As always, if you're going to be an insulting or absolutist dick, you're not welcome here, whether your dickishness is pointed at me or someone participating politely in the diary.

I was thinking about an assault weapons ban, and returned to it after mentioned it specifically again. Still, many of the massacres we've seen lately have been with guns that are NOT by definition an assault weapon, and people, especially the VaTech shooter, have done a lot of damage with a simple semi-auto handgun.

Clip/magazine-size limits are an issue that I tend to break with more than 50% of the RKBA group here at DKos on...I don't feel large-capacity clips are necessary for personal defense and obviously have a massive downside.

So how about this?

1. No gun, openly carried or concealed, shall have more than 5 rounds of ammunition loaded, nor shall the person carrying the weapon have more than 5 rounds on his person or easily accessible to his person, while possessing said gun on public property or on private property that has not specifically granted permission to the person to do so.

2. The federal government may issue, upon satisfactory completion of a satisfactory psychological evaluation and gun safety & competency course, a license that will allow the possession of gun weapons with more than a 6-round capacity on federal property.

3. The manufacture and sale to the general public of wearing devices specifically manufactured to carry ammo clips that would allow unlicensed persons to carry an amount of ammunition in violation of #1 is hereby prohibited.

I don't think, despite the tons of NRA money that would flow to fight it, that this would fail to pass the muster of the SCOTUS's take on the 2nd Amendment and the granting of individual rights to keep and bear arms associated with it.

I think (2.) could probably be tweaked better, but this is what I see this law accomplishing:

1. It prohibits anyone carrying a gun that has a greater capacity than 6 rounds on their person in public, and prevents them from carrying reloading capability.

2. It defeats any purpose to have concealed vs open-carry arguments, because it applies to both types of carrying guns.

3. For those that argue the high-capacity mags are fine to use for sport shooting, they can still have them on their own land and the land of others that they have permission to do so.

4. Gun manufacturers may not croak because, in essence, it adds a product line or two (lower-capacity magazines for existing guns) and decide to go along with it rather than man the barricades via lobbying.

5. If you're afraid of a large-scale home invasion, your home is your property so feel free to hang an AK-47 above the mantle instead of grandpa's elephant gun.

So, what do you think? I know it doesn't prevent the oddball that got by psych testing from owning a gun, but even if they hid 4 handguns on their selves, they would only be able to shoot 24 rounds, and do so having to shoot 4 different guns.

UPDATE: I tweaked #3 because the way it was written (and none are perfect btw), it would possibly exclude backpacks, etc. I also took DetroitMechWorks' advice and changed the # to 6, since it was an awkward exclusion of one bullet for a standard revolver, which I think we can all agree would lead to less deaths if more of those were carried vs semi-autos with clips.


Ammo capacity control a good first step?

38%13 votes
23%8 votes
38%13 votes

| 34 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.