Firearms; prohibition of sale, etc., of magazines that hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition. (HB2524)

Introduced By

Del. Betsy Carr (D-Richmond)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Prohibition of sale of certain firearms magazines.  Prohibits any person from selling, bartering, or transferring a firearms magazine designed to hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition. A violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/21/2011Committee
01/21/2011Presented and ordered printed 11104187D
01/21/2011Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/26/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB2524)
01/31/2011Assigned MPPS sub: #1
02/03/2011Subcommittee recommends laying on the table (5-Y 0-N)
02/08/2011Left in Militia, Police and Public Safety

Comments

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

Most places that have shooting deaths, happen where guns are not allowed. I do not understand why this is so hard to understand. Well I guess I do understand that American people need to WAKE UP! Your giving your freedoms away just because someone say "this will make things better". Start thinking for yourself before you find that all your American rights are gone. I don't know who said it originally but if guns kill people, pencils mispell words.
If I am murdered, I would rather be shot than gutted with a sword or poisoned.
People are going to kill one way or another. I say make the killers family responsible.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Most places that have shooting deaths, happen where guns are not allowed.

Do you have any evidence of this? Because I'd put money on that being something you just now made up.

I say make the killers family responsible.

WTF?

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

Smart money says you think guns kill people. Well let’s not make the family responsible, let’s just regulate, making sure people who want to have kids, have a clue. You must meet certain criteria before you breed. You want to take the right to bear arms away. Let’s go ahead and take the right to breed stupid people away.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Well let’s not make the family responsible, let’s just regulate, making sure people who want to have kids, have a clue. You must meet certain criteria before you breed.

What in the world are you talking about? You're proposing, what, mass sterilization, with reversal only by government permit? And yet you're complaining about gun rights?

You want to take the right to bear arms away.

I do? Another thing I'd put money on: that I have more guns than you. And, as such, I know that twenty-round clips are useless for anything other than killing a lot of people. I don't own any magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Don't see the need. My favorite gun is my 1948 Mauser, which takes 7.92mm rounds. It has a capacity of just five rounds. If I can't put a hole in something with five chances, I've got no business owning a gun.

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

You’re not a gun lover, you are a gun hater and a liar.
I might need my Saiga with a twenty round clip to ward of a gang of POS that were bread by people like you. Your right, you have no business owning a gun.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU...
It is my American right to defend my family with a gun, loaded with whatever clip I choose. And I will one way or another. Don't be such a waldo
I hope there is not more than five in your world.

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

coming through your door

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

waldo

Bubberella writes:

If you want to make a point, try less rage and more reason. It's hard to take you seriously when you're apoplectic.

J. Tyler Ballance writes:

When one considers our national history, it is peculiar how people get upset over a politician being shot in the street.

Jefferson (et.al.) basically wrote that we should expect to see blood in the gutters on a regular basis; that the tree of liberty would be fertilized with the blood of patriots, etc.

What should be surprising is that political murders do not happen with greater frequency, especially after the crap that was pulled by a deposed Congress in the last "lame duck" session.

We can act affirmatively to persuade our citizens to step back from the precipice of wholesale killings of politicians, but we must do that using a multifaceted strategy that addresses the underlying problems.

Banning extended magazines won't accomplish anything but to create a short term rush to buy and collect such novelty items before the ban goes into effect.

One benefit to having this punk, Loughner captured alive, is that he can be thoroughly examined and the causes behind his decision to murder a bunch of unarmed, fellow citizens, might be revealed. Only after a thorough examination, should we propose any legislative solutions that target the underlying causes.

Anyone who recalls the Korean store owners defending their lives and property during the LA riots, can surely see the value of an extended magazine. For those who did not see the videos, the Koreans who were armed and defended their stores, were left alone. Those who were unarmed, had their stores looted and some were beaten and killed.

Let's wait until we know what caused this fellow to murder, and address those issues. In the meantime, some constructive activities on the part of gun-rights groups would be to produce a voluntary, industry run system that promotes safe firearms use.

For example, you can buy scuba gear, but in order to get air, you need a certification card. The government doesn't get involved, yet a high standard of professionalism is instilled in scuba divers here in America, simply through an industry sponsored training program.

A firearms safety and certification program could include alternative dispute resolution methods that might give turds like Cho (Va Tech) and Loughner, some constructive ideas on how to make positive changes without killing a bunch of innocent by-standers.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Chris, guys like you are why gun rights is in such terrible shape. You take somebody like me—a hunter and firearm owner—who simply disagrees with you about how many rounds a clip should hold, and on that basis I'm a "gun hater and a liar." (Oh, and that my children are members of a violent gang because, by your logic, people who are "gun haters" have children who kill people with guns.) You've just taken an already-small tent and decided to make it a little smaller still, to keep this ally out.

The more you talk, the better idea it seems to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Keep it up.

C. Greene writes:

This bill is a poorly reasoned, irrational response that will do nothing for public safety.

1. Unknown million of magazines with capacities over 20 rounds exist in the US. Most magazines for AR- and AK-style rifles are 20-30 rounds, yet they are used in a statistically insignificant number of crimes in America.

2. A law like this in one state accomplishes nothing; you can still get them in most states.

3. Criminals don't care, and will still get them.

4. It takes less than a second to change magazines. The Virginia Tech shooter had plenty of time to reload since no one else was armed.

5. Two handguns with 15 rounds are more effective than one with 20 rounds.

6. Large magazines are harder to conceal.

7. The bill perpetuates "non-equal-protection under the law" principles by having one set of rules for law enforcement and another for citizens.

8. The 1994-2004 ban had no affect on crime. Crime has gone down every year since it expired, while gun ownership has gone up.

Waldo, I have dozens of 30 rounds magazines that has seen a lot of use; none of it in killing people. And yes, look up mass shootings in the US. Most have happened in places guns are not allowed. Why, no one shoots back.

robert legge writes:

I'll bet this one won't pass. Even if it was for 50 round mags, it still wouldn't make it. Maybe try 200 round mags. That might have a chance.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

And yes, look up mass shootings in the US. Most have happened in places guns are not allowed. Why, no one shoots back.

That's not the assertion in question. Chris Sellers' assertion was:

Most places that have shooting deaths, happen where guns are not allowed.

That's flat-out wrong. For starters, most shooting deaths are suicides, for which the concept of "shooting back" obviously doesn't apply. I'm not aware of any evidence that people who commit suicide via gun do so "where guns are not allowed." But even if we leave aside suicide, Sellers is still asserting that most of the deaths of American civiliants that result from being shot by another person occur in jurisdictions where gun ownership is prohibited. Since there are no broad jurisdictions in the United States where gun ownership is prohibited, this is facially wrong. Many places have narrow exceptions carved out (on school grounds, in bars, on airplanes, in churches, etc.), but these areas do not correlate with the areas that experience high rates of murder by gun.

So now you're moving the goalposts. Now you're talking about "mass shootings." Mass shootings are so rare, compared to murders by gun generally, that it's impossible to draw any meaningful data about them. In the past decade, we've had mass shootings at an Amish school, in homes, in a hotel, in a brokerage office, at a grocery store, at a community center, on a military base, and in a restaurant, among other places. As a glance at this list will reveal, in many of these places guns are not prohibited. It's just that reasonable people know that mass shootings are enormously rare, and aren't in the habit of carrying guns into churches and grocery stores on the off chance that somebody will try to kill two dozen people. Recall the shooting of Congressman Giffords and others just two weeks ago. In that instance, there was an armed man present. Joe Zamudio took too long to respond to do any good and, when he did, he came within a fraction of a second of killing the innocent man who had disarmed the shooter. Zamudio said: "I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

Not "skillful." "Lucky." That's because the fact that somebody is qualified to own a gun doesn't mean that they are qualified to engage in tactical combat with it.

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

Waldo Jaquith wrote:

Chris, guys like you are why gun rights is in such terrible shape.

Chris Sellers says you’re a liar. You can say whatever you want. I have read everything I need to know about you and smart money says you don't own a gun. I need mags that have 20 - 30 rounds plus cause it is pure therapeutic to run 30 rounds thru my AK. If I was not smiling before the thirty rounds, I am after... It is hopeful thinking on your gun hating self that guns rights are in peril, they are not and I will fight for my right with my last viable breath.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I have read everything I need to know about you and smart money says you don't own a gun.

Everything? Really? Are you sure you've seen everything?

Your reading skills are...lacking.

I need mags that have 20 - 30 rounds plus cause it is pure therapeutic to run 30 rounds thru my AK.

That's why you "need" them? Using hand grenades to blow up watermelons is pretty fun, too. Do you "need" those, too? I'll bet that using nuclear-tipped bullets to fell trees is a blast—should we legalize small nuclear weapons for personal ownership? If not, why? Remember, if we outlaw nuclear weapons, only criminals will have them!

It is hopeful thinking on your gun hating self that guns rights are in peril, they are not and I will fight for my right with my last viable breath.

If gun rights aren't in peril, then what exactly are you fighting for? If they're not in peril, what do you care about this bill?

CHRIS SELLERS writes:

Thank - you gboy, for showing us all who you really are. Yes, please mail me some 50cal exploding tips. That would be great. If they are nuclear that would be even more fun. You don't realize it but you would be happier living in China. BTW, get your almost 30 year old self out of your parents house and get a clue.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Thank - you gboy, for showing us all who you really are.

"Gboy"? Who I really am—you mean a gun owner? Well, then, you're welcome.

BTW, get your almost 30 year old self out of your parents house and get a clue.

Wow, your reading skills are bad. I haven't been in my twenties for a long time. And I haven't lived with my parents since I was in high school.

Just to summarize, you've called me a clueless communist, a liar, a gun hater, the father of gang members, and a loser who lives with his parents...simply because you believe that clips should hold several more bullets than I do. (Ironically, your support of sterilization of unqualified parents is practiced in just one nation—China.) I have repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong, yet you keep digging yourself in deeper. You should quit while you're behind, Chris.

someothername writes:

As others do, I have "20 round mags" that are "standard size" and "normal" capacity ... he should have said 21 or greater instead of 20 or greater if he wanted even a chance of it passing.

Still, the church youth group and 4-H club will be disappointed if it passed and they couldn't get replacements for the 33 round mags they use now.

Thank God Jared in Tucson used one of those foot-long magazines making it harder to reload and making it easier to grab than Cho at Virginia Tech and Hennard's at Lubys when they used short magazines and reloaded several times..... think about that a minute.

Common Sense writes:

It really bothers me that we still have people in this Country that just don't get it. If you have any common sense and think about this subject with an open mind, you might realize how useless this bill would be. Even if you outlaw these magazines the criminals will still have them. Just open your mind for a second. Marijuana is outlawed, and so is full auto weapons without a permit. However, criminals still have them. It's that simple. Think smart and use your common sense.
Thanks

Charles writes:

Sadly too many of our elected representatives legislate as if they are playing a game of wack-a-mole law

kaye writes:

First it is 20 rounds, than 15, than 10, than 1 than none. Don't pass this law! Next it is your gun!

Gary writes:

People, read the code section. 18.2-309 deals with furnishing weapons to minors.

The new introduced bill only deals with sale, barter or transfer of magazines over 20, not possession or buying them (out of state).

I agree that if this does pass it is one step closer to tighter regulation of weapons.

George writes:

Can't we pass a bill which makes introducing idiotic legislation such as this a misdemeanor?

Where are her calls to re-introduce Project Exile?

CHARLES writes:

My casual observation is the knee-jerk reaction to this bill just being proposed has caused the purchase of more of these in the last week than might have been sold over a few years. All of the vendors had to backorder large capacity magazines last week. Folk who never would have bought one now feel compelled to acquire them before it becomes difficult