High Capacity Magazines

So, aside from the constituional argument to regulation/lack of regulation on high-cap mags, is there a practical need for them within or outside of the LEO/Mil world?

Okay bro I am not trying to be a dick or anything, but your question is somewhat retarded. It’s not about having a practical reason, it’s about I don’t need a practical reason. Is it practical for a single guy with an office job to have 15 passenger van to drive to work? Nope, but it’s his damn choice to have one if he wants one.

Personally, I have several reasons to have large capacity magazines. The big reason is the defense of my family and home, if some shit goes down where I live (LA riots type thing). I also help thin out wild hogs on friends ranches, I also shoot competitively, I also CCW with only one magazine, I have a shit load of stupid reason I can come up with. But again I don’t need to; it’s my damn right to have a weapon with as many bullets in it as I want.
 
Except in CA where any magazine capable of holding more than 8 rounds is "Hi-cap" and there fore illegal - my Xd is illegal in CA for just that reason, and has the warning sticker "High Capacity Magazines, Illegal in CA" and for some reason it has "Ported Barrel, Illegal in CA"... It uses the SA-Xd standard 16rd mags.

Gimme a friggin Target Master Colt Python in 45-70, single shot versus an untrained idiot with a 9mm, .40 or .45 with hi-cap mags.... who's gonna win? at 75m I'll at least hit center of mass on that target, and reload as I get close enough to finish the job if it's not already finished.

It's definitely not the mag capacity, it's the shooter.

That's my point. California in their infinite wisdom has decreed that anything over 8 rounds is a "high-capacity" magazine. Well what if that weapon is designed to hold 10 rounds? IMO, that 8 round magazine is now a diminished capacity magazine because it won't hold what the weapon was designed for.

I guess in a way we should thank the rules that only allowed 10 round magazines. That's what drove designers to make the smallest pistol they could to fit 10 rounds. Without that law I don't think we'd have G26s or 27s...
 
Okay bro I am not trying to be a dick or anything, but your question is somewhat retarded. It’s not about having a practical reason, it’s about I don’t need a practical reason. Is it practical for a single guy with an office job to have 15 passenger van to drive to work? Nope, but it’s his damn choice to have one if he wants one.

A-fucking-men

Personally, I have several reasons to have large capacity magazines. The big reason is the defense of my family and home, if some shit goes down where I live (LA riots type thing). I also help thin out wild hogs on friends ranches, I also shoot competitively, I also CCW with only one magazine, I have a shit load of stupid reason I can come up with. But again I don’t need to; it’s my damn right to have a weapon with as many bullets in it as I want.
Can I go too?

I have several weapons with "high capacity mags", it's none of anyone's buisness why I have them.
My wife routinely bags on people who customize their cars, I tell her it isn't an issue because it's America and we can spend our money as w see fit.
SL- Your profile says Retail Management; do you make customers justify their purchases? same concept.
 
SOWT, unfortunately, I'm the one that usually has to justify the purchase to the customer... Point taken, though.
It seems as if I should have worded my posts better. I did not mean for it to come across as: "is there a practical need for them outside of LEO/Mil?" I just wanted the opinions of the BTDT crowd, and for that, I thank you.
 
Well, I'm not going to beat the dead horse (I hate coming in late). Simply put, there is no compelling law enforcement need to restrict magazine capacity. There is no Constitutional justification for doing so. Unfortunately, we've allowed a lot of the Second Amendment to be bureaucratically regulated (not legislated, mind you!) out of existence i.e. the 'sporting purpose' test.

I have no fear of law abiding citizens with guns, no matter how many rounds the gun may have. I personally like the idea of an armed populace, and will frequently tell people how to obtain a PA license to carry firearms (which sometimes gets me strange looks when I'm in uniform).

Gun control is, in my 19 years of carrying a badge, completely unrelated to crime control.

While I can think of numerous reasons why a high magazine capacity is a good thing, I agree completely that it's not about need. It's a right, and a right needs no justification. I carry a 1911 mostly, so I have no problems with magazine caps when I carry in Commiefornia. Still, the principle irks me.

I also believe the term gun crime to be a misnomer. It would be more accurate to say crimes committed with a gun.

As an aside, it will be interesting to see what Obama does re: gun control in the next couple weeks. I'm not convinced he can get a bill through Congress at this point, but I believe he's either going to try or attempt to implement gun control measures by rulemaking or perhaps a treaty. We'll see. Whatever he tries, the populace must raise a tremendous hue and cry.
 
Ok, my turn to be a conspiracy theorist.... One of the first steps in population control as stated by Marx and Engels, Hitler, Musolini, Stalin, Beria, Idi Amin and a host of other national socialist/communist/despotic rulers is the reduction/legislation of personally owned firearms to very low capacity, low range hunting guns (side-by side shotguns, single shot low caliber rifles) and a complete ban on handguns - look at the history of the Russian Revolutions - the only people to legally carry guns after the second (Octoboerist) Revolution were those aligned with the Bolshevik or Menshevik parties and deemed as being the military or police forces for the areas and soon after that with the 3rd revolution (final purge, Bolshevik revolution) only those with that party affiliation.... Fermany, late 1920's early 1930's after the Stillenacht ... only those Brownshirts and National socialists that were deemed police/military could own or carry weapons.... There is a practical reason for an oppressive government to legislate the reduction of those able to own carry weapons - it gives them a better control of the population and reduces the ability ofthe citizenry to rise up in an armed protest when the oppression rises to untenable levels - we are getting close her in the US right now.... Bread and Circuses, welfare, forced healthcare, new taxes and rules.... (just think in Jan 2012 any goods or services provided to a small business over the course of a year that have a value of $600 in total will require a 1099 from the receiver to the provider, so that both sides can be charged the 'health tax' on that total amount)... gun control legislated by the Federal government in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US and the Articles of Confederation is only a step in the Socialization/Communization of this contry due to a societal need for entitlements that are not guaranteed nor asserted by those documents.... "The good of the People" is being usurped by the "Good of the People as we the government see it" .... get ready for comrade Obama to be able to sway the sheeple into the same debacles of history as seen in Germany, Russia, China, North Korea and many African states... and the idiots who only care aout something for nothing to go along willingly as their freedoms are ripped from them .... and they see it as a kindness... something for nothing.... until they are prisoners of the State by their own actions - "make me safe, take those filthy guns away from everybody" who will protect them from their own government in the end if there is no way to defend themselves?

Pardon the rant.... and any misspellings/typos.
 
I think it's kind of humorous that the people who do make laws and regulations on firearms probably have little to no knowledge or experience with them.

You know what is more dangerous than a firearm? A bad parent. A car. An uneducated official. And the list goes on...

Yet we should be worried about these scary boom things. They hurt people!
 
X_SF, The thing is.... your standpoint is firmly placed in history and factual events that HAVE occured in the past.

Therefore, it's not a theory....

It is a theory that there is a consiracy to replay those scenarios here is in the US... as I do not have absolute proof the legislative branch is influenced by outside interests.
 
Okay bro I am not trying to be a dick or anything,

You turned into one when you strategically omitted the rest of the question when you 'quoted' SL and basically called him stupid for asking.

This issue has recently received its 15 minutes of fame due to the shooting here in AZ.
I want to know everyone's thoughts on whether or not hi-cap mags have a valid place outside of the LEO/Mil world. If so, why? If not, why not?

Notice the BOLD. It's a valid question with some valid responses, some, well, notsomuch. Skrewz is a good dude with valid questions and posts. Why the flame? I don't get it.

ON THREAD, I have several hi-cap mags for use with several reasons from other members here. Home/family defense.

Without opinions and questions, we'd be living the post x sf med put up, #27.
 
Back
Top