General Assembly Vote Tracker

SB70 – High Capacity Magazine Ban

Senator Dave Sokola is sponsoring Senate Bill 70, which would ban the sale of high-capacity magazines in Delaware. This is either the second or third time this kind of bill has been introduced in the General Assembly over the last few years. The bill either passes one chamber and dies in committee in the other, never acted upon.

Hopefully, the bill’s prospects are brighter this year for a simple political reason that was pointed out by Matthew Albright on Twitter last week: Dems drew the ire of the Gun Rights crowd last year after passing Red Flag and background check bills, and then the Dems suffered no electoral consequences and expanded their majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

In other words, the Gun Nuts are loud and proud, but they are few and already committed to the GOP. They are not swaying public opinion, so there is no reason to fear them. Indeed, there is a better upside to delivering on common sense gun reforms that the general public wants rather than cowering in fear to a few fringe gun rights grounps.

So back to SB70. This bill defines a high capacity magazine as any ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Nine states and the District of Columbia currently regulate how much ammunition can be loaded into a firearm, with all but two setting a more restrictive limit than what is being proposed in Delaware.

This bill also would create a buyback program and give Delaware gun owners until June 30, 2020, to relinquish their high-capacity magazines. After that, possession of large-capacity magazine will be a class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense.

WHERE IS THE BILL? Senate Executive Committee as of 4/10/19

DEMOCRATIC SPONSORS – Sokola, Townsend, McDowell, Baumbach, Sturgeon, Bentz, Bolden, Chukwuocha, Heffernan

REPUBLICAN SPONSORS – None

YES VOTES – 

NO VOTES – 

Delaware politics from a liberal, progressive and Democratic perspective. Keep Delaware Blue.

23 comments on “SB70 – High Capacity Magazine Ban

  1. Hope it passes this time and agree about the mad gunners, their loud and gnarly but lack the political punch they have claimed in the past. And maybe, just maybe, the incessant gun slaughter is having an impact on American voters and their finally ready to just say no to the NRA and the politicians they own.

  2. John Krzewinski

    I hope for sure this doesn’t pass as I will never give up my extended magazines

    • We’ll be praying for your enlightenment.

    • The kids murdered in Delaware schools by maniacs with weapons with large capacity magazines are lying in peace more restfully now.

  3. Both columbine and Parkland were carried out with 10 round magazines. The fact is these so called “high capacity “ magazines are standard magazines and come with the various handguns and rifles. Banning these magazines will do nothing to lessen the impact of gun violence but will criminalize law abiding citizens who will have no choice to not comply with forfeiture of legally owned property.

  4. You wouldn’t say that if they outlawed abortion. My gun my choice.

    • cassandram

      My abortion has no chance of hurting you or being stolen from me to hurt anyone. So you need to work on your analogy there.

      • It doesn’t hurt the living person inside of you? Btw I’m not advocating for making abortions illegal. That is a moral choice everyone has to make on their own. But let’s expand on your argument. My car could kill in the wrong hands. A drunk driver could get a hold of it and kill someone or a maniac could plow over a crowd of people(which has happened). Should we ban or further restrict access to cars? Keep in mind this stuff happens even though you need to be licenced and insured. Before you say that makes sense for gun ownership let me remind you that owning a gun is a constitutional right but driving on state roads which we all need to pay to maintain is a privilege.

        • Good point! We should consider having a database of all of the people that are licensed to drive and all of the cars that they own. We should also require them to have insurance commensurate with their risk factors.

          We could also mandate that cars have safety features to ensure that people aren’t injured by them.

          Which of these aspects do you think we should implement for guns?

          • After we finish tachking these issues for cars, we can use the same principles for firearms. Great idea!

          • John Krzewinski

            You can’t, it’s unconstitutional

            • There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can’t require licensing, registration, insurance. Nothing, because those things do not restrict ownership in ANY way.

              • All the handwringing about those actions being part of a “slippery slope” is just the paranoid delusions of person who only cry baby for rights and deny the accompanying responsibilities of gun ownership.

            • delacrat

              John,

              Liberal geek and Dave are saying “A well-regulated militia…” is not unconstitutional.

              They’re right and you ain’t.

              Amen Amen Aaaaamen

      • John Krzewinski

        Because you never gave them a chance. Law abiding citizens shouldn’t be punished by some liberals ideology.

        • Establishing and adhering to limits is the manner in which we live together as a society. I do not have the right to do as I please, regardless of whether it is legal because I have to consider others as well. It is not a punishment. It is the price we pay for civilization. Permits, licences, and training are not punishments. They are methods. And the state has overriding interest in responsible gun ownership. That principle should be recognizable by everyone except for those with cognitive disorders for which there is simply no cure.

          • John Krzewinski

            I disagree. As a law abiding citizen I have every right to say how much rounds I have in my magazine. Even if I use a 50 bullet drum (which I own) but I will continue to keep my magazines and stock up on them and hope the NRA fights it tooth and nail

            • Your rights are not declaratory. You personally do not get to decide what rights you have just because you declare them. You are a citizen of a nation that has a Constitutional framework and a set of laws. Your only rights are those that given to you under that framework. So no you don’t have every right to as many rounds in your magazines as you wish.

              You do, however, have the right to not be constrained by that framework simply by choosing to exit the sovereign territory governed by that framework and renouncing your membership in that nation. You also have the right to support organizations such as the NRA to enable them to fight constraints and limits tooth and nail.

        • Krze, you are confused, and that’s being kind. RESPONSIBILITY is not punishment. It is what grownups know they have to do even if they don’t love it. That you think being responsible is a punishment reveals thinking that hasn’t matured or developed since they were the of nine.

  5. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. Driving on state funded roads is a privilege. It’s important to know the difference.

    • And those rights are not without limits. We can argue what the limits should be but make no mistake, there are limits.

    • LOL! You, Kent, were the one who used the car example.

Leave a Reply to delacrat Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: