Democrats Modify H.R. 1808 Magazine Ban
It’s not because they want you to practice your reloads
H.R. 1808, sponsored by 213 Democrats and zero Republicans, has come out of the House Judiciary Committee slightly revised from its original version.
Three changes relate to the capacity of ammunition magazines. First, instead of imposing a 10-round limit on newly-manufactured handgun, rifle, and shotgun magazines if the bill took effect, the limit would be set at 15 rounds. That would mean, for example, that standard 17-round magazines for full-length-grip, double-stack 9mm handguns, such as Glock Models 17, 34, and 45, would be banned.
It would also mean that the number of rounds allowed in new magazines for AR-15s and comparable rifles would be cut in half, significantly undermining the ability of the armed citizenry to assure “the security of a free state” in the event of the specific danger that motivated the Framers to adopt the Second Amendment.
Second and Third, the bill would ban the manufacture of a semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic pistol if either were equipped with a fixed magazine that holds more than 15 rounds (excluding tubular magazine .22 rifles).
Of course, some gun owners would not care, because they don’t own guns that use magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, or they already have such magazines for their guns. But they should remember a few things.
First, to those among hunters, sport shooters, and gun collectors, who, throughout the fight to protect the right to arms, have never cared about the other fellow’s problem: If you don’t stand in defense of others’ rights, don’t expect them to stand in defense of yours when your time comes.
Second, Democrats raised H.R. 1808’s magazine limits to 15 rounds only because they don’t have the votes for 10-round limits right now. And the reason they don’t have the votes right now, is that Election Day is on the horizon and Democrats in “purple” districts are scared of angering independent and marginally conservative voters.
Third, if the government can limit you to any number of rounds, that will establish the precedent that it has the power to set a limit, and on that basis it could later limit you to whatever number it wants. The first federal income tax rates imposed following ratification of the 16th Amendment were between 1-7 percent, and we all know how that played out.
Also, the Democrats are proposing a 15-round limit now, but only a few days ago and for the previous 33 years (beginning with S. 386, introduced in 1989 by accused communist sympathizer Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio), they proposed a 10-round limit. That, by the way, would affect compact handguns, such as the 15-round Glock 19, and sub-compact handguns that use 12- and 15-round magazines.
Furthermore, civilian disarmament advocates have argued for even lower limits. In 1991, Handgun Control, Inc., said “There is no reason why a legitimate gun owner needs to have a clip (sic) capable of holding more than six rounds.” And in 1993, the author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban of 1994-2004, communist China’s favorite U.S. senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, indicated her support for a three-round limit.
Of course, the number of rounds that civilian disarmament activists really want is “zero.” Handgun Control, Inc., was formed in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns, with “control” meaning “prohibition.” In 1976, the group’s leader told The New Yorker “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.”
And Feinstein, when she was mayor of San Francisco in 1982, proposed a city-wide ban on handguns. The ban was adopted and struck down in court as a violation of California law. With a Democrat’s typical dismissive attitude about the judiciary when it blocks the progressive agenda, Feinstein said “it is only a ruling.”)
Also, as noted, Democrats have been trying to ban AR-15s and similar rifles altogether since 1989. If they succeed, it will make the magazine-capacity question for those rifles irrelevant.
Lastly, magazines, like tires on an automobile, eventually wear out and must be replaced. Of course, this isn’t an issue for gun hobbyists who never practice.
One solution to a potential magazine ban for serious gun owners is . . .
But the better solution, for the moment, is to call your U.S. representatives and senators at (202)-224-2131. Do so now, because H.R. 1808 is expected to be voted upon soon.
© 2022 Mark Overstreet