Deval Patrick Proposes NY-Style Magazine Ban

Patrick confirmed on talk radio yesterday that his proposed gun control legislation includes a NY-style magazine ban.  If this passes, Massachusetts residents would no longer be able to legally acquire or posses magazines with a capacity greater than seven rounds.  While old 8-10 round magazines would appear to be grandfathered, the law would ban previously grandfathered magazines over ten rounds, making many people’s pistols unusable.

From the bill:

SECTION 6. Said section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 57-62, the words “a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- containing more than seven rounds of ammunition; or (iii) obtained after the effective date of this act and capable of accepting, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition.

I can’t find any news outlet that has reported on this part of the legislation, but gun owners seem to have discovered it on their own:

New Massachusetts Gun Law Revealed: One Gun A Month, Seven Round Mag Limit, Etc.

MA: SEVEN ROUND MAG BAN! This is not a joke.

Of course if gun owners lose, there’s always Texas.  But before it comes to that, what is the MAGOP doing about this?

About Couves

  • gary

    Classic, let’s do something! This is something.  We’ll do that.  All without any attention to whether the something is beneficial.

    Let’s take the high capacity magazine, and one particular gun with which I’m familiar:  the Baretta 92FS.  Perfectly legal in Massachusetts even with a pre 1994 high capacity magazine.  Legal, according to the approved list of hi-cap weapons.

    Summary:  the government approved the gun, has allowed the magazines to be used and sold for over a decade and now decides you can’t own it?

    Sounds like a seizure of property to me, no?  I trust the government will compensate the public for those hundreds of thousands of magazine that currently exist in the state.  Before the Obama gun buying frenzy, they sold for about $20.  Now, if you can find them, they’re around $70.

    If the political party can’t articulate why making a particular piece of property illegal that has been legal for decades and that the act is a seizure of personal property, then I have no use for that political party.  It’s inept.

    Now to address whether the gun control laws of NY or (proposed) Massachusetts are anything other than ‘feel-good’, you should read this riddle of the gun, a balance article that addresses gun control and ownership and whether the various ‘controls’ are or will be effective.

  • at least insert an exemption for law enforcement, unlike the law passed in NY. Most cops use 9mm with 15 round clips. As the law was written and passed in NY (7 round limit) they forgot to exempt the cops. So unless the law is changed by March, when it goes into effect, the cops will be in violation of the law. Classic.

  • ….will do nothing to curtail violence of any kind…..and I will not comply.

    The loser will be the local gun shop that loses my business when I go out of state to buy my new magazines….as magazines don’t last forever….their springs wear out over time…and “they” know that.

    …….and people…..PLEASE stop calling them “clips”….”clips” hold a woman’s hair in place, papers together, or your frigggin’ potato chip bag closed.

  • geo999

    …or conviction, our very pedestrian chief executive waited, wet finger in the air, for other craven, gunphobic poseurs to take the lead in passing no sensible legislation whatsoever, with the associated braying and breast beating – and to the wild applause of their low information kook bagger base.