Schumer Wants to Ban 100-Round Clips — I Have to Agree…

Before you decide to tar-and-feather and run me out on a rail, please read the entire article… I just listened to the feel-good press conference about another so-called Assault Weapon Ban. It was sickening to hear the useless babble from the uneducated, uninformed lawmakers in this country until the logic struck me like a lightening bolt and really opened my eyes.

While listening, I was at first astonished to hear Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decry the use and ownership—by lawful citizens—of 100-round clips. He stated that there was no lawful or necessary purpose for citizens to posses or use 100-round clips. In thinking about it, he convinced me; 100-round clips should be banned. I know that is a bold statement, but I am in full agreement that Schumer is right! After all, who uses 100-round clips? I have been around guns all of my life and have yet to even see a 100-round clip for sale never mind actually owning or using one. I have used 10-round clips and it works okay, but I would really rather have a detachable magazine over a clip and fixed magazine any day. I mean can you imagine the logistics of carrying and using a bunch of 100-round clips? I think the only guns I own that are even compatible with a clip would be an SKS produced pre-1950s and an 1898 Swedish Mauser—neither of which have a fixed magazine with the capability of holding 100 rounds; so why would I want to own a 100-round clip. It would be a total waste of money and you the reader need to be protected from such a folly and wasting your money on a 100-round clip.

I never thought I would say this publicly or privately, but I agree with Chuck Schumer—100 rounds clips are just silly and no one needs to own 100-round clips!

While this is all tongue-in-cheek of course, it shows the lack of education our lawmakers have about the subject they are attempting to legislate. This is such a basic error in terminology, but shows a much greater failure to understand the technology. Lawmakers are running out to be the first to step on the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens without a clue as to the subject matter. This is only one of the thousands of examples happening each day and I encourage our readers to share plenty more in the comments below.

A much more common-sense approach for politicians such as Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein would be to work with organizations such as the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation… wait a second. Did I just use common sense with Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer in the same sentence? My apologies, I’ll go to “time out” now and think about what I just said. After all, that has about as much chance of lowering crime as another weapons ban against law-abiding gun owners.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (40)

  1. I can see pinned the stock cause New York has been doing that sense 1994 on all new AR-15s. knocking off forward grip piece of cake. Can anyone explain how you could take a pistol grip off of an AR-15? to my knowledge it’s impossible if not very dangerous.





  3. Joe,

    I honestly can’t find solid information on replacement parts. If you have an AR-15 that is grandfathered in, you will have to register the firearm within the year. If you have an “assault weapon” that is not specifically banned by name, but is considered as such because of the features (pistol grip, forward hand grip, folding stock) you can permanently alter the weapon so that it is no longer considered an assault weapon. Though I can find any explicit information on the exact subject, it seems to me that as long as your weapon is registered, you will be able to replace broken parts as needed. However, you may want to ask a LEO when registering your firearm to be completely sure.

  4. I have a quick question for anyone who could answer it correctly please.
    For anyone with a Grandfathered in AR-15,(as stated by new york safe act law) what if something was to break? Would it be legal to get parts in new york state or out of for any matter or would they be screwed??

    Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it.

  5. The libs say “oh your ARs and AKs etc. cannot successfully deter a government crack-down” against it’s own people…? I say look at history and even contemporary times whereby guerrilla tactics have forever warded off attack by better armed foes…

  6. Dale Payne – Carrying a 100+ rounds in the receiver is done all the time in combat. Look at the SAW drum. The reality in a context of possible 2nd Amendment action, one may not have a coordinated series of fire to provide cover for fellow combatants to reload. In fact, you could find yourself alone sending downrange; requiring you to move to cover for each reload. Without the ability to sustain fire while you move, 10 round magazine changes could prove deadly.

  7. Practical or impractical, I don’t care: NOT one more inch. If there were thousand round ‘clips’ that were totally worthless for even chatting about, or a ninety pound five barreled shotgun that fires five shots simultaneously, I don’t care. Not surrendering one more item, inch or gun related doo-hickey.

    That’s how it starts: “Oh, I don’t need that,” or “that isn’t necessary,” or “that doesn’t even exist.” Then they take more and more.

    And I really don’t care what the NRA gives away: the NRA does NOT speak for me.

  8. Clips / Magazines – We that commented on the banning of the 100 round “clips” and commented I believe just assumed that the writer of the article either didn’t know or care to know the differance. Look at the retoric about automatic vs semi autos. There is so much disinformation floating around this touchie subject that many of us are VERY sensitive about the comments. Look at the laws that are proposed that aren’t ever correct in their facts and language. Clips has been a word used by may in place of the word magazines. 100 round mags are possible in some guns that some of the readers are not aware of. This is the reason I believe so many jumped on the 100 round clip/mag. I wasn’t in the military how would I know.
    My belief is no one can tell us what we can own because it would be an “infrindgmant” on my right to keep and bare arms. period.

  9. A 100 round clip or magazine? The idea of something of that size and weight is so ludicrous, even to begin to contemplate is….stupid! (Go out and buy 5 boxes of 20 rounds each and tape them together, end to end, then attach them to your weapon’s underside and see). The reasoning behind such an ridiculous scheme is to just get something to pass, the politicians have a unique way of attaching some EXTRA measures and/or wording on to a bill after passage. I would strongly caution on ANY measure for passage! Their main goal is to get SOMETHING/ANYTHING to pass! That is what their primary goal is–just get something to pass!!! RESIST ANY AND ALL MEASURES!!! Even the smallest dog can run up and bite you on your ass if you are not careful! What may seem crazy now may be of great import later. History is our greatest teacher, REMEMBER YOUR LESSONS!!! Eternal vigilance does not include complacency, nor suffer laziness or fools. Every inch of ground we concede today is a great milestone to them, and another large stone around our necks tomorrow.
    Know your history, remember it’s lessons, and live your lives as free men!

  10. Too much to say, too much is already said above.

    Hear, hear!!

    Parity of equipment today with our standing army is as important as it was in the 1780s.

    Chuck, I’ll keep my AR15 and 30-rounder; if you like I will load 20 blanks and top off with 10 ‘real’ rounds. Tell me which of the first ten rounds my oppressors will most fear and whether they will know if I am a trained marksman or not at the first report. Oh well, only nine more chances to guess the right answer, after 10 they might think it’s safe to stand up in braod daylight–oops, you forgot about that old ’98 Mauser with a 5-shot magazine and scope that can hit a grapefruit at 500 yards.

    To solve that dilemma you’ll just have to restrict guns to zero magazine capacity and outlaw scope sighting equipment too.

    That gets us back to parity. You want us to keep our Second Amendment rights with flintlocks while the military gets the latest technology. Just remember, Chuck, electronic communication was born in the private sector; the Supreme Court has already ruled on advancing technologies regarding the Bill of Rights.

    “Up your nose with a rubber hose” was oft said on a TV show, same to you Buddy!

  11. Kicknbak – Exactly my point. The anti-gun crowd is expert at twisting terminology to their ultimate goal. We know the difference between a magazine and a clip. However, much of the public does not. This is why we must resist giving ground on even cleaver semantics. The end game can be a COMPLETE gun ban!

  12. Just to remove the cloud about what the article really says… too many of you are looking so hard to find something to jump on, getting the wrong answers, and then slamming an article that you don’t even understand.
    Folks! Simply now… A clip is a clip, a magazine is a magazine. The article is simply showing you that the leftist liberals don’t know an apple from an orange by calling it a ‘clip’.
    “An apple is always an apple, unless it’s an orange.” Grapple with that one. No, that would be the cross then of an apple and a grape. Silliness.
    Have a better weekend. Rog

  13. OK, so you guys are trying to back away from the “100 round clip” label. Do you think the Liberals are kidding about magazine capacity? Did you fail to notice the maximum number of rounds now legal in NY is 7. Do you think that number was by accident. It now renders most CCW handguns illegal. Even if you only load your clip to 7 rounds in NY and you have a “registered weapon” capable of more, what actions can they take to so called “insure” you are not breaking the law? More importantly, will they enforce the 7 round limit when you are at home? My point is labels ARE important and allowing even simple verbiage to get through will have consequences for us! BTW… there are several gunsmiths that will make a custom triple stack clip for 7.63 x 39 with a capacity of 90.

  14. I am aware that the language used by “chuck you Schumer” is not technically correct. We get it. We also know that a bunch of idiots that are out there, want to take ALL of our guns away. The semantics game is the game the gun grabbers use every day with the language of the Second Amendment

    Has anyone here listened to The “Steve Cochran Show” on FOX radio? This is a guy who has the power of being a public figure and he claims to be a conservative. He has repeated over and over that he believes that gun owners “need to give something up” and in his opinion that “something” should be agreement to a 10 round magazine capacity limit. This guy is obviously an idiot but he is an idiot that can do a lot of damage to gun owners and the Second Amendment.

    Another radio talk show host that just doesn’t get it is Michael Medved (also on FOX radio). He said repeatedly that the Second Amendment has no language about and was never the intended purpose for the protection of the populace from a tyrannical government.

    Another “super dope” is geraldo rivera. I won’t get into what an idiot this guy is, watch him sometime, if you have a strong stomach. We need to let these traitors know that that they are on the wrong side of the fense and we will not buy the products of their advertisers.

    While it is true that the words, “tyrannical government” do not appear anywhere in the specification of the SA, there has been many constitutional scholars that have written about the true intent of the founders. There are many, many quotes from the people responsible for writing the SA and it is clear that “security of a free state” means “to secure a free state”. A tyrannical government in no way could be construed as a free state; in fact they are exact opposites.

    Add to that quotes like “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

    It may not say it directly, but the fact is everyone writing it at the time knew and understood that’s what it means. There have been other quotes to suggest that the “militia” was the people and since that was THE army in its entirety at the time, that gives the citizen the same rights to possess the same arms that any standing army has.

    In fact many of the founders were against a standing army and preferred a citizen army to prevent against things like coups. An all citizen manned army also lessens the possibility of an oppressive government because the loyalty of the troops lies with no central government.

    All of this means that the SA guarantees that NO INFRINGMNT of the right shall be made. The founders also made very clear that it is God (or nature if you have a problem with God) are where these rights come from. Rights that are given by a government can be taken away but no one can take away rights given by God.

    Those rights include any small arm that the army (which was the people) could carry. This means that the SA guarantees no INFRINGMENT on the right to carry whatever the current standing army infantry unit has. The militia carried rifles and muskets. There were things like hand grenades but they were infrequently used.

    You could argue that it applies to ALL arms but that was NOT the original intent. Again, we have to consider the logic and the current attitude behind the wording at the time it was written.
    Does this mean that if the army has 150 round magazines for the M16 that we have the right to possess the same thing for the AR 15? YES. If you don’t like it, get it repealed, otherwise sit down and shut your pie hole, Senator Feinstein!

  15. Too many morons read this and MISSED the point entirely because they lack the same critical thinking skills that they say the left doesn’t have. Geez people, get a life, get a brain, get some patience…get real.

  16. @ can’ttakethemaway – you are missing the point. Feinstein cites it simply as ammunition carrying devices. However, she and the others standing with her do not understand or choose to intentionally misrepresent the topic. The AR-15 is not suitable to issue to the military by the military’s own requirements when the M-16/M4 was developed. Let them cite the article. The item discussed does not exist, never has and could not practically be used if it did. This follows along the same reasoning that politicians try to call sporting arms assault weapons.

    If they cited my article, we would so easily use the article’s conclusion to — yet again — prove they do not understand the topic they are legislating nor would they be reading past the headline. That was the whole point of the article, the rest was simply satire. ~ Dave Dolbee

  17. even though you’re making fun of them, too bad you just gave them dirt to use in their campaigns – will they cite the entire article? Will people bother to read til the end? Nope – what they see is CTD saying 100 round clips should be banned. Do they know better? Nope – the general public still calls them clips – they’re going to assume you’re for a ban.

  18. Having served my country in Iraq and being an avid hunter i
    Can Never recal a reason or need for a 100 round clip. It takes. One. Round to kill. Man and. One round to kill a deer.
    So WHO needs a 100 round clip? Wtf are you starting a private military. And no guns
    should not be banded. If you Take Guns away the only people WHO will have them are. Outlaws!

  19. Another example of morons not reading an entire post before their blithering word vomit spews through their fat fingers and mashes their hot-pocket stained keyboards. 100-round “clips” don’t freaking exist, and they never will. A CLIP IS NOT A MAGAZINE. I guess some people have a hard time wrapping their minds around satire.

  20. It amazes me that some people completely missed the point of this. There is no such thing as a 100 round “CLIP”.

  21. You guys must be just as stupid as our law makers. A clip and a magazine are NOT the same thing. Did you even read the article?

  22. I think David Dolbee overestimated the intellect of some of his audience. PEOPLE—READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE YOU COMMENT! IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID!

  23. HELLO!!!!! PEOPLE!!!!!! Read the article again. 100 round “CLIPS”. Read, “CLIPS”.
    There is no way you can produce, distribute, carry, load, use a “100 round clip”. It would be too fragile and impractical.
    This is an article about stupid people doing stupid things for knee-jerk reasons. The danger comes in the precedent of banning anything. If they ban one thing, then they can ban something else sort of like it that much easier.

  24. Many thanks to JD Marshall and Big E3 (comments #3 and #10). You seem to be the only two capable of reading the entire story and understanding it.

    People! 100-round clips are not produced today, nor have they ever been. A clip is not a magazine. They are two entirely different creatures that are too often confused. For visual reference please see the first picture in the story. Toward the end of the story I state that is was tongue-in-cheek, i.e. a spoof at the ignorance of politicians. Are you trying to validate politicians message by saying that you do not understand the difference?

    In all of my years — nay decades writing about guns and shooting — I have yet to even find a gun that could use a 100-round clip. That is the point of the story! If such a creature existed, I would champion lawful ownership but 100-round “Clips” only exist in the land of unicorns and uninformed politician’s minds…

  25. Probably not a good thing for anyone who plans on killing innocent people, but law abiding good citizens don’t do that. It’s my right and nobodys business of how many round clips I use for target shooting sports or just plinking. Maybe I’m disabled and re-packing mags is a problem. Now in reality most of these type clips are after market junk and a pain in the ass to use but that’s not the point. I agree with Mark and Drew.

  26. Funny! But not Funny… “there was no lawful or necessary purpose for citizens to posses or use 100-round clips” just as there was no lawful or necessary purpose for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus. Of course, in both cases one must discount the Constitution and submit we all must be slaves of the State for our own good.

  27. Darn good thing I read the article before blasting you off the planet for being another dead brained commie gun grabber! I was ready to unsubscribe and tell CTD they no longer needed my hard earned dollars no matter how good the deals are if they supported anti second amendment propaganda!

  28. I absolutely detest lawsuits and the waste of money, time, effort and life energy they represent but, if they keep up this attack on magazines holding more than 10 rounds and the idiotic insistence that “no one needs them”, I may have to file a lawsuit against them for discrimination against the disabled. I enjoy shooting. I have nerve damage that affects my fine motor control. That means I can shoot with little difficulty but loading the mags is usually a PITA. I use high-cap mags to allow me to do more shooting and spend less time standing there fumbling to reload mags. Enough high-caps can get me from one cease-fire to the next.

  29. We the people elected these representatives and unfortunately not enough people vote or those that vote do not care about what type of Government we have. The elected individuals we now have in office wish to rule, not lead. The reason for the Second Amendment is never discussed and apparently not understood by most Americans. The media keeps up the same propaganda about home defense, hunting and sports shooting. The Amendment was not established for those ideas. It was established to allow the people the means to take power from a Government whose idea is to rule and stomp on our rights. If you do not believe that the Government can commit tyranny or abuse power remember Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas. Also police shoot 9 Citizens recently in New York. I do not believe those events were justified but the same people are still leading us down the path to a major shift in what the Constitution States and Means.

    The police sure want to be armed to the teeth and those are the first line of assualt that will be used to take our freedoms. My worry is that not enough pressure from the employeers (you and me) on the Government Officials. Will we be willing to fight to keep our freedoms? We are being forced to a point where we will have to choose just like our forefathers did, resist the Government or loose to the people who would be rulers.

    We need to vote all of them out of office and force the Government to remove some of the laws and regulations not write more. They have sold their allegance to the PACs Unions Money and Special Interests. They do not listen to their employeers so vote them out or we will be faced with a very untenable and terrible choice.

  30. Does it make sense to place REAL Americans with the right intentions and logical thought at a disadvantage to the criminal or a tyrannical governmental? If there is ANYONE that should have access to 100-round magazines or even larger military style weapons it should be the peace-loving law-abiding American! How can we honor or fulfill the mandate given us by the 2nd Amendment if only the “tyrannical regime” has high capacity weaponry while we “plink” at them 10 rounds at a time?! Not even in war is one side limited by the Geneva Convention to an intentional handicap… Why should we Americans?!!

  31. Who wrote this one of o’bamas supporters? It doesn’t matter if I decide to carry a single shot .22 caliber weapon or a 40-round magazine. The 2nd Amendment says it won’t be incumbered upon. If you have a dictionary I suggest you look up the meaning of those words. I don’t care if you agree with some low life politician. Who died and left you opinion worth more than any one other tax paying citizen? Are we suppose to say, “Oh, he said such and forth so let’s do his will?” If they make a 100-round mag and I want to own and shoot it what business is it of yours or some other person? It is my money and right to spend it as I wish. Go look to the real shooters and the statics of who is doing the killing. Go take the guns from the black gang bangers in Chicago, Obama’s city. Look at the facts, it’s the liberal democrats with mental illness that have done most of the shooting. Leave us alone you friggen moron.

    I consider an assault weapon as anything I or someone can assault someone with. Have you ever considered that view? Considering that, are they going to ban our hammers next? clubs? sticks? rocks? Look through history and see what people in the past used to assault castles, kingdoms and armies with.

    My last tip for you and the politicians. Have you ever seen chicken shit? do you know what that little white part is at the top of it? It’s made out of Lye. Just like all of the politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen, real estate agents, bankers and others that are liars it’s all part of their chicken shit lives. Yes, that little lie is part of being chicken shit, afraid of truth. When do you want to bring in the UN troops to try to confiscate the guns? WIll you say that’s ok too?

  32. I have seen 75-round drums for an AK47, 50-round mags for a 10/22. I don’t believe I have ever seen a 100-round magazine except for belted rounds for machine guns. Schumer is a fool, and Feinstein is an old liberal broad who has been in office way too long! Makes little difference, it won’t pass Congress and it won’t pass Constitutional scrutiny. Let them blather!

  33. I think someone had duck for lunch. The whole point seems to be lost with these responses to Dave Dolbee’s writing. I have often said that if the bills were written using the same words that politicians use to talk, nothing they pass would hold up in court. So I agree let them ban 100 round “clips” but leave my 100 round magazines alone.

  34. I chuckled when I read your article, but also how sadly serious that lawmakers are so clueless about whats actually available and used. I think the dangerous part about outlawing certain sized clips, is opens the door to outlawing slightly smaller, and slightly smaller clips in subsequent years. After all, if 100 was too many, why isn’t 70, and if 70 is too many, how soon till we’re saying well who actually needs an 18 round clip? May we never see the day, but I’m afraid it will come.

  35. when it comes to resisting tyrannical government we would require as large a magazine as possible.

    The second amendment was written to ensure the several states could retake control from the Federal Government if they got too big for their egos.

    Still think we dont need 100 rounders and belt fed weapons?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading