L.A. City Council Takes Anti-Gun Stance, Agrees With Obama That Gun Magazines Should Have 10-Round Ammo Cap

By Simone Wilson Thu., Feb. 24 2011 at 12:35 PM

Is L.A. the next Tucson?

Aside from the fact that this was the biggest L.A. City Hall time-waster since the Arizona boycott (FYI: nothing from Arizona was ever boycotted), we'd like to note that a few scattered Angelenos were feeling pretty huffy about yesterday's H.R. 308 resolution -- aka, being told they may no longer have the support of their city politicians while carrying around giant ammo clips.

But it seems the council feels personally affected by giant ammo clips -- in other words, good luck getting them to care about your wild hick fantasies.

One man claimed he liked to carry an oversized magazine when we went to the shooting range, and that, hell, the City Council shouldn't have any sort of say in that. Plus, Second Amendment, dummies!

Parting from the predictable Bill of Rights rant, another public commenter showed up to make fun of councilmembers for thinking they might be the next targets of some psycho Loughner type, fancying themselves far more important than they probably are.

Which reminds us! ... of Councilman Bill Rosendahl's slight overreaction to a humorous bum freakout last month:

According to L.A. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who was leading the meeting, [homeless man David Busch] "waved his arms around and yelled and demanded that the meeting be over." General Services Police quickly called in LAPD officers for backup.
"He started screaming and saying, 'I'm a socialist -- and Rosendahl, you're a Democrat,'" says the councilman. "I didn't understand, frankly. But the reality is that he interrupted a public meeting. ... at a very sensitive time." ...

Things only got more bizarre from there. Busch allegedly walked toward where the councilman was sitting, then "lied down on the witness table," which Rosendahl says was especially frightening because "he's a tall man -- 6'3" or 6'4"." ...

"Things are rough these days," he says. "Everywhere I go, people know who I am. So there already was heightened security for all of us councilmembers and the mayor."

Good times.

Also present at public comment yesterday was reliable City Council watchdog John Walsh, who stood up to yell at councilmembers about how he actually agreed with them for once. (We understand, John: It's sometimes very painful to realize you're on the same team as a bunch of suits you just spent your life scoring against.)

Anyway, at the end of the day, the "council adopted item forthwith," citing the Tucson Massacre and the North Hollywood bank shoot-out of '97 (really?) -- so that's that. "This is not about taking away anyone's gun," Garcetti said. "This is about stopping gun violence."

Here's the federal bill in full; basically, it would ban all gun magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammo. (We're no experts, but uh, 10 seems like enough? Maybe? No?)

In conclusion: Resolutions suck. Guess this is what we get for losing our remote in the couch cushions after inexplicably pausing on the public-access L.A. City Council meeting replay last night. FML.

[@simone_electra/swilson@laweekly.com]

Tags:

Bill Rosendahl, gun control, gun laws, guns, HR 308, Jared Loughner, Obama, second amendment, Tucson massacre

We Recommend

Just another person

Garcetti took his marching orders from Paul Koretz, one of the most outspoken anti-firearms, anti-2nd Amendment politicians in a long time. He and the rest of the Councils feel good stance is indeed about attacking the 2nd Amendment by assigning a death by a thousand cuts philosophy to it. Of course it doesn't help that the gun banners on the City Council have little or no practical experience with firearms let alone understanding what constitutes a magazine and how they operate.

Having a 10 round magazine, a 20 or a 30 round magazine is meaningless to someone bent on destruction. The criminal or deranged person couldn't care less for the limits the City Council seeks to impose. They always find a way to engage in their activity. Ways like, carry more than one firearm thus avoiding having to reload, or that it takes less than a second to exchange a magazine if the operation is practiced. If higher capacity magazines were an honest issue we would all be hearing about more instances of involvement. But we don't.

Having a 10 round limit is strictly arbitrary. What would be next an 8 round limit, 6, 4, one round limit? Are law enforcement personnel going to abide by the same restrictions? They make mistakes and go bonkers at times too. With proven track record zealot politicians like Councilman Koretz, and those that parrot him like Councilman s' Garcetti and Rosendahl there is always a further unstated goal towards the elimination of the people's rights. And that appears to be what is rearing its head yet once again, the people must be reined in and can't be trusted by our self-opinionated, self-omniscient politicians.

William O. B'Livion

(Oh, and if asserting the Bill of Rights tires you so much, you mind if we require you to prove your ability to write well and then before you are allowed to publish anything we require you to submit your article or piece to a non-partisan panel of officials to make sure it doesn't violate any laws, incite rebellion, or contain any classified material? What? First Amendment you say? Oh, you wouldn't mind since it would get rid of most of these bloggers? Typical.)

William O. B'Livion

It's hard to take someone seriously as a "Journalist" when they make errors that show that not only are they writing about something they don't know anything about but that they also have no interest in finding out.

(1) Modern firearms don't take "clips", they take "magazines". Clips might, in some cases, be used to feed magazines (think 5.56 nato rounds on stripper clips, those can with the little adapter thingy (technical term) reload your magazines faster.).

(2) California has had a ban on selling magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds since 2000 or 2001. If you live in California you either (a) already own a (unregistered) magazine of more than 10 rounds, or you can't buy one--since we know that it being illegal means no one would go to a neighbouring state and bring one back.

Colleen Caldwell

If L.A. is so afraid perhaps they should take a good look at what they have done to cause to much unrest. Drop the Agenda 21, that may give people more convidence in how trust worthy you are.

justbiteme

The only thing about gun control I like is holding the gun with two hands when I shoot to insure I hit the target. When that gun goes off, it's like flying, the best fun you can have with your clothes on. THE ONLY ONES YOU BRAIN DAMAGE BUFFOON PUTZ'S EVER EFFECT ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WITH YOUR KNEE JERK IDEAS AND REACTIONS.

Normal Citizen

I don't know what a "giant ammo clip" is (other than something that holds giant ammo), but I do know that a normal size pistol magazine holds 15 to 17 rounds. Contrary to this article, it does not "ban all magazines with more than 10 rounds", it only bans those not carried by government employees and retired government employees. Since they are just citizens like the rest of us, with different jobs, why should they be exempt if this is such a good idea?

justbiteme

These are mentally challenged politicians that are making these moronic statements and they always have this orgasmic sensation in their nether regions when they're about to make a new rule to promote their Kommunistic assault on the United States Constitution. If these brain damaged mentally deficient politicians aren't assualting the United States Constitution, they're promoting the Sodomite Homosexuals and their deviant lifestyle at the expense of the majority of citizens.