On July 1, one bullet makes a law abiding gun owner into a criminal, and it's insane....

[rightwinger]

What is so hard?

It's called complying with the law.....millions of people do it every day

So I guess all those illegals here need to just up and leave right? What's so hard about complying with the law???

They don't leave, they will be arrested when caught
Just like anyone with a large capacity magazine

Cops as well right?

Why do cops get to keep their 17 round capacity mags?

Because they are cops

Not a good enough answer. We don't have a knightly class in this country, with more RKBA than others.

So, off duty, do they have to follow the 10 round mag rule as well?

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

 

[martybegan]

So I guess all those illegals here need to just up and leave right? What's so hard about complying with the law???

They don't leave, they will be arrested when caught
Just like anyone with a large capacity magazine

Cops as well right?

Why do cops get to keep their 17 round capacity mags?

Because they are cops

Not a good enough answer. We don't have a knightly class in this country, with more RKBA than others.

So, off duty, do they have to follow the 10 round mag rule as well?

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

 

[rightwinger]

They don't leave, they will be arrested when caught
Just like anyone with a large capacity magazine

Cops as well right?

Why do cops get to keep their 17 round capacity mags?

Because they are cops

Not a good enough answer. We don't have a knightly class in this country, with more RKBA than others.

So, off duty, do they have to follow the 10 round mag rule as well?

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[martybegan]

Cops as well right?

Why do cops get to keep their 17 round capacity mags?

Because they are cops

Not a good enough answer. We don't have a knightly class in this country, with more RKBA than others.

So, off duty, do they have to follow the 10 round mag rule as well?

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

As usual arguing the mechanics and not the reasoning.

Will California compensate the estate of anyone killed because they ran out of bullets?

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 135970

Are you claiming that people who had guns were able to keep themselves out of the gas chambers?

If only them Jews had 20 round magazines!

 

[rightwinger]

Because they are cops

Not a good enough answer. We don't have a knightly class in this country, with more RKBA than others.

So, off duty, do they have to follow the 10 round mag rule as well?

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

As usual arguing the mechanics and not the reasoning.

Will California compensate the estate of anyone killed because they ran out of bullets?

That would be interesting

Can you point to any actual cases where someone with a ten round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed?

 

[martybegan]

Not a good enough answer. We don't have a knightly class in this country, with more RKBA than others.

So, off duty, do they have to follow the 10 round mag rule as well?

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

As usual arguing the mechanics and not the reasoning.

Will California compensate the estate of anyone killed because they ran out of bullets?

That would be interesting

Can you point to any actual cases where someone with a ten round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed?

Care to point out a case where a bad guy having to change clips after 10 shots stopped someone from getting killed?

 

[rightwinger]

I would guess their private weapons would have to comply with the law. Their service weapons can be whatever they are allowed to have

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

As usual arguing the mechanics and not the reasoning.

Will California compensate the estate of anyone killed because they ran out of bullets?

That would be interesting

Can you point to any actual cases where someone with a ten round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed?

Care to point out a case where a bad guy having to change clips after 10 shots stopped someone from getting killed?

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/...otings-have-high-capacity-magazines-in-common

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, the law is the law. Once we start making exceptions then who knows what will happen?

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

As usual arguing the mechanics and not the reasoning.

Will California compensate the estate of anyone killed because they ran out of bullets?

That would be interesting

Can you point to any actual cases where someone with a ten round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed?

Care to point out a case where a bad guy having to change clips after 10 shots stopped someone from getting killed?

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/...otings-have-high-capacity-magazines-in-common

Yes, they use them, but could someone have stopped the shooter when he changed mags?

Also, in the case of the Colorado Theater shooting, the ridiculously large mag actually jammed, forcing him to use another weapon.

Finally, how will you guarantee bad guys won't use high cap mags? Again, this is just punishing law abiding citizens in the overall goal of banning private ownership of firearms.

Another attempted end-run around the 2nd amendment, and hacks like you don't have the decency or balls to admit as such.

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[2aguy]

On July 1, in California, if you own a gun magazine that holds one more bullet than 10.......you go to jail...even though you haven't used your gun, or the magazine, to commit a crime. Simple possession of the magazine makes you a criminal and will put you in jail.

Notice...the gun grabbers in California didn't say..."use these magazines in a crime and you go to jail." No. they say just own one and you go to jail. See, the thing is...they don't care about criminals.....they hate guns, and they know the only way to get rid of those magazines is to make law abiding gun owners into criminals...otherwise, they can't touch those magazines...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

What is so hard?

It's called complying with the law.....millions of people do it every day

Yes....so was keeping blacks from eating at the lunch counter, sitting at the back of the bus, and keeping blacks from voting using poll taxes and literacy tests.....that too was called complying with the law and millions did it back then when democrats created those laws.....

 

[rightwinger]

On July 1, in California, if you own a gun magazine that holds one more bullet than 10.......you go to jail...even though you haven't used your gun, or the magazine, to commit a crime. Simple possession of the magazine makes you a criminal and will put you in jail.

Notice...the gun grabbers in California didn't say..."use these magazines in a crime and you go to jail." No. they say just own one and you go to jail. See, the thing is...they don't care about criminals.....they hate guns, and they know the only way to get rid of those magazines is to make law abiding gun owners into criminals...otherwise, they can't touch those magazines...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

What is so hard?

It's called complying with the law.....millions of people do it every day

Yes....so was keeping blacks from eating at the lunch counter, sitting at the back of the bus, and keeping blacks from voting using poll taxes and literacy tests.....that too was called complying with the law and millions did it back then when democrats created those laws.....

Those laws were challenged and overturned in the courts

You are welcome to attempt to do the same

 

[2aguy]

The law is the law
And if the law says law enforcement officers are allowed large capacity magazines in the course of their duties....then that is the law

California passed a law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to sue on constitutional grounds or work to get the law changed

As usual arguing the mechanics and not the reasoning.

Will California compensate the estate of anyone killed because they ran out of bullets?

That would be interesting

Can you point to any actual cases where someone with a ten round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed?

Care to point out a case where a bad guy having to change clips after 10 shots stopped someone from getting killed?

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/...otings-have-high-capacity-magazines-in-common

Yes, they use them, but could someone have stopped the shooter when he changed mags?

Also, in the case of the Colorado Theater shooting, the ridiculously large mag actually jammed, forcing him to use another weapon.

Finally, how will you guarantee bad guys won't use high cap mags? Again, this is just punishing law abiding citizens in the overall goal of banning private ownership of firearms.

Another attempted end-run around the 2nd amendment, and hacks like you don't have the decency or balls to admit as such.

First...you fell for the bait and switch....the idiot who wrote the article is calling the standard magazine for many types of pistols "high capacity" when what he is trying to hide is this......most people believe that rifles with magazines with 30 round magazines or 100 round drum magazines are high capacity.....that is what the uninformed believe when they hear "high capacity", and the 30 round magazines are also standard, and not high capacity...

Then.....when people start with that belief...they switch...and then describe pistols with 15-19 rounds as "high capacity" while the uninformed are thinking they are still talking about rifles...

Typical anti-gun bait and switch, and that they do this shows they don't care about the truth...


That article is also wrong....an actual study showed that magazine capacity has no bearing on the casualties in a mass shooting....they looked at all the mass shootings where weapons with magazines were used...and no lives would have been saved...in fact the guy who wanted to shoot up the sorority house in California, he used 10 round magazines.

Here is the actual research...magazine capacity has no bearing on mass public shootings...

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?


The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

On July 1, in California, if you own a gun magazine that holds one more bullet than 10.......you go to jail...even though you haven't used your gun, or the magazine, to commit a crime. Simple possession of the magazine makes you a criminal and will put you in jail.

Notice...the gun grabbers in California didn't say..."use these magazines in a crime and you go to jail." No. they say just own one and you go to jail. See, the thing is...they don't care about criminals.....they hate guns, and they know the only way to get rid of those magazines is to make law abiding gun owners into criminals...otherwise, they can't touch those magazines...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

What is so hard?

It's called complying with the law.....millions of people do it every day

Yes....so was keeping blacks from eating at the lunch counter, sitting at the back of the bus, and keeping blacks from voting using poll taxes and literacy tests.....that too was called complying with the law and millions did it back then when democrats created those laws.....

Those laws were challenged and overturned in the courts

You are welcome to attempt to do the same

It was overturned, by Heller, and the democrats keep ignoring Heller.......

 

[2aguy]

We don't have a government the people voted for?
What- did the land get up and go to the voting booths?
People from the heartland came out in droves.

Except more people voted for Hillary.. and oh, yeah, the Russians hacked the election.

Illegal aliens don't count and voter fraud doesn't count..

 

[2aguy]

On July 1, in California, if you own a gun magazine that holds one more bullet than 10.......you go to jail...even though you haven't used your gun, or the magazine, to commit a crime. Simple possession of the magazine makes you a criminal and will put you in jail.

Notice...the gun grabbers in California didn't say..."use these magazines in a crime and you go to jail." No. they say just own one and you go to jail. See, the thing is...they don't care about criminals.....they hate guns, and they know the only way to get rid of those magazines is to make law abiding gun owners into criminals...otherwise, they can't touch those magazines...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

If you have a large capacity magazine, you are not a law abiding citizen

Are the cops going to be knocking door to door looking for large magazines? Of course not
You can probably keep your magazine and nobody will ever know

But if you try to sell it, you will be arrested. If you take it to the local firing range to try to impress your buddies, you can be reported. If you get pulled over in a traffic stop and you have it in your car, you will be arrested

It is your risk to take. Depends if you want to follow the law or not

Yes...you are a law abiding citizen just like the blacks who sat at the lunch counters were law abiding and the ones who refused to sit at the back of the bus were law abiding....

Democrats have been attacking law abiding citizens since the days they owned slaves....

 

[rightwinger]

On July 1, in California, if you own a gun magazine that holds one more bullet than 10.......you go to jail...even though you haven't used your gun, or the magazine, to commit a crime. Simple possession of the magazine makes you a criminal and will put you in jail.

Notice...the gun grabbers in California didn't say..."use these magazines in a crime and you go to jail." No. they say just own one and you go to jail. See, the thing is...they don't care about criminals.....they hate guns, and they know the only way to get rid of those magazines is to make law abiding gun owners into criminals...otherwise, they can't touch those magazines...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

What is so hard?

It's called complying with the law.....millions of people do it every day

Yes....so was keeping blacks from eating at the lunch counter, sitting at the back of the bus, and keeping blacks from voting using poll taxes and literacy tests.....that too was called complying with the law and millions did it back then when democrats created those laws.....

Those laws were challenged and overturned in the courts

You are welcome to attempt to do the same

It was overturned, by Heller, and the democrats keep ignoring Heller.......

Heller had nothing to do with Civil Rights

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 135970

Are you claiming that people who had guns were able to keep themselves out of the gas chambers?

If only them Jews had 20 round magazines!

No shit head.....he is pointing out that the Swiss.....with 435,000 armed citizens with rifles with magazines and pistols...kept the national socialists from invading their country..there were no deportations to gas chambers for the Swiss...the rest of Europe disarmed their people...and surrendered 12 million innocent men, women and children...all unarmed and defenseless....to socialist gas chambers.......

 

[rightwinger]

On July 1, in California, if you own a gun magazine that holds one more bullet than 10.......you go to jail...even though you haven't used your gun, or the magazine, to commit a crime. Simple possession of the magazine makes you a criminal and will put you in jail.

Notice...the gun grabbers in California didn't say..."use these magazines in a crime and you go to jail." No. they say just own one and you go to jail. See, the thing is...they don't care about criminals.....they hate guns, and they know the only way to get rid of those magazines is to make law abiding gun owners into criminals...otherwise, they can't touch those magazines...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

If you have a large capacity magazine, you are not a law abiding citizen

Are the cops going to be knocking door to door looking for large magazines? Of course not
You can probably keep your magazine and nobody will ever know

But if you try to sell it, you will be arrested. If you take it to the local firing range to try to impress your buddies, you can be reported. If you get pulled over in a traffic stop and you have it in your car, you will be arrested

It is your risk to take. Depends if you want to follow the law or not

Yes...you are a law abiding citizen just like the blacks who sat at the lunch counters were law abiding and the ones who refused to sit at the back of the bus were law abiding....

Democrats have been attacking law abiding citizens since the days they owned slaves....

You are welcome to violate the law if you wish

If you get caught with high capacity magazines you can go to jail or lose your right to carry in California.
Guess you can bring your civil rights argument up with the judge. See if it impresses him