-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
High Cap Mag Ban Amendment Added to Cybersecurity Bill
- Thread starter mountainpass
- Start date
Thats easy...all we need is a national magazine registry! I kid... OMG, I just got my first lego...seems like just yesterday I was a single starred newbie. aawwww. lol
hah congrats!
I just got the Surefire 60 Rnd AR mag and more 30 Rnd mags , not sure if $100 for a 60 Round mag is worth it, especially since you can get a 30 round one fo$11.99, but I felt compelled to buy it after I read this thread.
I also felt compelled to buy four 30 round 5.7 mags, but damn they are ugly when you stick them on that pistol. Makes the grip a two hander.
I also felt compelled to buy four 30 round 5.7 mags, but damn they are ugly when you stick them on that pistol. Makes the grip a two hander.
My email to Chambliss:
Senator Chambliss:
My name is XXXXXX and I am a resident of Atlanta, Georgia and a registered voter. I have never before taken the time to write to one of my elected representatives, but today I find myself without a choice.
As you know, certain Senators have introduced an amendment to what has been referred to as the Cybersecurity Act, S.A. 2575, which proposes to ban firearm magazines over ten rounds. I am writing to say that I adamantly oppose the proposed amendment, and would encourage you to vote against it, should it ever reach that stage of the legislative process.
It is my opinion that the proposed ban on magazines capable of containing more than ten rounds will cause more harm to Georgians than it will do good.
As a crime-prevention or mitigation tool, the amendment borders on useless. This is aptly demonstrated by the situations in the home states of the amendment's sponsors, all but one of whom hail from New York, New Jersey or California. As you know, each of these states has a ban on high-capacity magazines, yet each state is still plagued by disproportionately high rates of gun violence. Why Sens. Boxer, Schumer and Feinstein (among others) think that a regulatory scheme that has proven itself ineffective in their own states would be viable on a national scale eludes me.
Additionally, I think the bill represents just the first step in a renewed effort by anti-gun politicians to erode the protections of the Second Amendment. Assuming, arguendo, that the amendment is adopted and the bill is passed, there will undoubtedly come a day where there is some form of mass shooting in which the weapon used is equipped with a S.A. 2575-mandated ten round magazine. At that time, the sponsors of this amendment or their successors will likely decide that S.A. 2575 did not go far enough, so they will attempt to impose further strictures on gun owners. Simply put, guns will always be very dangerous in the wrong hands, regardless of the capacity of their magazines. Sens. Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein and their ilk will never accept this fundamental truth, choosing instead to selectively obliterate our Second Amendment freedoms, presumably in hopes that at some point, they will have made gun ownership so difficult and onerous that the laws amount to a constructive ban on firearms.
One argument being made against high capacity magazines is that they have no non-murderous utility. This is simply not the case. Being an avid shooter myself, I can tell you that a trip to the range is more enjoyable and more useful where less magazine changes are required: the shooter's eye does not have to leave the target as frequently, the shooter does not have to carry in as many pieces of equipment, and reloading can be done much more efficiently. In addition, most modern semiautomatic pistols have standard factory magazine capacities of twelve or more rounds, with no options for smaller-capacity magazines. This means that most major handgun manufacturers, including all American manufacturers, would have to revise their product lines at significant cost in order to comply with the proposed amendment.
On balance, I think the proposed amendment is absurd. It proposes to institute a gun control law that has proven ineffective at mitigating gun violence in the states in which it is already the law, and, in so doing, it erodes the Second Amendment rights of Georgians and all Americans, opens the door to additional, more restrictive legislation, and creates inefficiency for the shooting community, manufacturers and consumers alike.
To truly control gun violence, I believe we should work harder at enforcing existing laws, and create further enhanced criminal penalties for those who commit gun crimes. Speaking for myself and my gun-owning friends and family, there is little that is more reprehensible than using a gun in an irresponsible or criminal manner, and those who do should bear the full weight and fury of the justice system.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I will close by once again encouraging you to oppose S.A. 2575.
Best regards,
XXXXXXX
Senator Chambliss:
My name is XXXXXX and I am a resident of Atlanta, Georgia and a registered voter. I have never before taken the time to write to one of my elected representatives, but today I find myself without a choice.
As you know, certain Senators have introduced an amendment to what has been referred to as the Cybersecurity Act, S.A. 2575, which proposes to ban firearm magazines over ten rounds. I am writing to say that I adamantly oppose the proposed amendment, and would encourage you to vote against it, should it ever reach that stage of the legislative process.
It is my opinion that the proposed ban on magazines capable of containing more than ten rounds will cause more harm to Georgians than it will do good.
As a crime-prevention or mitigation tool, the amendment borders on useless. This is aptly demonstrated by the situations in the home states of the amendment's sponsors, all but one of whom hail from New York, New Jersey or California. As you know, each of these states has a ban on high-capacity magazines, yet each state is still plagued by disproportionately high rates of gun violence. Why Sens. Boxer, Schumer and Feinstein (among others) think that a regulatory scheme that has proven itself ineffective in their own states would be viable on a national scale eludes me.
Additionally, I think the bill represents just the first step in a renewed effort by anti-gun politicians to erode the protections of the Second Amendment. Assuming, arguendo, that the amendment is adopted and the bill is passed, there will undoubtedly come a day where there is some form of mass shooting in which the weapon used is equipped with a S.A. 2575-mandated ten round magazine. At that time, the sponsors of this amendment or their successors will likely decide that S.A. 2575 did not go far enough, so they will attempt to impose further strictures on gun owners. Simply put, guns will always be very dangerous in the wrong hands, regardless of the capacity of their magazines. Sens. Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein and their ilk will never accept this fundamental truth, choosing instead to selectively obliterate our Second Amendment freedoms, presumably in hopes that at some point, they will have made gun ownership so difficult and onerous that the laws amount to a constructive ban on firearms.
One argument being made against high capacity magazines is that they have no non-murderous utility. This is simply not the case. Being an avid shooter myself, I can tell you that a trip to the range is more enjoyable and more useful where less magazine changes are required: the shooter's eye does not have to leave the target as frequently, the shooter does not have to carry in as many pieces of equipment, and reloading can be done much more efficiently. In addition, most modern semiautomatic pistols have standard factory magazine capacities of twelve or more rounds, with no options for smaller-capacity magazines. This means that most major handgun manufacturers, including all American manufacturers, would have to revise their product lines at significant cost in order to comply with the proposed amendment.
On balance, I think the proposed amendment is absurd. It proposes to institute a gun control law that has proven ineffective at mitigating gun violence in the states in which it is already the law, and, in so doing, it erodes the Second Amendment rights of Georgians and all Americans, opens the door to additional, more restrictive legislation, and creates inefficiency for the shooting community, manufacturers and consumers alike.
To truly control gun violence, I believe we should work harder at enforcing existing laws, and create further enhanced criminal penalties for those who commit gun crimes. Speaking for myself and my gun-owning friends and family, there is little that is more reprehensible than using a gun in an irresponsible or criminal manner, and those who do should bear the full weight and fury of the justice system.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I will close by once again encouraging you to oppose S.A. 2575.
Best regards,
XXXXXXX
When is this bill scheduled to be on the floor?
