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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Big +1 for that.

 

I don't like your question, Thanis, because it smells a lot like elitism to me. It presumes that one elite, such as you, can make a judgement from afar as to what is or is not 'reasonable' for someone else. It also seems to be based on this ubiquitous touchy-feely blame shifting game that liberals like to play -- instead of punishing some jerk who negligently shoots a bystander with some hard jail time, you are shifting the blame to the magazine. "The magazine made me do it" so let's punish the magazine.

Your choice of the word 'unreasonable' is just icing on the red herring cake intended to distract us from your blame shifting via the demonizing adjective of 'capacity'. "Let us make a magazine that has not unreasonable capacity, and give them Barabbas." Someone could be negligent with a revolver. Simply put, "Capacity's got nothin' to do with it."

I think Americans should be free to do what they know is best and also have assurance that they will be held fully responsible for crimes or negligence. This means that a man with a five shot j-frame should be held no less responsible than a hi-cap Glockster for his actions. A man who finds it prudent to carry '33 in the clip' doesn't need you or any elite to do his thinking for him. You don't know his circumstances.

What we do need is less touchy-feely and more 'hangins' and jail time. If we put the finger on the losers, then the rest will work itself out without any frivolous questions such as "How many rounds are unreasonable?"

 

...It also seems to be based on this ubiquitous touchy-feely blame shifting game that liberals like to play...

I think there are many "feelings" on both sides.

 

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

Yes there is. Any restriction on the capacity of a magazine is unreasonable. Period. If they can make it and I want it because it will help me keep my family safe, then there should be no restriction on my ability to buy and carry it.

 

Depends entirely on your state laws. Same as barrel Length, type of weapon etc.

Even though I have a MO Endorsement to carry in 35 states, I must be cognizant of all state law of which I might peacefully carry to.

 

from post #43

Now I want to state again, I'm not for limitations, as it is a fix for a problem that does not exist.

If you acknowledge that the problem does not exist, then what is the point of this thread? Do you just have issue with 33 round Glock mags? You've admitted that you can't really say what a "reasonable" or "responsible" number is with regard to capacity (even though you keep tossing those terms around) as long as it's not 33 rounds.
Is it the number that bothers you? Is it the fact that the mag hangs out the bottom of the pistol?

It was an extreme example to highlight somewhere between factory standard and extreme high capacity is a reasonable standard that will be applied after the fact.

Is this one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" things?

However there are those who will carry some type of high capacity mag, resulting in a common enough questionable SD situation, and find 2A does not protect the right to high capacity mags (or even the use of the firearm). Only good judgement does that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there...

 

...Is this one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" things?...

Ya, maybe that sums it up. Plus, the arbitrary nature of the statement. Because sometimes you can't see it till after the fact.

What may seem extreme to you, may not be extreme to me...

Fair enough.

...So really, whats the point of this thread?

That at some point, after the fact, the round capacity of the mag, does create some assumptions about the carrier. It is ambiguous, and is hard to put a number on it.

 

However I'm just a person who never likes extremes (no capacity limitations vs required limitations) unless it is an issue that demands that level of devotion.

What may seem extreme to you, may not be extreme to me.

As long as I can carry a magazine that suits me and it is legal to do so, I don't really care what someone else thinks of it. Too many rounds or not enough is really no concern of theirs.

Someone telling me that a magazine that holds 33 rounds, or 15 rounds, or even 10 rounds is more "dangerous" than a magazine of say, 8 rounds is a totally ignorant of reality. It's because of this, that people tend to balk and voice displeasure when a Congressmen or Senator,or any other anti-gun yahoo for that matter, tends to want to make the world safer by limiting magazine capacity.

Its a bunch of baloney and we know it, and is nothing more than a step by step approach to limiting magazine capacity even further.

To say that a large magazine capacity means that the shooter will fire more rounds downrange is a rather silly assumption and and one that ignores reality. If you bring a box of 50 rounds with you to shoot, a large capacity magazine means only that you would spend less time reloading. If you are carrying a high cap in a defensive weapon and have to shoot someone, you shoot only to stop the threat, and whether that takes 1 shot, 3 shots or 30 shots is irrelevant.

So really, whats the point of this thread?:scruntiny:

 

From my point of view what is the point of carrying a "high capacity" magazine when it takes so little time to change magazines. Most days I carry my normal 10-round magazine with 2 extra 10-round magazines in a fanny pack to & from work. Whether it be one 33-round magazine or 3 10-round magazine what's the difference in the scheme of things. It doesn't matter that much to me!

When the sleeves to my 15 round magazines arrive I'll be carrying 2 additional 15 round magazines. It's the same amount of magazines but if I need them they are there if I need them.

On a slightly off-topic subject I was at work tonight working when the local police arrived on the property. I work as an "unarmed" security officer. Apparently one of the residents received a threating phone call. It was from a very angry ex-boyfriend who was threatening to come to her home and kill her. This is one time I wish I worked as an "armed" security officer.

I did it once for several years but that's when I loved working as an armed security guard as well!

 

I seriously doubt anyone, anyplace ever survived a gunfight and said "man, I wish I'd had a smaller gun with less ammo."

Matt

 

Exactly...to quote a former SEAL I know, "there's no such thing as too much ammo unless you're swimming."

 

It never ceases to amaze me that the anti-gun people make suck a big deal about high capacity magazines. How long does it take to change a magazine? Very little time indeed.

Again, it doesn't matter the capacity of the magazine. What matters it the total number of rounds in whatever total of magazines you have at that moment.

 

Practical limit? Well how strong are ya? :weightlifter:

 

Muzzle loaders also reduce the number of rounds fired.

Hey, banning guns entirely would really reduce the number of rounds fired.

 

I would think reasonable would be defined as, 1-what the ccw holder is comfortable with.. 2- Civil/Criminal litigation, a good lawyer can defend you when you are carrying what the weapon was designed for and sold with, he would be hard put to keep you out of jail, or losing all your possesions should you defend yourself with your glock and a 33 round magazine. Read some of ayoob's articles.. basically dont give them a reason to string ya up.

 

I don't have one but a new XDm 9 has a 19 + 1. Carry 2 xtra mags that's 38 more for a total of 58 rounds. I personally don't know if I can be confortable with all that weight.

 

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

YES!!!
To those who answered 'no', what if there was a limitation only allowing you to have one round mags? According to your negative response, you would find that reasonable.(?)