The dubious pendulum again swings back the other way.....Absurd law that it is, implemented by several states: a knee-jerk reaction to shootings claiming smaller ammunition magazines are more "safe". I've seen guys with 50 low-capacity (legal) magazines strapped across themselves, 500 rounds! Frank "SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general said Tuesday it appears the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines has started in the state for the first time in nearly two decades after a federal court judge tossed out a statewide ban. Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked a federal judge to delay implementing the ruling while he appeals it. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said Friday that a law that bans possessing, buying or selling any magazines holding more than 10 bullets infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms." See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/delay-sought-ruling-allowing-high-capacity-ammo-magazines-190205735.html
Anyone familiar with firearms and who has seen or gone through suitable training knows how quickly mags can be changed "on the fly" so to speak. Reducing the size of the magazines allows some folks to think they have accomplished something if they aren't familiar with firearms. It probably does restrict the ability of the untrained to kill or wound large numbers, but I suspect (although I don't know) that New Zealand has magazine size restrictions and look what that one guy did there. He obviously had training and managed to kill or wound more people than most incidents here in three different locations before he was stopped. The magazine and ammo restrictions follow the philosophy that ammo and mags don't fall under "arms" in the Constitution.
In the Nam, I always taped three mags together in the form of a “Y”. Each magazine held 18 rounds for a total of 54 rounds per set and I carried 3 sets on my UH1-C. (Helicopter gunship)
@Bobby Cole M-14 or M-16? Most commonly I've seen M-14 (7.62X51) in 20 rounders, 30 for (5.56X45) or .223, a few 20 round G.I. issued M-16. 30 rounders for M-14 or M-1A are always widely available at the gun shows, but 30 rounds of that big stuff is heavy! Frank
16. I only used 18 per mag to prevent jamming. At max (20) they were known to jam up hence reducing each mag to the “recommended” max.
@Bobby Cole A new one on me! Likely because I did not serve. Thank you. Hey, were you around there then when the infamous "forward assist" was added? I heard stories of soldiers hitting it with a rock in attempts to force the bolt in to battery. I've had a number of AR-15 versions, semi-only of course, which had the F.A. but never had need to use it. I have likely fired about 100k rounds since 1979, when I acquired my first Colt AR. Frank
No, nothing mechanical like the ones issued later to the grunts. In truth, I only heard about the mechanical assist after I came back and at the time I heard about it I thought the guy was yanking my chain. Hard headed. The grunts had a rough life and their 16’s took a lot of punishment with a lot more usage compared to ours. My chief weapon was twin and single mounted 60’s so my need for my 16 was minimal. To think about it (which is rare) the only time I can remember having to use my 16 to any great extent was when my barrels had gotten too hot and were for all intensive purposes fubar’d and I didn’t have another set to replace the ones I had hence having to use the 16. I for one can honestly say that I never really had any problems with the M-16 but then again, I rarely had to use it and I was able to keep it clean unlike my ground pounding brothers. Gotta remember, unlike any other war, we had action on the average of 6 days out of 7 whereas the other wars averaged 3 days out of 7. And yes, I do call the Vietnam thing......a war.
And, this will accomplish just what? Perfectly legal to transport ammunition in your vehicle, Californios will now simply stock up in neighboring states, likely bringing back ample supplies for friends and relatives. Who just might be criminals! "California has among the most stringent gun laws in the country and on Monday a far-reaching new initiative to curb violence will require background checks for every ammunition purchase." "The state Department of Justice, which will administer the background check program, estimates there will be 13.2 million ammunition purchases each year. But 13 million will be by people who already cleared background checks when they bought guns in California, so they are already registered in the state's gun owners' database. They will pay a $1 processing fee each time they pick up bullets or shotgun shells." "Wilcox and Matthew Cubeiro, an attorney representing opponents, said owners who aren't in the system will have to pay $19 for a one-time background check that can take days to complete and is good for a single purchase within 30 days. Wilcox said that should encourage owners to register their firearms." "Buyers will also have to get their ammunition through registered dealers, ending a practice that Thomas said allowed bullets ordered online to be delivered to their doors "like a pizza." But she said the law allows owners to give each other ammunition." Now, it seems unclear about the issue of an individual selling or giving ammunition to another. I see this as another revenue-producing measure, a TAX; did the 2nd. Amendment allow taxation to be imposed to allow Citizens to avail themselves of it? See: https://frontier.yahoo.com/news/california-require-background-checks-ammo-224036937.html IMO, a lot more folks will take up reloading of their own ammunition. Frank
My husband was an avid gun collector and made most of his own ammunition. We always joked that if the house caught on fire, it wouldn't burn down, it would actually blow up.
I imagine California has gotten a lot nuttier than they used to be. When I bought a handgun in California, in the 1970s, there was a seven-day waiting period, which I thought was ridiculous at the time.
@Ken Anderson I assume your time there was before the several schoolyard shootings, which produced a list of banned rifles. The list was so ridiculously compiled that certain of the banned items were already in circulation legally, but under different names and brands, while seeming to conform physically in every way with the ones banned. Frank
Sounds like a mess to me. In NY Cuomo tried to add that in to his wonderful Safe Act, only tohave to remove the requirement a year later as it was determined to be unworkable and an overwhelming expense in tax dollars and to retailers in setting up the system. https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/p...-young/safe-act-ammunition-database-suspended
In a strange way, I can see some merit to the situation or at least, see one of the arguing points as being valid. Overall, the law seems to fine those who have registered weapons but on the other hand, it puts a small barricade for those who try to purchase ammunition for an unregistered or stolen weapon. In truth, all registered gun owners should have to do is to plop down an identification and a registration card if the law is truly a measure to thwart the purchase of ammunition by bad players. Sadly though, in it’s entirety, the new law seems to be yet another measure to fatten up the state’s coffers whilst penalizing legal gun owners.
What registered? None of my guns are registered, except my one handgun. That is not even really registered. In NY the gun serial number is listed on my pistol permit,but I don't know that it is enumerated in any "registry" My long guns are mine, some I have had since before the 1968 law took effect. Others I went thru the federal background check and the gunshop I purchased from has the serial numbers in their files somewhere, but other than that no record. I have to show proof of age to by ammo.but nothing more.