Media misinformation on the magazine ban

[eagleclaw]

Either the media is lying or misinformed. In the latest gun bill that passed the house HR 7010 it contains a magazine limitation. The media outlets are reporting the limit is 15 rounds. Here are a few examples;

The legislation in-part calls for raising the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, banning civilians from using magazines with upwards of 15 rounds, and bolstering safe storage of firearms where minors could access the weapons.

https://thehill.com/news/house/35163...n-legislation/

The House package would raise the minimum age for buying a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, prohibit civilian use of ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, and enact new federal criminal offenses for gun trafficking and straw purchases of firearms * when an individual who is unable to pass a background check buys a gun through a proxy.

https://wgntv.com/news/nexstar-media...rty-line-vote/

The House package would raise the minimum age for buying a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, prohibit civilian use of ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ote/ar-AAYf44G

That same day House lawmakers voted on party lines to pass new gun control legislation, although as written it has little chance of clearing the Senate. The bill would prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/house-...tomatic-rifles

However the text of the bill reads:
*(42) The term *large capacity ammunition feeding device**
*(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, helical feeding device, 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; and
*(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/7910/text

I contacted by representative office. The person who answered the phone first gave an answer saying that the bill allows 15 rounds but limits the magazine to 10. I asked him to please explain. He then stated that he will asked the congressman and get back to me. He called back a few minutes later and clarified that the bill limits that magazine to ten rounds.

Is this media misinformation a part of the anti gun strategy trying to get gun owners who own standard handguns with 15 round magazines to let their guard down and not care about this bill passing in the senate? Was it a media mix up. It appears something funny is going on.

[ImminentDanger]

I contacted by representative office. The person who answered the phone first gave an answer saying that the bill allows 15 rounds but limits the magazine to 10. I asked him to please explain.

(sarcasm ON)

These are world class technologists - Don't you know...
You can have 5 rounds in the chamber & 10 rounds in the magazine...

(sarcasm OFF)

...

[R L Suehr]

I haven't read the actual text, but if it's modeled like some state ones your aloud to have up to 15rds in a non-detatchable magazine (think lever gun or pump) and ten rounds in a detachable mag. That would be my guess.

[JenniferG]

I'll be allowed to have as many magazines with capacities that I choose. They have no say what I can own.

[win67]

So now we're supposed to take safety advice from people who can't even count to 10? F* that!

Making calls to legislators tomorrow. This is BS.

[win67]

I haven't read the actual text, but if it's modeled like some state ones your aloud to have up to 15rds in a non-detatchable magazine (think lever gun or pump) and ten rounds in a detachable mag. That would be my guess.

I'll do you one better, how about I can have as many rounds as I want in either type of magazine? You're probably right but the last thing we need is even more BS technicalities they can screw us on while actual violent thugs run free the the streets.

[eagleclaw]

I haven't read the actual text, but if it's modeled like some state ones your aloud to have up to 15rds in a non-detatchable magazine (think lever gun or pump) and ten rounds in a detachable mag. That would be my guess.

The bill mentions nothing about a 15 round limitation.

I'll be allowed to have as many magazines with capacities that I choose. They have no say what I can own.

There is a grandfather clause in the bill. It allows one to keep the magazines that already exist should the bill become law. However it doesn't appear to allow sale or transfer the grandfathered mags.

(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of this subsection.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/7910/text

I would like to know where all those media sources got that information and why the person I spoke with on the phone from my congressmen's office gave two different answers, one of which didn't even make sense.

[Sgt.K]

<snip>There is a grandfather clause in the bill. It allows one to keep the magazines that already exist should the bill become law. However it doesn't appear to allow sale or transfer the grandfathered mags.</snip>

Serious (hypothetical?) question: Let's say someone is in possession of a safe full of 20-30 round mags for a variety of platforms. Say they are grandfathered in when a 15 (or, heaven forbid, 10) round limit is passed. Should it not be up to .gov to prove that they were acquired after the ban, and not up to the owner to prove they are legal? Wouldn't reasonable doubt still apply? Hell, when I got out of the army in 2002 I was in possession of a handful of 20 and 30 round AR mags. Can .gov prove they're newly in my possession?

It's late, I'm tired - excuse my babble...

[Emptymag]

Grandfathering is just the lube they use to make you enjoy it more as they take your rights.
After they fuck you a little while longer, then they remove the lube - no more grandfathering - turn them all in.

[eagleclaw]

Serious (hypothetical?) question: Let's say someone is in possession of a safe full of 20-30 round mags for a variety of platforms. Say they are grandfathered in when a 15 (or, heaven forbid, 10) round limit is passed. Should it not be up to .gov to prove that they were acquired after the ban, and not up to the owner to prove they are legal? Wouldn't reasonable doubt still apply? Hell, when I got out of the army in 2002 I was in possession of a handful of 20 and 30 round AR mags. Can .gov prove they're newly in my possession?

It's late, I'm tired - excuse my babble...

I suppose the burden of proof is always with the prosecution in a criminal case. Another part of the bill says that any new over ten round magazine manufactured for police or other ones exempt will have to have a date of manufacturer stamped on them. The main goal here is to make sure this bill doesn't pass the senate.
The magazine ban is only one part of the bill. Other than raising the age of purchase to 21 it leaves the semi auto AKA "assault weapons" alone. That is the problem with I have with this bill. Some senators who normally would vote no might reconsider this bill with the idea that it doesn't include a gun ban. That's is what I'm concerned about. In addition the 15 round limit hoax may help that process along.