I agree 100%.

Currently I'm in MA where they too have the 10 rd. mag limit per adopting the AWB rules into it's state laws.

I run a 1911. Why? Because I love 1911s...And I've yet to find any good reason to go to a wide body harder to conceal comfortably due to slide and frame thickness 'modern' autoloader that is hamstrung to just ten rounds.

If there were no mag capacity limit I would have bought a S&W M&P40 two years ago with sets of standard capacity and overly wide/blocky 15 rd. magazines.
Alas to this day I continue to run 1911s in both .45 ACP and 9MM and they are fed 8 (45) and 9 (9MM) round magazines as primary while with the .45s I carry 10 rd. magazines on my offi side as spares.
I can walk around all day long wearing double sticks of 10 round 1911 mags with ease while double sticks of even 10 rd. .45 mags for a polymer gun would be a pain to conceal again thanks to their inherent width.

For the trouble and effort in an AWB state I too do not see the benefit of running with anything but a .45 and a 1911. Assuming of course one can handle and shoot either reliably and with consistent accuracy.
I plan to soon convert my 9x19mm to 9x21mm...

- Janq

 

I think a limit of a 300 round mag is enough for my XD40SC.
more then that is just excesive.

NO MORE BS LAWS LIMITING RIGHTS.
2a does not say "up to xx rounds."

 

I think a limit of a 300 round mag is enough for my XD40SC.
more then that is just excesive.

I tried this once. But 300 rounds of 45 is a tad heavy. Had trouble keeping my pants up. In one embarrassing incident I was speaking to a rather fetching young lady when...

Oh never mind.

 

Do you think there sould be a reasonable limit to the # of rounds a CPL / CCW / CC permit holder can have in a mag?

No.

What would even be the point of such a limitation?

 

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

Nope.

For example a Glock G17 9mm can hold 17 + 1 rounds. Now in CA, that would be illegal, the mags are limited to 10.

Preban mags are legal.

In addition, I'm not sure, but I think the firearm would still be a legal CC in MI.

Yes it's legal.

It might not be, because maybe the mag can't legally extend beyond the mag well.

Where on Earth did you get this idea from?

Now lets move on to the G17 owner who wants to CC with a 33rd mag. I'm not sure if that is legal in MI (anyone know?).

100% legal in Michigan.

However my question to the masses would it be unreasonable to restrict the 33rd mag for CC. What is the magic number? Is there one.

I think it's best left up to the gun owner to decide what is right for their situation.

 

For the time being I carry the stock 10 round magazines in my G26. I have bought 3 15 round magazines for use in the larger Glocks. I'm waiting on the sleeves I ordered for them if the need for the larger capacity magazines should arise.

Going to the larger capacity magazines (33 round) seems a bit excessive. Plus, this defeats the purpose of calling your CC weapon "concealed" anymore with that magazine inserted. More often than not I carry my 10 round magazines when I carry concealed.

Not to mention that carrying a large capacity is illegal in some states. It's not the amount of rounds in the magazine, but the amount of magazines you have available.

 

If we concede a single point, that a 33 rd mag is silly to contest in legislatures, or that we are willing to "accept" a limit of say 10 rounds per magazine, we will be fighting a losing battle within DAYS to prevent capacity limits of 5 rounds, or even TWO rounds.

We train, and we practice, and we pore over statistics, and anecdotes, and we learn that "most" gunfights require no more than three shots fired, if any at all.

Big deal.

When anybody needs to draw and fire in self defense, it will be anything but, "normal", or "average".

I have in fact survived an attack of about 12 "urban yutes".

A capacity limit is not intended to have any effect on crime.

It is a landmark in the ongoing battle against those who would rather have people like us killed on the street rather than acting like free men and women.

 

Any limititation is unreasonable.
We are law adibing people, criminals are not.
If we limit anything, we are only limiting ourselves.

 

+1...I'm with her!:hand10:

 

Never heard of any mag capacity restrictions in MI..nor anything about extended mags being off-limits. My XD9SC, in fact, came with an "extended mag" increasing capacity from 10+1 to 16+1. I traded it for another 10 rounder, though. That's all I carry.

 

There is no valid legal or moral argument for magazine capacity limitations. Gun-fights are not limited to one, or even two, aggressors.


-B

 

I'm sure that whatever magazine limitations are imposed by states or the Federal Government will be followed to the exact letter of the law by every criminal in the US. After all they register their firearms, only purchase from legitimate sources and never use fully automatic weapons because they are illegal. Give me a break.

 

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

Yes. IMO, all types of capacity limitations are unreasonable, since it cannot be known how much will be required in a given defensive situation. ANY limitation is going to cut into somebody's ability to withstand attack. And in reality, the only thing that's going to cut into criminals' continued attempts to attack is being stopped. Inhibiting the ability to stop isn't going to help that goal.

 

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

I could have put this in another forum, but I'm focused on the legal rights aspect than the tactical value.

Legal rights in terms of laws passed: I don't think any mag capacity limitation is reasonable. Passing laws about that type stuff is ridiculous and serves no purpose. The 10 round limit that, I hear, still exists in California did nothing but drive up the price of standard capacity magazines. Well, maybe that was the purpose.

Legal rights in terms of on trial: IANAL and I have never been on trial for anything so I don't really know, but, like most here, I have an opinion. If I was on the jury and some guy had a 30+ round magazine that more of the magazine was stuck out the mag well then fit in, there would be a hit to his credibility. Especially if he showed up in "tactical" pants and worked at the mall. :rofl:

 

No limit.

The only "Arms" law we need is the Second Amendment - Period. Deep six any other "Arms" laws.

 

The only limit on rounds in the magazine should be set by the individual shooter, not by the state/federal government. If you feel comfortable only carrying with 10 rounds in a magazine that is fine for you. It should have no bearing on how many rounds I carry or your neighbor might carry.

 

Magazine size for concealed carry becomes unreasonable when the physical dimensions prohibit it from being concealed.

This will of course vary depending on the weapon, person carrying, and method of concealment.

 

I see no point in limiting the amount of rounds one can have in a magazine, especially since I can carry all the spare mags I want to.
This country needs to get rid of this entire concept of "limiting" things for LEGAL gun owners, that have nothing to do with public safety over-all.
To those who continue to want to limit and control my guns and ammo, I say, "Bite me!"

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention last night that I like the rest am against a magazine capacity limitation.

- Janq

 

I think you should be limited to a certain number of rounds.........the amount you can conceal on your body.

 

No limits....period.

Not everyone carries for protection from the boogeyman. Some of us use our cc gun as a companion in the woods/desert/insert desolate place here...to make sure we get back OK and intact.

....and for the boogeyman.

You should alway be able to have as much ammo as you want to carry.

 

IMO being "in the woods/desert/insert desolate place here" is different than the norm for most of us. I agree that there should be no limits, except during CC. Concealed means concealed, therefore, you should only be able to pack what you can keep concealed.

I agree that for OC it's different, also for in the woods.

 

I hear you and i agree.
All my handgun equipment is concealed 99.8% of the time (somtimes open carry around the backyard/woods.) Only openly carry the long-gun if i take it for a walk.

still...why in the world would you set limits on yourself?

(lol....a backpack full of ammo would still be concealed...right?:22a

 

If I really wanted to I could carry the 33 round magazine I have for my G19, but it would be very hard to conceal unless I was wearing it in a shoulder rig with a long loose fitting button up shirt. I'm fine with the standard 15 round magazine and two spares though.

 

Why on earth would anyone want to limit magazine capacity?

In a fight you want all you can get, not less.

Anyone that thinks otherwise has either never been in a fight or they are a fool.

 

The law (for example case law) does often search for the defination of reasonable. So the question is valid in view of possible legal consequences, regardless of the pro-gun resistance to any limitations, due to anti-gun objectives.

Why on earth would anyone want to limit magazine capacity?...

As for how I feel, I can't disagree with you. However, I think this feeling is realated how limitations will be unreasonable or twisted. Plus, in reality, there are undefined limitations.

I'm willing to believe (as several LEO studies have shown during the conversion from revolvers to semi-auto pistols) that the greater the number of rounds available, the more rounds will be fired (sometimes beyond what was needed).

There is something to the greater number of round available, the more that are used.

In addition, as I stated, in a questionable SD trial, say a shooting at a mall parking lot, if the shooter used a 33rd mag, I guess I would at least ask the question, why. Most people don't CC a 33rd mag for SD. It does not so much prove anything. But it does create a question.

Per a different thread, I realised I'm against serialized mags, because anti-gun types might start requiring me to register those mags. So I'm against it, just because anti-gun is for it, and might take it to the next level.

Then I realised the same goes for mag capacity. I don't so much disagree, that at some point, the number of rounds available does become questionable.

I feel strongly that number is not 10. Then again, a long 33rd mag sticking out of a mag well, I do have some bias, and I might think that person was looking for a fight.

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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? :twak:

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.