Here's another of my opinion pieces - my comments and response to a friend, all started with this opinion article: http://redflagnews.com/headlines/must-read-key-items-missing-in-feinsteins-gun-bill-by-alan-korwin
ME:
I appreciate this opinion and the lightly sarcastic seasoning in the writing. I had many of the same perceptions as I read Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation. The missing key points at issue in the discussion about "violent crime" or "gun crime" are obvious - everything but guns is missing, actually. But the bill, S.150, is entitled "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" so it's honest to the extent that it's targeting firearms and we shouldn't criticize that it doesn't attempt to solve all the problems. Theoretically, other proposed solutions could come in follow-on legislation from any member of Congress. But as I read through Feinstein's proposal, I came away with the same interpretation as this author with regard to the somewhat ambiguous "grip" language, and thought to myself, "Has a pistol grip and is capable of accepting a magazine of more than 10 rounds. That sounds like it includes virtually 'all' semi-automatic pistols. Surely, I must have read or interpreted that wrong. Maybe I got lost along the way in the sub-paragraph organization of the document." The language she uses in this proposal feeds every fear of every 2nd Amendment rights advocate and it's true to Feinstein's publicly pronounced (1994) desire for "...Mr. & Mrs. America...turn 'em all in" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUs). Truthfully, I don't know if Feinstein was referring to "all" guns, or just so-called "assault weapons" in that clip. But, clearly, her intent and motives are not trusted by a very sizable percentage of Americans.
PM:
I haven't read it but the key language is 'and'. Aren't there pistols that accept ten rounds or less? Handguns in the home cannot be banned per the US Supreme Court. The high volume ammo clips are vulnerable legally though for sure
ME:
Yes, [Friend], I understand the "and" operative quite well. It was hammered into me in a logic course in college. :) And there certainly are pistols that hold less than 10 rounds. All pistol revolvers I've seen fall into that category. I've seen 5, 6 and (.22 caliber) 9-shot revolvers. And there are semiautomatic pistols that are designed with magazines of 10 rounds or less, but these are mostly those that fall into the compact or subcompact categories. Most 'full sized' semiautomatic pistols are designed with magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds. (I don't know the % breakdown of what's on the market today by pistol size category or designed ammunition capacity.)
I've just re-read the pertinent parts of the proposed legislation and the parts that are concerning for semiautomatic pistol owners aren't as condensed or simple as it may appear in my 'response thought', above. Senator Feinstein's language does allow for semiautomatic pistols with detachable magazines. It's when you couple the pistol language with the "feeding device" language that there's cause for concern.
‘‘(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
"(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;"
Full sized, or large, semiautomatic pistols, and many rifles, typically have magazines that can be disassembled for cleaning. Cleaning is necessary to keep them functioning. My personal anecdote is that when I was in Kuwait / Iraq, I needed to clean my magazines (and pistol) daily. If I didn't, the fine sand and grit would prevent the spring in the magazine from feeding properly. When I'd remove my magazines for cleaning, I would literally turn them upside down and let the rounds fall out freely. This was possible because the spring wasn't providing tension. Disassembly is required for proper cleaning. So here's the challenge. Theoretically, a standard 15-round pistol magazine could be converted to a 10-round magazine by replacing the spring with a smaller one (not even sure if that's necessary) and installing a buffer device in the bottom of the magazine to take up the additional space. This is the quick, simple and inexpensive 'solution'. (I don't know if conversion kits to reduce capacity exist today.) The length of the magazine cannot be shortened because they're designed to fit the size of the pistol's grip. It needs to extend to the bottom of the grip to be accessible for insertion and removal. So it's likely that arms manufacturers would use a buffer device to comply with the proposed bill should it become law. But then the reverse would be true. A 10-round magazine could be reverse engineered to a 15-round magazine by removing the buffer and maybe replacing the spring. Because these magazines "can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition", they still would not comply with Feinstein's bill. So then we're either making magazines that cannot be disassembled for cleaning and become disposable when they've accumulated enough grit or we're completely redesigning magazines to make them 'fool proof'. Magazines typically cost between $20 and $50 each. Neither of these is an inexpensive proposition for consumers. And more complex magazine design may be able to fully satisfy Feinstein's bill, but could likely make them more vulnerable to malfunction. Believe me when I say that in Kuwait / Iraq I was very concerned about the reliability and malfunctioning of my MAGAZINES - as would anyone who might need that pistol to defend themselves. I knew the first bullet would fire. I had low confidence in the 2nd and following bullets, effectively reducing my pistol to a large, heavy, single-shot Derringer.
So is all this worth it - all the increased cost and complexity involved with fully complying with Feinstein's bill or Governor Cuomo's new law? Obviously many think so. For the many millions of us on the other side, there are fundamental problems and principles involved. The 7 and 10 round limits are completely arbitrary. There's no science or data that supports those numbers. There is data that shows the average number of shots fired in crime is close to 4. There's also very recent evidence that shows more than 10 or 7 rounds are needed for personal defense (the woman near Atlanta who fired all 6 of her shots, hitting the SINGLE attacker 5 times in the face and neck, and he still walked out of her house and drove away under his own power). This is "feel good" legislation in the spirit of "we must do something" even though it will not prevent crime and it will not reduce the number of mass murders, almost all of which have included pistols and some of which were done exclusively with pistols. These killers have already demonstrated that they know how to change magazines. And when they're not confronted directly by armed resistance, they have all the power, all the control, and all of the 0.5 second increments they need to change magazines.
As with "assault weapon", "high capacity" magazine is another political invention. I had never heard either term in my lifetime until in the context of gun control debate. Now both terms are in our lexicon - just as the gun control advocates intended - to invoke negative connotations and fear and emotion. In reality, "assault weapons" are substantially different and much less powerful than their lookalike "assault rifles"; and magazines up to 30 rounds are "standard capacity". I'll grant exceptions of 30-round magazines designed for pistols that normally hold ~15 should be considered "high capacity", but only applied to those specific instances. If gun control advocates want to discuss "high capacity" magazines (100-round drums for rifles and 30-round magazines for pistols) then let's do so, but let's not invent or redefine terms along the way. As a gun rights and 2nd Amendment advocate, I'll put 100-round drums and 30-round pistol magazines on the table for consideration though many others won't.
PM:
You are so much better at explaining these things than I typically see. I'm pretty sure any of these laws will have to apply to new sales. otherwise the government would need to pay for any weapons they want under the 'no taking without just compensation' clause. There aren't even 10 round magazines available for these rifles? If that is true then this is a silly discussion with no chance of having an impact. What do you think about the background check part of this? My wife works in mental health and I know constant cutting of their budgets does not help the problem.
===
My response to the background checks question continues in another note,
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment