Which makes this Democratically (of course!) proposed law " even more laughable:
Democrats propose ban on high-capacity magazines in wake of Las Vegas attack | US news | The Guardian:
Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of the Las Vegas attack that left at least 59 people dead and nearly 500 more injured. The proposed ban on the transfer, importation, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition follows separate legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the novelty device that Stephen Paddock appears to have used to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the rapid fire of a fully automatic weapon.I currently own magazines of over 10 rounds ... had them for decades. They're legal today.
Am I going to be subjected to ex post facto laws? That's simple possession, right?
The Guardian Article:
Gun rights advocates say the pause to reload when changing magazines is very brief and unlikely to have a significant impact on casualties, and that arbitrarily restricting magazine size to 10 rounds would be costly and inconvenient.Every thing old is new again, and that's especially true of the "latest" (and 'oldest") proposed Democratic ban on "high capacity magazines". Various states have imposed bans on sale or transfer of magazines capable of retaining more than six, eight or ten rounds. This is the first time I'e heard that simple possession might be illegal
These advocates say it is not hard to make larger capacity magazines by hand, even if they’re not available for legal purchase. Chris Koper, the researcher who evaluated the 1994 assault weapon ban, estimated that renewed limits on the size of ammunition magazines might contribute, in the long-term, to a 1% reduction in shootings each year. This was only a “reasonable ballpark estimate”, he cautioned.
If they can't even agree on magazine limits, why should we presume that the various states understand the consequences of their arbitrary laws?
What's the "right" number of rounds which should be permissible in a magazine? For decades, Anti-Second Amendment activists have grappled with this quandary, and they can't quite seem to get the "right number" of rounds which will stop mass shootings.The funny thing is:
,,, this is not the first time this "law" has been suggested. It didn't meet any arbitrarily determined criteria the last time (because it was difficult to define, and impossible to enforce) and it won't accomplish any imaginary goal of "preventing gun crime" this time.
These people, who know nothing about guns and gun-users, have brought back a question that they don't know how to define and that nobody knows how to accomplish.
In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, the "sniper" was not operating under a time constraint: nobody knew where he was, and he could reload under absolutely no pressure. He had magazines which are (unreliably) reported to be of "100 round capacity" (which I doubt), but that was never an issue.
Using that specific instance to justify the rejuvenation of an historically fallacious argument toward a provably unproductive end is just a bunch of horse doodie. People will do what they do, and will always find ways to get around any arbitrary restrictions which serve no legitimate purpose.
Ex Post Facto Laws:
There are too many (literally .. MILLIONS!) "High Capacity Magazines" in private hands today to make any arbitrary restriction viable; and people who own them will not give them up, because it's a stupid law to try to impose on people who already own them. Do the states which impose these arbitrary limits intend to confiscate "illegal" (previously owned legally) magazines without compensating their owners for their investment? Doesn't the fifth amendment* of the Constitution have something to say about that?
*(|No confiscation without compensation")
What are they going to do? Track down everyone who own a 30-round magazine? They can't do it: magazines are not identified by serial numbers ... it's not a matter of record who owns what magazines! And trying to enforce such a law is a waste of time for people (Law Enforcement Offers) who have better things to do with their time. It's not enforceable, and cops know that!
Politicians who think they have to pass laws to show their constituents that they are "doing something" are idiots and/or fools; politicians who even suggest such an unenforceable law are the object of ridicule from the Law Enforcement Officers who would be required to enforce it.
Are the politicians going to require the cops to go from door to door to search for "illegal magazines"? Good luck with that!
It makes you wonder how idiots are elected to office. But I suppose it's in the 'usual' way: Graft.