California high capacity mag ban news.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Chris142
spasm3 said:
Here is the news story with sound.


Unfortunately we still can't shoot after the bad guys retreat.


There are very, very few jurisdictions in which anyone can shoot after the bad guys retreat.

To do so is illegal most places, and unethical everywhere.

You shoot (apply lethal force) to stop a threat. That's the only time you're allowed to shoot - to stop a threat.

Once that threat is retreating, it is no longer a threat.

So, to shoot at that point is generally illegal.

And always unethical.

Retreating, or looking for cover to return fire?
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Chris142
spasm3 said:
Here is the news story with sound.


Unfortunately we still can't shoot after the bad guys retreat.


There are very, very few jurisdictions in which anyone can shoot after the bad guys retreat.

To do so is illegal most places, and unethical everywhere.

You shoot (apply lethal force) to stop a threat. That's the only time you're allowed to shoot - to stop a threat.

Once that threat is retreating, it is no longer a threat.

So, to shoot at that point is generally illegal.

And always unethical.

Retreating, or looking for cover to return fire?


Excellent question.

Are they withdrawing?

Or repositioning and therefore still a threat?

Hard to answer in the abstract, but if you reasonably believe it's the latter...

You're cleared to engage.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
I get the Second Amendment issue, but help me out here: short of repelling a foreign invasion or in law enforcement work, of what use is a 30-round magazine? Or is the concern this ban could lead to others?


What will your hit percentage will be in a self-defense scenario?

How many rounds will it take to stop an attacker?

How many attackers will you face?

Tell me those numbers, and I'll tell you how many rounds you need.


Here's an estimate:

For the first two numbers, let's examine actual police shootings. The NYPD is widely reported to hit about 30% of the time. They're trained law enforcement, so I'll assume you can't do a lot better. It takes anywhere from one to 12 rounds to stop a determined assailant. Depends on hit accuracy, bullet lethality, physiology of the assistant, etc. but for arithmetic simplicity, let's go with 4 rounds.

Remember, because it's critical to this, or any self defense discussion, that you're trying to stop an assailant. Generally young, male, strong, and determined. If they die five minutes after killing you, your shot was ineffective. You need to stop the attack right now. That generally takes multiple rounds, again, in police shooting experience.

And you're facing three attackers who broke into your home.

So you need 1/0.3 (hit percentage) x 4 (numbers of rounds for a stop) x 3 (assailants)

You need 40 rounds.

But only if you're as good a shot as the cops.

See?

Arbitrary capacity limitations are a joke.


So guess you don't own a handgun? Or carry 4?
 
Originally Posted by Danh
So guess you don't own a handgun? Or carry 4?

A handgun is carried for a different purpose than a home defense weapon. A pistol (carried) is a last-ditch weapon, something you use in an attempt to flee. Of course, an extra magazine is small and easily carried if you feel the need.

In a home defense scenario, you want accuracy, visibility, repeatability, and capacity if you intend to stand your ground.

A short barrel AR-15 with a flashlight and a 30 round magazine is an ideal home defense weapon.
 
Originally Posted by Danh
of what use is a 30-round magazine?


In the spirit of remaining apolitical, have you ever been to the range with only a couple low capacity mags and had to reload those mags without the aid

of a speed loader? Your thumb kinda stings after a while.
 
Originally Posted by Danh
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
I get the Second Amendment issue, but help me out here: short of repelling a foreign invasion or in law enforcement work, of what use is a 30-round magazine? Or is the concern this ban could lead to others?


What will your hit percentage will be in a self-defense scenario?

How many rounds will it take to stop an attacker?

How many attackers will you face?

Tell me those numbers, and I'll tell you how many rounds you need.


Here's an estimate:

For the first two numbers, let's examine actual police shootings. The NYPD is widely reported to hit about 30% of the time. They're trained law enforcement, so I'll assume you can't do a lot better. It takes anywhere from one to 12 rounds to stop a determined assailant. Depends on hit accuracy, bullet lethality, physiology of the assistant, etc. but for arithmetic simplicity, let's go with 4 rounds.

Remember, because it's critical to this, or any self defense discussion, that you're trying to stop an assailant. Generally young, male, strong, and determined. If they die five minutes after killing you, your shot was ineffective. You need to stop the attack right now. That generally takes multiple rounds, again, in police shooting experience.

And you're facing three attackers who broke into your home.

So you need 1/0.3 (hit percentage) x 4 (numbers of rounds for a stop) x 3 (assailants)

You need 40 rounds.

But only if you're as good a shot as the cops.

See?

Arbitrary capacity limitations are a joke.


So guess you don't own a handgun? Or carry 4?


Arbitrary capacity limitations are still a joke.

I carry what I can. Legally and concealed. The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.

Ask yourself this: what do the cops carry?

In most jurisdictions, it's a semi-auto pistol. Double stack. With TWO spare magazines. I'm betting they're carrying close to 40 rounds day in, day out. In Virginia Beach, for example, officers are allowed to carry the Glock 17 and the Glock 21. The 17 holds 17+1 9mm, so, with magazines, they're carrying 52 rounds. The 21 holds 13+1, so with magazines, they're carrying 40 rounds of .45 ACP.

However, a pistol is a contingency weapon. Small enough to have with you all the time. Small enough to conceal, if need be.

If I knew I was going to get into a fight for my life, I would have a rifle, and I would have several standard capacity magazines.

When we send our soldiers into combat, what are they carrying?

A single handgun?

4 hand guns?

Or, are they carrying a rifle, and at least 7 standard (30 round) magazines, with a handgun as a back up? By the way, every patrol car has a rifle or shotgun, in case the officer is called to a scene where they KNOW they're going to get into a fight.

If the threat is coming to me (i.e. in my house) then I am not constrained by size, or concealability.

I shouldn't be constrained by arbitrary magazine capacity, either.

Your initial ask was, "help me out here".

I hope I have.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Current administration is being pressured to outright ban all semi's and handguns because criminals, who procure arms illegally, are using the latter in crimes. Semi's simply scare this same group, and many (most?) conflate semi-automatic with automatic. We figure their next move will be to go after hunting rifles by calling them "high powered sniper rifles"
smirk.gif



Yep, there are states now that consider and define semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles" ... even .22 semi-automatic rifles.
 
Slippery slope indeed. I want a couple pounds of weaponized anthrax and maybe a suitcase tactical nuclear weapon. Taking the slippery slope argument to its conclusion.
 
Semi automatic firearms and high capacity magazines are part of our Constitution. It has nothing to do with personal protection. It's to keep a government in check and balance with a armed and dangerous population. Shall not be infringed for that reason. I would love to see a repeal of the ban on full auto but you will never see that because then the $20,000 + full autos would not be $20,000+ anymore. You can own a full auto, just have to be rich enough to throw enough money at it.
Talk about rich having special privileges over the poor.
Americans are more armed and have more ammunition than ever, if they were ever to try to disarm the American population, they picked a bad time to try it.
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Never expected to see this in your state. Think it will stand?


Don't expect Commiefornia to not appeal this the Nine Circuit of Clowns.


+100 .....
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
I get the Second Amendment issue, but help me out here: short of repelling a foreign invasion or in law enforcement work, of what use is a 30-round magazine? Or is the concern this ban could lead to others?


What will your hit percentage will be in a self-defense scenario?

How many rounds will it take to stop an attacker?

How many attackers will you face?

Tell me those numbers, and I'll tell you how many rounds you need.


Here's an estimate:

For the first two numbers, let's examine actual police shootings. The NYPD is widely reported to hit about 30% of the time. They're trained law enforcement, so I'll assume you can't do a lot better. It takes anywhere from one to 12 rounds to stop a determined assailant. Depends on hit accuracy, bullet lethality, physiology of the assistant, etc. but for arithmetic simplicity, let's go with 4 rounds.

Remember, because it's critical to this, or any self defense discussion, that you're trying to stop an assailant. Generally young, male, strong, and determined. If they die five minutes after killing you, your shot was ineffective. You need to stop the attack right now. That generally takes multiple rounds, again, in police shooting experience.

And you're facing three attackers who broke into your home.

So you need 1/0.3 (hit percentage) x 4 (numbers of rounds for a stop) x 3 (assailants)

You need 40 rounds.

But only if you're as good a shot as the cops.

See?

Arbitrary capacity limitations are a joke.


So guess you don't own a handgun? Or carry 4?


Arbitrary capacity limitations are still a joke.

I carry what I can. Legally and concealed. The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.

Ask yourself this: what do the cops carry?

In most jurisdictions, it's a semi-auto pistol. Double stack. With TWO spare magazines. I'm betting they're carrying close to 40 rounds day in, day out. In Virginia Beach, for example, officers are allowed to carry the Glock 17 and the Glock 21. The 17 holds 17+1 9mm, so, with magazines, they're carrying 52 rounds. The 21 holds 13+1, so with magazines, they're carrying 40 rounds of .45 ACP.

However, a pistol is a contingency weapon. Small enough to have with you all the time. Small enough to conceal, if need be.

If I knew I was going to get into a fight for my life, I would have a rifle, and I would have several standard capacity magazines.

When we send our soldiers into combat, what are they carrying?

A single handgun?

4 hand guns?

Or, are they carrying a rifle, and at least 7 standard (30 round) magazines, with a handgun as a back up? By the way, every patrol car has a rifle or shotgun, in case the officer is called to a scene where they KNOW they're going to get into a fight.

If the threat is coming to me (i.e. in my house) then I am not constrained by size, or concealability.

I shouldn't be constrained by arbitrary magazine capacity, either.

Your initial ask was, "help me out here".

I hope I have.

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
I get the Second Amendment issue, but help me out here: short of repelling a foreign invasion or in law enforcement work, of what use is a 30-round magazine? Or is the concern this ban could lead to others?


What will your hit percentage will be in a self-defense scenario?

How many rounds will it take to stop an attacker?

How many attackers will you face?

Tell me those numbers, and I'll tell you how many rounds you need.


Here's an estimate:

For the first two numbers, let's examine actual police shootings. The NYPD is widely reported to hit about 30% of the time. They're trained law enforcement, so I'll assume you can't do a lot better. It takes anywhere from one to 12 rounds to stop a determined assailant. Depends on hit accuracy, bullet lethality, physiology of the assistant, etc. but for arithmetic simplicity, let's go with 4 rounds.

Remember, because it's critical to this, or any self defense discussion, that you're trying to stop an assailant. Generally young, male, strong, and determined. If they die five minutes after killing you, your shot was ineffective. You need to stop the attack right now. That generally takes multiple rounds, again, in police shooting experience.

And you're facing three attackers who broke into your home.

So you need 1/0.3 (hit percentage) x 4 (numbers of rounds for a stop) x 3 (assailants)

You need 40 rounds.

But only if you're as good a shot as the cops.

See?

Arbitrary capacity limitations are a joke.


So guess you don't own a handgun? Or carry 4?


Arbitrary capacity limitations are still a joke.

I carry what I can. Legally and concealed. The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.

Ask yourself this: what do the cops carry?

In most jurisdictions, it's a semi-auto pistol. Double stack. With TWO spare magazines. I'm betting they're carrying close to 40 rounds day in, day out. In Virginia Beach, for example, officers are allowed to carry the Glock 17 and the Glock 21. The 17 holds 17+1 9mm, so, with magazines, they're carrying 52 rounds. The 21 holds 13+1, so with magazines, they're carrying 40 rounds of .45 ACP.

However, a pistol is a contingency weapon. Small enough to have with you all the time. Small enough to conceal, if need be.

If I knew I was going to get into a fight for my life, I would have a rifle, and I would have several standard capacity magazines.

When we send our soldiers into combat, what are they carrying?

A single handgun?

4 hand guns?

Or, are they carrying a rifle, and at least 7 standard (30 round) magazines, with a handgun as a back up? By the way, every patrol car has a rifle or shotgun, in case the officer is called to a scene where they KNOW they're going to get into a fight.

If the threat is coming to me (i.e. in my house) then I am not constrained by size, or concealability.

I shouldn't be constrained by arbitrary magazine capacity, either.

Your initial ask was, "help me out here".

I hope I have.


You have helped. I get the points. Guess I just don't worry so much about home invasions involving multiple, young, armed youths. I grew up with guns for hunting but can't see myself ever owning a self-defense firearm, but maybe lots of other folks here live in different circumstances...
 
"Guess I just don't worry so much about home invasions involving multiple, young, armed youths. I grew up with guns for hunting but can't see myself ever owning a self-defense firearm"- This is an attitude I don't understand. Even if the probability where you live is low of an armed home invasion, why would you not wish to be prepared to fight off attacking intruders? Why would you prefer to let someone violate you, your family, and your property instead of doing all you can to stop them? This just does not make any sense to me. If you're a pacifist, I could understand that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Danh
You have helped. I get the points. Guess I just don't worry so much about home invasions involving multiple, young, armed youths. I grew up with guns for hunting but can't see myself ever owning a self-defense firearm, but maybe lots of other folks here live in different circumstances...

I'm living the American dream in rural North Carolina, but we have a serious drug problem sweeping the nation and people are more readily resorting to violence for even the most petty disputes. The value of a life is lower than ever.

The world doesn't feel friendly anymore and I'm not getting caught with my pants down.
 
Our little "secure" would is extremely fragile. Disasters happen all the time. During that time you're going to be on your own for days or longer. I don't know how someone can choose to be defenceless.
 
I advocate for gun rights, and resist arbitrary magazine capacity limits.

As a practical matter, I don't keep a carbine at the ready, though I think it arguably the best weapon for self defense.

My wife keeps her Beretta 92, loaded, and a spare mag, 124g +P Speer Gold Dot, at the ready. (That's 35 rounds, if you're counting).

Because I've been trained with it, and because I've had it, and practiced with it, for over a decade, I prefer my H&K USP Compact, .40 S&W, night sights, with two spare mags (that's 39 rounds, if you're counting) for just about everything. It's been with me all over the country. I can conceal it if I'm wearing anything but summer clothes.

Those choices are the result of practicality, and happen to be what I'm choosing at the moment.

I will still argue for the carbine as best the choice, and believe everyone should be able to arm themselves according to their needs.

It's a false sense of safety to limit magazine capacity for two reasons.

First, it presumes that mass murderers will follow the new law, when, by definition, they don't follow laws. Seriously, who thinks someone willing to kill lots of innocent people will stop at an illegal magazine?

Second, it takes less than a second to swap magazines, so the killer is limited by weight, by what he can carry, not the size of the magazine.

Now, my needs, and/or balance of practical considerations, might change in the future, in which case, I might choose to keep a carbine, loaded with a standard capacity magazine, and a spare.

As an aside, my Magpul D-50 (50 round .308/7.62) arrived last week. Loaded, I estimate its weight to be near 5 lbs. I've yet to try it out at the range, but that might be enough capacity for me. It might be too much weight overall and make the rifle unwieldy. I'm curious to find out.

But even with 50 in the rifle, I would still keep a spare magazine at the ready, because a mag swap may be needed to clear a malfunction.
 
Last edited:
Magazine capacity limits are emotional arguments. They have no basis in facts or logic. The "assault weapon" arguments are similar. I can take my Marlin .357 and rack up a sizable pile of unarmed defenceless victims if I wanted to. It has no "evil features" at all. I could do the same with my F150.
 
Or a garbage truck...

Killing 84 and wounding hundreds more.

Or four tons of fertilizer and diesel fuel in a rental truck....

I was in Colorado when Columbine happened.

Two very important aspects of that, rarely reported in the press: first, if the propane bombs that Kleebold and Harris had planted the night before had worked, there would've been hundreds of casualties.

Second, there were 17 felonies committed in the procurement of those guns. Kleebold and Harris were underage, they couldn't legally buy anything. The girl who supplied them plea-bargained her felonies to community service.

Colorado "closed the gun show loophole" by requiring private sellers to utilize the NICS at gun shows (dealers have always been required to) in response to Columbine, even though it would've made no difference in the Columbine shooters getting weapons. The straw purchaser would've passed the back ground check either way. The same number of felonies existed before and after the change in Colorado law.

I wonder what disaffected, sociopathic future mass murderer looks at the law and thinks, "Well, I was going to kill everybody, but since there is now one extra felony in the way of my getting weapons, I suppose I won't. 17 is my felony limit before committing dozens more felonies in the form is mass murder..."

Placing one more minor crime (getting a bigger magazine) in the path of someone willing to commit hundreds of heinous crimes (murder) isn't really much of a disincentive.

Magazine capacity restrictions impact only the legal gun owner.
 
Last edited:
Serious on-topic question, because I'm not from California and don't know the whole history. I read the article and didn't quite get the answer.

Does this ruling, the one linked to in the first post, rescind forcing owners of pre-ban high-capacity magazines to give them up or does it rescind the entire high-capacity magazine ban?

Originally Posted by Astro14
Colorado "closed the gun show loophole" by requiring private sellers to utilize the NICS at gun shows (dealers have always been required to) in response to Columbine, even though it would've made no difference in the Columbine shooters getting weapons. The straw purchaser would've passed the back ground check either way. The same number of felonies existed before and after the change in Colorado law.


It sounds like you're making a pretty good case for tougher purchase requirements. I mean, if a straw purchase is what ultimately got weapons into the hands of these two and pretty much any 18 year old that can fog a mirror can also pass a background check, you've set a solid foundation that NICS sucks and should be replaced with something more comprehensive.
 
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Serious on-topic question, because I'm not from California and don't know the whole history. I read the article and didn't quite get the answer.

Does this ruling, the one linked to in the first post, rescind forcing owners of pre-ban high-capacity magazines to give them up or does it rescind the entire high-capacity magazine ban?

Originally Posted by Astro14
Colorado "closed the gun show loophole" by requiring private sellers to utilize the NICS at gun shows (dealers have always been required to) in response to Columbine, even though it would've made no difference in the Columbine shooters getting weapons. The straw purchaser would've passed the back ground check either way. The same number of felonies existed before and after the change in Colorado law.


It sounds like you're making a pretty good case for tougher purchase requirements. I mean, if a straw purchase is what ultimately got weapons into the hands of these two and pretty much any 18 year old that can fog a mirror can also pass a background check, you've set a solid foundation that NICS sucks and should be replaced with something more comprehensive.

What sort of system is going to prevent straw purchases? Or buying stolen guns? Or buying guns smuggled into the country?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top