Why Democrat’s Magazine Ban Bill is Bad For Voters

By Fredy Riehl

Gun Magazines
Gun Magazines
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- An analytically look at why the New Jersey Democrat’s “High Capacity”(sic) Magazine Ban NJA2006 is bad news for NJ, but applies to all bans of this type wherever they raise their ugly head.

The Primary Issue of many with this bill is it is a Gun Ban. Many guns owned by New Jersey citizens through no fault but for the guns design, will be banned as the firearms can not be materially altered. That is, they only have one way of delivering ammunition and you can not just purchase another magazine as it is inherent to the design, it is part of the gun and can not be replaced or removed.

It is a New Jersey job killer. In fact one of new jersey’s most successful business, Henry Repeating Arms Company, a descendant of the venerable gun maker, who makes its home in Bayonne, New Jersey, would have almost all of its products made illegal to produce and own in NJ, destroying jobs for 100’s of New Jersey voters.

What A2006 is looking to ban are not “High Capacity” magazines. Just because you say it is does not make it so. In fact the world wide industry standard for magazine for guns in production today and widely owned by almost every lawful gun owner, is 12 – 30 round magazines. This is how they are made, They come that way from the manufacturer. They are designed that way right from the start. They are THE standard capacity of almost all guns built and in use today. Citizen have a constitutional right to have access to “Commonly Owned Firearms” and their Standard Capacity Magazines.

Unintended Consequences of Widely Flaunted Laws. Passage of this bill would instantly create 100,000’s of new felons. You would have 90% of all gun owners in New Jersey become felons the day this bill would be signed into law. It can be easily assumed that New Jersey has over a million magazines or firearms that would be effect under this bad bill. That would easily be 500,000+ new felons. Just look at the trouble Connecticut finds itself in with its recent “Assault Weapon” and “High Capacity Magazine Registration”(sic). They have 100,000’s of people openly flaunting the law with none of the resources, personnel or financial ability, to address the problem and are only left with idle threat that “we are coming for you” to try and scare voters in complying.

Mass Murders Plan Attacks Home Owners Do Not: The other issue is that these sorts of attacks[mass murders] are planned. The attacker often positions themselves to be able to block effective egress. These criminals typically have several firearms on them so there is no point in time where they can be safely by-passed. Bad guys have no trouble reloading and they have no difficultly carrying a second or third or even fourth gun to prevent the need to reload entirely.

The really unfortunate thing is that there is one group of people that is disadvantaged by magazine restrictions. A lawful citizen or home owner will not know when someone is going to attempt to victimize them. They are often outnumbered and attacked by more than one aggressor. They may be asleep, as in the case in a home invasion, or will be lightly armed outside the home. It is likely that when an incident occurs, the good guy will only have access to the single magazine that is in the firearm. In other words, they ARE NOT going to be wearing tactical vests with spare magazines or have multiple magazines piled next to their beds.

However, those performing a home invasion or intending to do harm have the ability to plan, prepare, and carry as many magazines and guns as they like. In a defensive situation the ‘good guy’ typically has access to only one (at best two) magazine(s) while the ‘bad guy’ has access to as many as they choose to carry. Source: https://bit.ly/1oc65Ti

Scott Bach of the Executive Director of the Association Of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, had this to say on a recent email to members:

Less hidden in A2006 than the gun ban [aspect], is its stated purpose: to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This is based on the naive and false assumption that removing a particular type of tool from society will somehow make everyone safer.

Those bent on doing evil will not be stopped or deterred just because a particular tool becomes less available or unavailable. If box cutters could bring down the World Trade Center, does anyone really believe that banning box cutters will stop the next terrorist attack? The same is true of firearms – banning a particular tool will not deter someone who is determined to do evil.

Also, criminals and madmen don’t follow magazine bans, or any other type of ban for that matter. Criminals laugh at laws that target hardware. Only law-abiding citizens are affected by hardware bans, because they’re the only ones that follow them. The net effect is that the law-abiding are put at a disadvantage against the lawless. The only thing that criminals understand is severe punishment.

Even if a magic wand could be waved in the land of anti-gun fantasy and remove all 10+ round magazines from the planet, no one would be made any safer, because magazines can be changed very quickly. The theory that a magazine change provides an opportunity to “tackle” an assailant is unsound and unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens from harm, which means that citizens are on their own in an emergency and cannot rely on 911. Yet rather than enhance the ability of citizens to defend themselves when an emergency or home invasion strikes, A2006 would instead tie their hands and put them at a disadvantage against criminals who will ignore the magazine ban.

Magazine bans are also completely arbitrary and their logic, if followed, have the potential to lead to a complete ban on all rounds. The idea that an eleventh round is somehow more lethal than the tenth is absurd, and the exact same logic could be applied to a second round in relation to the first, or even the first round itself.

The Constitutional right of self-defense is sacrosanct, and a magazine ban directly and significantly interferes with that right.

Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director of Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership had this to say on why all law abiding citizens should be in favor of so called “high capacity” magazines:

1. Multiple assailants. Whether on the street or during a home invasion, violent criminals often move in pairs or packs. Realize that you will never shoot as well as your score at the range when you are under the unbelievable stress of a life-or-death encounter. Which would you prefer to have in your magazine in such an event? Ten rounds? Or fifteen or seventeen? Or perhaps even 30?

2. Private citizens always face the threat before the police arrive. Private citizens were on the front line at Tucson, Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Why limit our effectiveness?

You should logically want whatever cops choose to carry. How many cops choose a ten round magazine? If politicians want to hinder us “little people” with a ten round limit, they should also hamper the police with the same limit.

In nearly every instance it is not a cop on the “front line” of a violent situation. It is private citizens who must face the “lone gunman” until (and sometimes even after) the police arrive.

Lastly you as elected officials have taken an oath to up hold the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, and you should honor that oath.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. Carl

Scott Bach’s logic is impeccable, his reasoning sound, and his arguments are unassailable. He is a patriot. Unfortunately, the people in power in NJ are arrogant dolts, who feel they no longer have to be accountable to the People. Sweeney and company have been successful in buying off the necessary votes to remain in their positions by virtue of their income redistribution programs, and pay no attention to the people who are pulling the wagon.

David Plowman

As far as I can see, the only people not getting screwed by this ill-advised law are the criminals, who don’t obey the law. Seems to me our political “masters” are making it harder and harder to defend me and mine. I, for one, am damn tired of having to jump through ” hoops” to be able to defend my family from criminals, both the ones on the street, and the ones in power in Trenton and Washington DC.