate the constitution.
Remember that you plan to ban every shotgun that holds more than three rounds, which includes just about every lever, pump, and semi-auto shotgun in use today; banning and confiscating these guns would inarguably violate the constitution.

You'll have to show me how it does violate the consitution.

Already done – never mind the fact that one of the requirements of this exercise is for –you- to show that it does not.

I don't plan to ban any shotguns. If your shotgun has the capacity to hold more than 3 rounds, you'll be in violation of the law and will have to deal with the consequences.

Do you not see how your statement, above, contradicts itself?

You deliberately miss the point - the 2nd protects weapons that are part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for effective service in the militia; to be effective in militia service, because the military weapons must have hi-cap magazines for effective service, those civilian-owned weapons that are able to use hi-cap magazines must also have said hi-cap magazines. Thus, to ban these magazines then violates the 2nd because said magazines are an integral part of the weapons so protected.

You are interpreting the heck out of the 2nd.

Incorrect – I have merely applied established jurisprudence to the issue, none of which have you challenged with any degree of efficacy.

The same ordiance that prevents civvies from having a mounted on their civilian version of the miliary humvee would be used for this bit of legislation

Umm... what ordinance is that? It’s perfectly legal in most places, so long as the gun is legally owned.

The national guard is not the militia, so any reference to same is meaningless. The militia is expected to use weapons supplied by its members, kept ready for use by those members; not allowing the people to keep those weapons violates the constitution as their right to do is protected.

The de facto purpose of the militia was much different in Colonial times than now...

Nothing here negates the soundness of what I said, and so it stands. Banning hi-cap magazines violates the 2nd amendment because it renders ineffective the militia-related weapons it was intended to protect.

Under similar logic, banning words does not volate the 1st amendment because the constitution mentions speech, not words.

So are you interpreting the Constitution strictly or are trying to expand the law through implication? If you agree to a course, I'll work off that. But it's not sportmanlike for you to switch back and forth.

Again, you fail to address the point, and so it stands.

Remember that the legislation I'm talking about would
1) Not take away any weapons

False. It bans most shotguns, as well as many handguns and a number of rifles.

2) Only affect weapons with capacities higher than 6 bullets.

Including those weapons most strongly protected by the constitution, rendering them ineffective for service in the militia- therefore violating the constitution.

As a compromise...

There’s no compromise here as compromise requires that each side gives something that is has in order to get something it wants. You have nothing to give the side with the guns, and therefore cannot compromise with them.

So, as originally noted, your plan fails because it does not prevent people from getting hi-cap magazines, therefore still allowing the mass shootings it seeks to stop, and violates the constitution by banning weapons protected by it (various shotguns, handguns and rifles) and rendering ineffective the militia-related weapons it was intended to protect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.

You're talking in circles; first it is the comparison that makes you wind up with egg on your face; now you say we should be asking the question.

You don't think--IT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND--that our having access to all manner of firearms in an amount that is only limited by the number of zeros in your bank account just may be the difference that makes us more homicidal?

You validated the question just now so please consider the access as a possible cause.

I'm not talking in circles.

I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist or a psychologist.

I don't know the reason why there are so many more violent crimes and so many more homicides in urban areas.

I do know, from researching the topic extensively that it isn't firearms.

If your goal is to reduce homicides and violent crime, you should be working to answer the question you put forward.

What is the CAUSE of the higher homicide rate in the U.S.?

Easy and cheap gun availability is the leading cause;

Thank you for again helping to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you don't plan to actively confiscate the magazines, therefore leaving them in circulation. This means people will continue to have access to them, doing nothing to prevent mass shootings with them. Your idea therefore fails because it will have no effect on the problem you stated.

No the magazines would be confiscated. Voluntarily or not. There will be a grace period, during which everyone can proactively, voluntarily comply with the law. If anyone is found in violation they'll face a very stiff fine and possible jail time. If you hold on to them, you'll not want to trade them at shows or on craigs list as you might be targeted by lawmakers. The velocity and proliferation of large capacity clips will slow way down.

This is extremely problematic with regard to 5th Amendment Takings Clause jurisprudence and the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Many gun owners and collectors possess a rather significant number of magazines for different rifles and handguns, ‘confiscating’ magazines will require some form of due process and just compensation, how do you plan on administering this?

And such a law will likely be challenged in Federal court and subject to an injunction, adding years, perhaps decades, to the ‘confiscation’ process.

Last, with regard to high capacity rifle magazines, how can a law requiring their ‘confiscation’ be justified since so few crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles, as compared to handguns?

I was going to touch on all of ths, but I saw your response, above, eliminating any such need.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Last, with regard to high capacity rifle magazines, how can a law requiring their ‘confiscation’ be justified since so few crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles, as compared to handguns?

The goal is to reduce the damage of a major shooting incident. As such, I'm not concerned with handguns. The goal is not to lower gun violence in general.

You missed his point.
The impossibly small number of crimes committed with these weapons/magazines is insufficient to meet even a rational basis test.