Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Firearms Forum (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   how did the 10 round mag limit come about? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1467915)

Andy W 01-28-2013 01:18

how did the 10 round mag limit come about?
 
Who originally came up with the idea of reduced capacity 10 round mags? Why 10 rounds? Who originally thought it was a good idea to outlaw standard capacity double stack mags in favor of these? It's something I've been wondering about and it would be great if someone who has been around a while could shed some light on it.

xRUSTYx 01-28-2013 01:29

In my opinion ... They needed to start some where.

With common standard mags at 12/15/20/30/etc... I feel the Democraps wanted to still *allow* a 2 digit number, being the smallest they could = the number "10". Less people would *****, moan, & complain.

Look at Cali folk vs the new New York ban. Most people don't blink an eye at 10 round limits, but as soon as that drops to 7, all hell breaks loose :)

NEOH212 01-28-2013 01:31

Quote:

how did the 10 round mag limit come about?
It came from retarded Liberals that like to pass more laws that make them, "Feel Good" rather than blame a system that they already put in place that doesn't work.

BobbyT 01-28-2013 01:33

Some states limit you to 20, some 15, some 10, now NY goes with 7. Nothing magical about them, just the closest they could get to 0 at the time.

Some claim that eeeeeevil "rich" starts at 1 M, some 400k, some 250k, some 100k. In Greece it's now 55k.

Some countries have tax rates of 12%, some 20%, some 40%, and some 75%. Nothing magic about those either, but each of the latter is the closest they could get to 100 at the time.

Control freaks want control, in whatever amount you will give it to them. Their definition of "reasonable" will always be just a bit further than what you've already given them, and they'll never give a real number to "fair share", it's just more than whatever it is now.

Fred Hansen 01-28-2013 01:36

It came about the same way that 98.389% of all statistics do. Somebody pulled a number out of their ass, and some people fell for it.

Andy W 01-28-2013 01:46

Weren't 10 round mags actually produced before the ban on "high caps?" I remember reading that the NYPD ordered them for their early issued semiautos because they felt high caps would cause their officers to "spray and pray" even more than they were already in the habit of doing.









'

RUT 01-28-2013 05:55

>>Who originally came up with the idea of reduced capacity 10 round mags?<<

To put it into liberal parlance, it's a good "first step". New York has shown us what the "second step" is.

MrMurphy 01-28-2013 06:34

Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.

cowboy1964 01-28-2013 07:47

10 is a nice round number for the simpleton antis. NYC PD also used to use FMJ ammo back then. So you can see the stupidity of those that were in charge back then.

BuckyP 01-28-2013 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMurphy (Post 19920557)
Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.

Yep, the "libs" didn't think up magazine capacity limits. Bill Ruger said 15 was enough. Interestingly, this was when his pistols were loosing sales to the then new to the US 17 round pistol. :whistling:

California passed a 15 round AWB ban, and New Jersey soon followed. Neither had any kind of grandfathering. The ban was overturned in California because of it. Of course, California followed up with a different ban later on.

The case was also brought against the NJ law, but apparently the US Constitution somehow doesn't apply the same, so NJ was, and still is, stuck with this law.

As for 10, once the seed was planted, it was the anti's way in as a way of incrementalism. Now NY is going to 7 rounds, and there are bills being proposed to limit to 5 rounds (I got a newsletter saying someone is proposing this in NJ, though I don't know the details, or if it has any sponsors).

CMG 01-28-2013 08:12

I apoplgize in advance, as I've lost the citation for the following:

"...on 30 March 1989 (WBR) had his proposed legislation delivered to 535 members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

'The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:

'The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.'

'Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate.'

Bill was trying (in a misguided way) to prevent a ban on any semi-autos by suggesting instead a limit on magazine capacity. The demoncraps in control of congress (along with Clinton and Gore) simply changed it from 15 to 10, then added the mag restriction on to their AW bill and passed it with Gore casting the deciding vote in the Senate.

Although WBR usually gets all the blame, Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby also supported Bill's position at the time… They were all members of SAAMI.

Bill Ruger in 1999 or 2000, in an interview with the NRA, when he donated about a million bucks to them, said in hind-sight, he shouldn't have made the proposal.

collim1 01-28-2013 09:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMG (Post 19920728)
I apoplgize in advance, as I've lost the citation for the following:

"...on 30 March 1989 (WBR) had his proposed legislation delivered to 535 members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

'The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:

'The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.'

'Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate.'

Bill was trying (in a misguided way) to prevent a ban on any semi-autos by suggesting instead a limit on magazine capacity. The demoncraps in control of congress (along with Clinton and Gore) simply changed it from 15 to 10, then added the mag restriction on to their AW bill and passed it with Gore casting the deciding vote in the Senate.

Although WBR usually gets all the blame, Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby also supported Bill's position at the time… They were all members of SAAMI.

Bill Ruger in 1999 or 2000, in an interview with the NRA, when he donated about a million bucks to them, said in hind-sight, he shouldn't have made the proposal.

Wow, I had no idea SAAMI Benedict Arnold'd us that way.

Darkangel1846 01-28-2013 09:53

the number 10 is stuck in the Democrat mind because thats either their IQ or the last grade they attended before dropping out of school.

actually feinswine came up with that number.

arclight610 01-28-2013 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by collim1 (Post 19920997)
Wow, I had no idea SAAMI Benedict Arnold'd us that way.

I will never follow their maximum safe pressure in my reloading data ever again.

brisk21 01-28-2013 10:31

Whoever came up with it first doesn't matter. Its still an arbritrary number. How do you just draw a line in the sand with something like that? 10 is ok, but 11!!! 11 makes the gun too deadly for us meager subjects to the law! C'mon!

garya1961 01-28-2013 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyT (Post 19920286)
Some states limit you to 20, some 15, some 10, now NY goes with 7. Nothing magical about them, just the closest they could get to 0 at the time.

Some claim that eeeeeevil "rich" starts at 1 M, some 400k, some 250k, some 100k. In Greece it's now 55k.

Some countries have tax rates of 12%, some 20%, some 40%, and some 75%. Nothing magic about those either, but each of the latter is the closest they could get to 100 at the time.

Control freaks want control, in whatever amount you will give it to them. Their definition of "reasonable" will always be just a bit further than what you've already given them, and they'll never give a real number to "fair share", it's just more than whatever it is now.

This^. Excellent post.

ca survivor 01-28-2013 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMurphy (Post 19920557)
Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.

Bill also said, that he wouldn't built a gun that will fit in a pocket, look at Ruger now.... he must be turning :rofl:

concretefuzzynuts 01-28-2013 11:28

Because that's the number of fingers we have and that's as high as liberals can count.

BuckyP 01-28-2013 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts (Post 19921304)
Because that's the number of fingers we have and that's as high as liberals can count.

:animlol:

poodleplumber 01-28-2013 16:16

Thirty-round magazines have been used in some shootings, and the gun grabbers can't think of any numbers between 10 and 30.

I am just astounded that those people think that a momentary pause in shooting is a solution to a mass shooting. The real answer, of course is the incremental-ism that was cited above.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.