Alan Gura: NY 7 Round Mag Limit Unconstitutional


January 31, 2013, 03:31 PM

Now, we just need someone to make the case in court. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Alan Gura: NY 7 Round Mag Limit Unconstitutional" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 31, 2013, 03:40 PM
Would this just potentially bring the capacity up to 10 as commonly accepted by other states/cities?

January 31, 2013, 04:03 PM
I think it would.

January 31, 2013, 04:09 PM
From listening to the video, whatever the capacity, I don't think it would be good idea to take it for stroll down 5th Ave.

January 31, 2013, 04:11 PM
Would this just potentially bring the capacity up to 10 as commonly accepted by other states/cities?10 is still arbitrary. If NYS gets hammered (and they should), hopefully the concept of limiting magazine size will be tossed out as the worthless trash legislation it always is.

January 31, 2013, 04:13 PM
States have more leaway in what can be carried in public, but cannot blanket ban ownership of common weapons. This is clearly established. NY made no effort to comply with the recent Heller/McDonald rulings. Any federal court should easliy strike this down. They don't like it when you ignore the SCOTUS.

January 31, 2013, 04:14 PM
Interesting that he differentiates between banning weapons with a capacity over seven rounds (as unconstitutional) and the actual number of rounds (fine with state regulation) carried.

January 31, 2013, 04:27 PM
One of the better threads I've seen of late. I wouldn't want to be a test case myself, but hopefully this one sees its day in court.

January 31, 2013, 05:21 PM
“Well the 7-round limit to me is clearly unconstitutional, for the reasons mentioned, Americans have expectation to find in common use handguns that have more than 7-rounds, and so a 7-round limit is plainly unconstitutional.”

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but this implies that most firearms that Americans have an expectation to find "in common use" cannot be banned. The real question then becomes: What do Americans believe is "in common use?"

January 31, 2013, 05:24 PM
^That was explained in Heller v DC. Read the case.

January 31, 2013, 05:25 PM
Well, then, its time we let it be known that AR-15s ARE IN COMMON USE.

January 31, 2013, 05:30 PM
That is why the NY law and feinswine's AWB will fail court challenge. They clearly violate the recent SCOTUS cases of Heller and McDonald.

But NY's still need to replace everyone of those gun grabbers, regardless of party. We also need to target everyone of the co-sponsors of the federal AWB.

January 31, 2013, 06:00 PM
Dr. Randy Barnett, prominent law professor:

So, when considering the constitutionality of bans on so-called military-style assault weapons, or restrictions on the capacity of magazines, senators should begin by asking whether the weapons being banned are in common use by civilians. When it comes to so-called assault weapons, like the AR-15, or 30-round magazines, the answer is clearly “yes.” Millions of such weapons and magazines are in private hands.

That should settle the matter, but senators can go a step further and ask whether these or other measures are actually rational — to articulate the end they are seeking to accomplish, then assesses whether the means adopted actually match up with the purported end. Would they actually have prevented a mass shooting or ameliorated real crimes?

This heightened “rationality review” could help ensure that the reason being articulated is the real reason for the law.

For example, “assault weapons” are a made-up category of weapons that is based solely on cosmetic features that make them look like the fully automatic weapons used by the military. Banning them leaves other rifles that are functionally identical in their lethality and rate of fire completely legal. Moreover, far more powerful hunting rifles are left untouched by the law, as are shotguns. This is simply irrational and therefore unconstitutional.

The same can be said for New York’s law limiting handguns to seven rounds, while allowing both active and retired police officers to keep their handguns that hold up to 15 rounds. If retired cops need 15 rounds to effectively protect themselves and others, then so do other citizens. Arbitrarily discriminating among Americans in this way is irrational and unconstitutional.

January 31, 2013, 06:49 PM
^Yup! That's what I've been saying. Everyone is panicing, but the fact is the government simply does not have the power to ban these things. They will be struck down.

January 31, 2013, 07:09 PM
Yes, but if they get passed, they have to be challenged in court to be overturned. In the meantime...

...they are like cockroaches and rats, they can make a mess of things before someone turns on the light.

January 31, 2013, 07:18 PM
Yes. But don't forget we are men with the power of the light and the big foot to stomp them with.
Once it is struck down they will be in a worse postition than now, we will be vindicated and then we use the big foot and vote out everyone of these clowns who voted for it.
Anyone who keeps voting for them deserves to get bitten by the rats.

The system is not always pretty or speedy, but it does work.

January 31, 2013, 07:35 PM
Theres alot of heat coming down on all this, donations taken by the NYS pistol & rifle clubs, & many other organizations are fighting back right now, & this will not just fade away.the gun stores in NY are pathetic right now,unless you need a bolt action for hunting,or an over/under, theres nothing else, not even a rem 870.these stores are going to be in big trouble soon, they will have nothing else to sell,& they cant pay their rent selling holsters,knives, & gun cleaning supplies...

If you enjoyed reading about "Alan Gura: NY 7 Round Mag Limit Unconstitutional" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!