Michigan Democrat Introduces Magazine Ban In Response To Oxford Shooting

Michigan Democrat Introduces Magazine Ban In Response To Oxford Shooting
(AP Photo/TSA)

I’ll say right up front that I don’t think State Senator Rosemary Bayer’s new bill is going anywhere in the Michigan legislature. In fact, I’d bet money that Bayer herself knows her legislation is most likely to fail in committee. But the purpose of introducing a ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds isn’t really to try to save lives. No, this is more an attempt to score political points on Republicans by portraying them as cold, callous, and uncaring in the wake of the shooting at Oxford High School that left four students dead and seven others injured.

The state senator whose district includes Oxford Township is introducing new bills that would limit the sale and possession of gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

State Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D-Beverly Hills) represents Michigan’s 12th state Senate district, which includes Oxford. She is also the co-chair of Michigan’s legislative Firearm Safety and Violence Prevention Caucus.

Bayer’s bills would ban the sale and possession of a gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It would be a misdemeanor punishable up to 90 days in jail, or a fine of up to $500.

These are very, very specific pieces of legislation that can make a direct and immediate difference,” she says.

She says these bills have been in the works for a long time, and are not a direct reaction to the Oxford shooting that left four students dead and wounded seven others. But the timing of the introduction adds weight to the announcement.

Oh, so she’s been planning on these bills for awhile, but decided to introduce them now to capitalize off of a school shooting? I think that makes it worse, honestly, and this is still a puffball of a bill in terms of actually doing something to prevent acts of violence. Instead, it’s just another attempt by a Democrat to try to ban their way to safety, at the expense of your right to self-defense.

There are well over 100-million magazines in the United States with a capacity greater than ten rounds, and that would include millions of magazines that are lawfully possessed by Michigan gun owners. Under Bayer’s proposal, existing owners could maintain possession of their magazines, but only under one condition.

A person who possessed such a magazine before the effective date could keep the magazine if they report possession of the magazine to the local law enforcement agency. Law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces, and individuals working in an armored car would be exempted.

Bayer and other Democrats call this proposal “common sense.” Is it really, though? I mean, let’s say you buy in to the idea that these “large capacity” magazines are too dangerous for the general public. Why would Bayer grandfather in existing gun owners, or provide exemptions for members of the military, law enforcement, or armored car guards? After all, the gun control lobby believes that “police violence is gun violence”, so why do Bayer and her fellow Democrats want to give cops a pass on their new gun control bill?

Here’s another nonsensical component to the supposedly “common sense gun safety reform measure”; a violation of the law is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. Do Bayer and her colleagues honestly think that a misdemeanor law forbidding possession of a 17-round magazine is going to thwart someone ready and willing to inflict violence on innocents when they’re already willing to break the felony prohibitions on murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault?

If anything, Bayer’s bad idea would be more likely to reduce the consequences for violent and illegal behavior with a firearm by giving prosecutors another charge that they can use in plea bargains; reducing potential felony convictions to misdemeanor guilty pleas and a slap on the wrist instead of serious time behind bars.

Perhaps Bayer is naive enough to honestly think that her latest gun control bill would be a valuable tool to prevent future attacks on school grounds, but I highly doubt it. In fact, I find it really interesting that Bayer is rejecting physical improvements to school security in favor of more gun control.

Sen. Bayer has a host of new proposals coming up, but placing metal detectors in schools is not on her agenda.

“We need less guns in high schools, not metal detectors that turn schools into prisons and military zones,” said Bayer.

What she does favor is forcing firearms buyers to sign a document promising to keep their weapons away from young children and she wants to limit magazines to 10 bullets.

What do you think would be more effective at keeping illegally-possessed guns out of schools; metal detectors at school entrances or making gun owners pinky-swear that they will keep their guns away from kids and limiting their magazines to 10 rounds?

It sure looks to me like Bayer and her co-horts are simply trying to exploit a tragedy in order to put another gun control law on the books; and one that would do far more to turn legal gun owners into petty criminals than prevent a would-be murderer from carrying out their plot.