Competition excuse

[Justin]

Opposing the magazine ban on competition grounds is just one completely legitimate argument (among many) against these kinds of arbitrary and capricious bans.

Just because I, or anyone else, argue in favor of them from a competition standpoint doesn't mean that we don't also think these magazines should be available for self-defense and other more serious needs.

Personally, the argument that I think should be used the most is to point out that if you are caught violating this law, they can throw you in jail for up to a year for every magazine you're caught with.

A year.

I don't know of anyone who wouldn't lose their family, job, and house after spending a year (or more) in prison.

[kidicarus13]

Well, no, this is a direct response to the dims saying "There is no legitimate hunting or sporting reason for having
these magazines."
It pretty much proves that statement false.

That makes sense, thank you.

[missionxo]

I must admit I have many 30 rd magazines and never have I had 30 rounds in a magazine at one time mainly because I don't want to blow through a box of ammo in 20 min. at the range. BUT.........This is more about opening a door that them greasy ass liberal politicians can start to take and take slowly ...first the mag limit then they work on other things one small step at a time. In Illinois they are pushing a law to turn in any guns to your local police. More than likely posturing but I can see where all this is going. Children told to report to their schools if mom or dad have any guns in the house. Sorry for the rant but what the HELL is going on in this country?? There was a debate on a local morning radio show and the subject was how flying the American flag may be offensive to people here from other countries....WHAT??

[sniper7]

A box in 20 min? I go through a box in a few seconds some times! And it feels awesome!

[Sharpienads]

IMHO, the kid has it right on - no legitimate reason at all to limit the amount of rounds held by magazines. What's lame about that?

I agree.

[alxone]

Shoot He-Man with an M1...

[alxone]

im gonna try 3 gun with a trench gun , m1 garand ,and 1911 this summer if i can find the time

[bullpup]

When I have written my letters to the representatives and now the senators, I always make sure that I touch on the competition use of standard capacity magazines. It is a sport and does establish that these magazines are used for sporting purposes. It is a valid and logical argument. Nothing wrong with it.
BP

[MarkCO]

I am not going to reveal all of my cards here, because I know for a fact one of the senate leadership staffers (hi!) is reading this forum.

When asked if the magazine limit would affect competition...YES, most definately. The basic premise of practical shooting competition is a level playing field in terms of equipment. When new shooters can not use standard (30) or High Capacity (48, 55, 60, 100) magazines in their ARs the sport will have to write new rules or the participation will steadily decrease. In pistol competition, there are no firearms except the 100+ year old 1911 that is in play that would not have their magazines outlawed by 10 (now 15) round magazine limits. There are no US rulesets that have 15 rounds as a limit, it is 10 and then unrestricted. However, high level competition being thwarted is a threat to national security. The top LE and MIL shooters compete along with civilians in the crucilbe of competition. The techniques and equipment developed by the free market driven by the top skilled shooters transfers to our LE and warfighters. Having trained LE and MIL shooters, they take this "sporting education" and apply it to the battlefield. Passing a magazine limit on civilians will eventually lead to neutered competition and a reduction in the readiness of our LE and MIL. The world sniper competitions are dominated by US Military who compete in 3Gun competitions. They developed those skills competing against civilians, not military! So, yes standard and high capacity magazines DO have a sporting purpose and one of the primary (and desired) effects of that sporitng purpose is the advancement of LE and Military skill levels and new equipment innovations as well. This bill may well kill my company which revolutionized shotgun loading in 3Gun competition with the majority of the top shooters using our techniques and equipment. That technology is now being transferred to LE and MIL. Without the dollars of the civilian competitor paying for our R&D, this would not have been possible.

When asked if the magazine limit will affect my ability to defend myself...NO. As a highly skilled shooter, I can do a mag change in a second. With ten 10 round magazines and a 1911 I can shoot 100 rounds in less time than the average shooter with 100 rounds in 30 round magazines. We don't train criminals and the competition shooting community is tight knit and shuns all illegal activity. However, my wife is not highly trained. An AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is the single best tool for recoil, accuracy, fit and minimal penetration for her to protect herself and my children when I am not with her. Why would you want to prohibit her effective defense for a bill that has been proven by FBI and CDC statistics to have absolutely no beneficial impact.

Since the sunset of the Clinton gun-ban, millions of Americans have armed themsleves with AR15s and 30 round magazines, however there has not been a corresponding increase in gun violence with these weapon types. When I mentioned that the increase in gun violence CAN be connected to the failure of the family, mental health and media related violence, the answer I received was "We can not infringe on 1st amendment rights nor medical privacy issues."

[Jamnanc]

Bravo. Good stuff mark.