Talk:Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles

Law

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

United States

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

Large capacity magazines[edit]

Does the bill not include a general provision prohibiting large capacity magazines (including for semi-automatic pistols)? If so, this would seem to be a significant departure from the previous assault weapons ban bill and should be noted here. --Holdek ^(talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB criticism[edit]

The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban did indeed restrict detachable magazine size to ten rounds maximum for civilian sales and over ten eounds for "Military/Law Enforcement/Export Only". (Magazines over ten rounds made prior to the ban were "grandfathered" and could be legally possessed.) During the now defunct 1994-2004 AWB, I aided a reserve deputy zero his carry weapon at the range: he was limited to a ten-shot magazine by the AWB. I could not understand how the ban enhanced officer safety at all. Academic studies by CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 could find no measurable benefit from the AWB either.

A strict reading of US v. Miller 1939 is that the Second Amendment would specifically protect military arms that the "unorganized militia" (persons eligible for military service but not enrolled) would be expected to have familiarity with and would have a right (or even duty) to possess if they chose. The "sporting purpose" test was introduced with the 1968 Gun Control Act. Congress if it wanted to could ban black fountain pens with gold trim; that does not mean such a ban would serve a useful purpose. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]