For CC, is there some type of mag capacity limitation that is unreasonable?

This is a discussion on For CC, is there some type of mag capacity limitation that is unreasonable? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have the 2 10 rounders that came with my Glock 19. Living in NY, I was lucky to find 2 pre-ban 15 rounders. I ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 70

Thread: For CC, is there some type of mag capacity limitation that is unreasonable?

  1. #31
    Member Array AWLCO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Western, NY
    Posts
    39
    I have the 2 10 rounders that came with my Glock 19. Living in NY, I was lucky to find 2 pre-ban 15 rounders. I carried them until yesterday, I found out that the city of Rochester decided they are illegal. I could end up within city limits on any given day, so I'm now back to 10 rounders. I say carry what you want.
    Last edited by Miggy; March 29th, 2009 at 08:44 AM. Reason: language workaround edited out

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    I don't want to live in a world with legal mounted machine guns on the back of SUVs and wondering if the guy next to me is packing a hand gernade.
    Really?

    You probably need to lock up all of your guns and seek training from an adult who knows what the laws are.

    Then I considered the 52 or rounds I carry with me from time to time in 4 mags. I hope I never get into a questionable SD situation, as it might look like I was looking for a reason. LOL, then again, maybe thats the day I'm best prepared.

    So, in some ways, I'm against round limitations just because anti-gun is for it (and have played their cards with restristions like 10 rounds).
    They don't want you to have any firearms. They would cut off your trigger finger if they could, it's happened before.
    Any restriction on your ability to defend yourself is an attack on your rights. Even if it's machine guns or 33 round magazines that you just don't understand, no level of government can stop you from doing that without stomping on your rights. That also means you have a responsibility to be trained, informed and able to defend your actions in a court of law.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array tbrenke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,006
    Thanis and Hopyard's comments are resonable, but for me this falls back to the personal responcablity. I do not want another law stating your limited to xx rounds.

    my habit is the std 10 rnd in the carry and a 12 round backup. BUT that does not mean I want it legislated to that. If I have to go into a questionable area, I may want more. I like having the option.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
    There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array KenpoTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    2,193
    Thanis, I guess I'm just not seeing where you're coming from with this one...

    As others have said, those of us who are carrying legally are going to limit ourselves to what we can comfortably carry and effectively conceal. As a result, a ban on magazines that hold more than X number of rounds would probably not have any real effect.

    Then you have to acknowledge the fact that no matter what the law says, the BGs are not going to follow it anyway.

    I think such a law would be just like the AWB...it would have no measurable effect on crime because the good guys aren't committing the crimes and the bad guys are going to do it regardless.

    AFAIC, any type of restriction on mag-capacity would be stupid.
    "Being a predator isn't always comfortable but the only other option is to be prey. That is not an acceptable option." ~Phil Messina

    If you carry in Condition 3, you have two empty chambers. One in the weapon...the other between your ears.

    Matt K.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by KenpoTex View Post
    Thanis, I guess I'm just not seeing where you're coming from with this one...

    As others have said, those of us who are carrying legally are going to limit ourselves to what we can comfortably carry and effectively conceal. As a result, a ban on magazines that hold more than X number of rounds would probably not have any real effect.

    Then you have to acknowledge the fact that no matter what the law says, the BGs are not going to follow it anyway...
    To those who have posted prior to me, please don't read into what I'm about to say. I believe many of you have a stronger graps on the overall right and issues then I do.

    I don't want to offend those who have posted, but because I think it is important to clarify that it is not pro-gun to believe any capacity is the only reasonable capacity. It is pro-gun to be responsible, and to use good reason.

    Anti-gun has taken over the language of the conversation." Pro-gun is distrusting with the conversation to begin with (and for good reason), however within the community of gun-owners, it might be a valid conversation to have. In almost ever SD shooting, it is an issue that will be considered, regardless of what is legal.

    Further, no matter how vocal people might be about gun rights, I have a feeling if you were on a jury, and in a questionable SD shooting, if you were told the shooter was loaded with a 33rd mag, you would have to ask yourself why. It does not prove guilt, but it would beg the question.

    Now a 33rd mag is a lot, so it might sould extreme, however I'm just using that as an example, because it is hard to draw that magical line of what is reasonable. I guess I've have desided it is less than 33.

    So as a gun owner, a conversation of what really is enough as a CC is a good conversation to have. Because if the general public believes the only pro-gun opinion is unlimited, it does not really provide a reasonable answer.

    Now I'll put my opinion out there. Lets say a shoulder carry. That would be one mag in the firearm and often two on the off hand side. Then lets say a Bug. So in general, 4 mags. Now what type of mags. I guess any factory capacity mag with an extention of +2 or so.

    Now that would be a heavy carry day, and I would guess, even a heavy carry day for an LEO (who I would think has a better chance of an incounter then I do).

    I'm not suggesting it be made a law. I'm just saying that would be what I would consider the upper limit of a reasonable CC.

    Just an opinion, not suggesting it be made into law.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array firefighter4884's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    To those who have posted prior to me, please don't read into what I'm about to say. I believe many of you have a stronger graps on the overall right and issues then I do.

    I don't want to offend those who have posted, but because I think it is important to clarify that it is not pro-gun to believe any capacity is the only reasonable capacity. It is pro-gun to be responsible, and to use good reason.

    Anti-gun has taken over the language of the conversation." Pro-gun is distrusting with the conversation to begin with (and for good reason), however within the community of gun-owners, it might be a valid conversation to have. In almost ever SD shooting, it is an issue that will be considered, regardless of what is legal.

    Further, no matter how vocal people might be about gun rights, I have a feeling if you were on a jury, and in a questionable SD shooting, if you were told the shooter was loaded with a 33rd mag, you would have to ask yourself why. It does not prove guilt, but it would beg the question.

    Now a 33rd mag is a lot, so it might sould extreme, however I'm just using that as an example, because it is hard to draw that magical line of what is reasonable. I guess I've have desided it is less than 33.

    So as a gun owner, a conversation of what really is enough as a CC is a good conversation to have. Because if the general public believes the only pro-gun opinion is unlimited, it does not really provide a reasonable answer.

    Now I'll put my opinion out there. Lets say a shoulder carry. That would be one mag in the firearm and often two on the off hand side. Then lets say a Bug. So in general, 4 mags. Now what type of mags. I guess any factory capacity mag with an extention of +2 or so.

    Now that would be a heavy carry day, and I would guess, even a heavy carry day for an LEO (who I would think has a better chance of an incounter then I do).

    I'm not suggesting it be made a law. I'm just saying that would be what I would consider the upper limit of a reasonable CC.

    Just an opinion, not suggesting it be made into law.
    Thanis,

    My primary carry is a Glock 19 loaded with a 15 round magazine. I carry a Glock 17 mag on my off side. I usually load an additional 17 round mag that is laying around the house or truck (16+17+17=50 rounds in the box).

    Tonight I'm driving from TX to Indiana. I'll probably have the Glock and 2 spare mags on my person while I drive. In the duffel bag with my essentials for the next day or so (I might be stopping during the drive), I'll have an additional 17 round mag and a 33 round mag. (again, 17+33 = 50)

    I would like to add a Kel-Tec Sub2000 chambered in 9mm with the Glock magazines that I could keep stored in the truck on a regular basis. More than likely I would have several of the 33 round Glock mags in the bag with the Kel-Tec.

    There was a story floating around here several years back involving a CCer who went to the defense of his neighbor with a weapon at hand. The weapon in question was a Glock with a 33 round magazine. He ended up getting a ticket and fine from one of the responding officers. Made for interesting reading.

    I don't think that magazine limits make any sense, given how little time it takes to change out the magazines in a semi-auto pistol. I carry the full size Glock magazines because they carry an additional 2 rounds, and are not much larger then the 15 round magazines for the 19's.

    --Jim
    Firefighter / EMT - Always Ready. Ever Willing.

    ~Never do anything that you don't want to have to explain to the paramedics...~

  8. #37
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think there should be no magazine capacity limit. It is effectively a self-controlled thing because concealed means concealed, and how the heck do you conceal something with a 30 rnd magazine? Trench coat anyone?

    That said, were I a juror I would look quite skeptically at the sanity of someone who got into an SD battle while carrying a 30 rnd magazine. Somehow, it says something to me about "reasonableness" or lack thereof.

    Most SD gunfights involve 2-3 shots; 10-15 rnds and a spare mag. or a second backup weapon should suffice for just about anything short of going to war with a gang of drug cartel members. And then, chances are good you'd take one before emptying the whole thing, reloading and emptying again.

    It just seems "unreasonable" to carry huge amounts of ammo, to say nothing of heavy, uncomfortable, awkward, bulky and---I've run out of adjectives.
    One of our own forum members went through a lot more than 2-3 shots when someone invaded his home.
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  9. #38
    Member Array mfcmb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    428
    After reading the posts and thinking about your question I don't think there is any benefit nor any need to place a statutory limit on the number of rounds that a magazine should hold or number of rounds someone should be able to carry.

    As has been pointed out by several, to a large extent how many rounds one carries will be limited by practical considerations, such as size and weight, that vary from one occasion to another. I would think that most people carry in a range that could be justified in court without too much trouble.

    Those few who carry more than the "average" and thus who could be considered "excessive", might in some cases have more trouble convincing those in the legal system that there choice is irrelevant to whether they are breaking any laws, but it's always that way for those who live on the fringe rather than in the mainstream. Any group of people will include such a range of behaviors.

    And in court, the most important thing seems to be convincing judge and jury that whatever actions you took, regardless of how you equipped yourself, were legal, justified and reasonable under the circumstances. If you reflect on the OJ Simpson trial, I think most people would agree that being convincing bears more weight than if you are guilty; which bears more weight than how prepared you are.

    Now if there was a way to ENFORCE a statutory lImit on how many rounds you'd EVER need to GUARANTEE that you could successfully defend yourself, and if guns never failed to fire those rounds, then maybe limiting the number of rounds in a magazine would not impair our ability to defend ourselves, and legally limiting ourselves to just that many rounds would be OK. But that would require a change in the laws of nature which I do not anticipate happening.

    So no, I don't think there should be any statutory limit to the number of rounds in a magazine, or magazines you can carry. And I don't think you should worry about what some random joker (whether witness or prosecutor, et al) thinks about your choices. Rather, I think you should be concerned with whether you can act competently, and justify yourself skillfully.

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    There is a posted speed limit in most states. Your car can go faster then the posted speed limit. There is a personal responsibility.

    In some ways, it is odd, that there is so standard for round capacity. Then again, you don't need a government policy for a non-problem (how many people really CC a 33rd mag or have been involved in a SD shooting with a 33rd mag).

    Quote Originally Posted by firefighter4884 View Post
    ...There was a story floating around here several years back involving a CCer who went to the defense of his neighbor with a weapon at hand. The weapon in question was a Glock with a 33 round magazine. He ended up getting a ticket and fine from one of the responding officers. Made for interesting reading...
    Ok, I guess it does happen. It does make a person ask why? Now with a few deatials, what initially sounds unreasonable, could become more reasonable.

    I don't think that magic number is 10. At the same time, I'm guessing a 33rd mag might be a bit much. So what is the reasonable number before you ask the question, "Why?" I would not suggesting 33rd mags should be registered or illegal.

    I am stating, at some point, there is a reasonable round capacity for a CC firearm.

    I'm not saying the govenment should be involved in defining that limition. But I am stating, after the fact (in a SD shooting), what is reasonable will come into question. In addition, because is not defined, you may only find out after the fact. So within the gun-owner community, I think a conversation about reasonable round capacity has some validity.

    There are benifits to round limitations, they just don't exceed disadvantages and infringements on rights.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array KenpoTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    There are benifits to round limitations, they just don't exceed disadvantages and infringements on rights.
    I guess I don't see the benefits. Since the price for such benefits (if they exist) would be a further infringement on our rights, that is an unacceptable price to pay.
    "Being a predator isn't always comfortable but the only other option is to be prey. That is not an acceptable option." ~Phil Messina

    If you carry in Condition 3, you have two empty chambers. One in the weapon...the other between your ears.

    Matt K.

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by KenpoTex View Post
    I guess I don't see the benefits...
    One benifit, after the fact, the number of rounds you had could not be called into question.

    Does not justify mag limitations. But would be one benifit.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  13. #42
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    There is a posted speed limit in most states. Your car can go faster then the posted speed limit. There is a personal responsibility.

    Going faster than the posted limit (within reason) could cause others harm.
    Carrying a particular number (many) of mags is not an a safety factor effecting others.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    To the OP...No Limits!
    I would see 'unreasonable' only in the comfort department.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    ...Carrying a particular number (many) of mags is not an a safety factor effecting others...
    Thats not really true.

    It has been clearly shown that requced speed limits on a highway does prevent accidents.

    In the same way, there are studies that show the greater the number of rounds available, the more that are fired. The greater number of rounds fired, the greater the chance a stray hits an undended victim.

    Now I want to state again, I'm not for limitations, as it is a fix for a problem that does not exist.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array KenpoTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    One benifit, after the fact, the number of rounds you had could not be called into question.

    Does not justify mag limitations. But would be one benifit.
    The type of prosecutor who would try to come after you due to the number of rounds in a magazine is also going to come after you for all the other crap that gets beaten to death on these forums (ammo type, after-market mods, caliber, laser devices, training, lack of training, etc.). If you're justified, you're justified...if not, you're screwed regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis
    In the same way, there are studies that show the greater the number of rounds available, the more that are fired.
    Can you please cite some of those studies?
    "Being a predator isn't always comfortable but the only other option is to be prey. That is not an acceptable option." ~Phil Messina

    If you carry in Condition 3, you have two empty chambers. One in the weapon...the other between your ears.

    Matt K.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by KenpoTex View Post
    The type of prosecutor who would try to come after you due to the number of rounds in a magazine is also going to come after you for all the other crap that gets beaten to death on these forums...
    Not really. A good number of SD shootings involve questionable scenarios, where you had to be there to know. A shooting at a mall parking lot with a 33rd capacity mag would create questions. I would imagine stadard capacity would warrant fewer questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ...there are studies that show the greater the number of rounds available, the more that are fired...
    Quote Originally Posted by KenpoTex View Post
    ...Can you please cite some of those studies?
    Quick search: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

    "Since NYPD adopted semi-automatic pistols (en-masse) in the early 1990s, the number of shots fired per officer has edged upward."

    Come on. If you have a five or six shot revolver, you are going to be a little more careful. It is common sense to believe a person is going to fire a round or two extra in many situations if they have a semi-auto. It is just fact.

    Now just as a matter of ratio, everytime a round misses, the is going to be a % that hits an unintended target. So the basis for the rational, high capacity mags "could" increase unintended victims, has some facts to support it. Now how often does this happen? Now contrast this with the number of lives and injuries saved because of an armed CPL holder. It is a non-problem.

    If you wanted to save more lives, reduce the national speed limit.

    Again, I agree, it is slight. Does not justify mag capacity limitations. But the point is that there are reasonable standards that will apply after the fact (esp after the fact). So a blanket belief that carrying very high capacity mags is procted by 2A, is not true. Personal responsibility applies.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Up the ammo or up the capacity?
    By Takedown in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 16th, 2010, 05:01 AM
  2. Glock 30 mag capacity?
    By DocGlock in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 12th, 2009, 03:36 PM
  3. More Capacity?
    By kjmillig in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 11:34 PM
  4. High capacity 45?
    By Yddnac in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 08:03 PM
  5. Capacity!
    By Ti Carry in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: August 9th, 2006, 02:11 PM

Search tags for this page

best cc with a 10 round mag capasity

,

is there a capacity limit for concealed carry in michigan

,

is there a limit for mag capacity in maine

,

what is the limit for extended mags in michigan

Click on a term to search for related topics.