How a Federal High-Cap Ban Would Erode RTKBA

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bushmaster1313

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,653
Location
Peoples Republik of New Jersey
Personally (flame suit on), a Federal ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds would not make much difference to me. I had to get neutered when I moved to New Jersey, but I still feel fine.

On the other hand, I think that a Federal Ban on "High Capacity" magazines will lead to a serious erosion of the RTKBA. It will likely pass muster in the vast majority of the Circuits, and I doubt that the even the Heller majority would rule it unconstitutional.
 
bushmaster1313 said:
Personally (flame suit on), a Federal ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds would not make much difference to me. I had to get neutered when I moved to New Jersey, but I still feel fine.

On the other hand, I think that a Federal Ban on "High Capacity" magazines will lead to a serious erosion of the RTKBA. It will likely pass muster in the vast majority of the Circuits, and I doubt that the even the Heller majority would rule it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Makes no sense to me when the next hurricane, or "Watts" type riots hit your shore, that you would need SIX ten round magazines, when TWO thirty round mags, would give you the sixty rounds quickly at your disposal, along with more thirty rounders, to defend your "Castle"??Bill.
 
I agree, Heller specifically allowed reasonable restrictions, and I don't think many (non-gun folks) in the political fray would find a 10 round limit onerous.
 
I am not saying that others would not feel that their rights are infringed by a High Cap ban.

What I am saying is that if passed by Congress it would likely get upheld and establish precedent that it is not unconstitutional to ban the amount of rounds readily available under the law for otherwise lawful weapons.
 
What I am saying is that if passed by Congress it would likely get upheld and establish precedent that it is not unconstitutional to ban the amount of rounds readily available under the law for otherwise lawful weapons.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what could happen
 
IMHO, one of the reasons that Heller went our way is that certain people need a handgun instead of a long gun in order to be effectively armed in the home. In comparison, the difference between a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine and the same gun with a 30 round magazine is much less.

I expect that a 10 round limit could be passed and that it would be upheld.

It would be no surprise if Connecticut limits magazines to 10 rounds and New Jersey might go from 15 down to 10.
 
I agree with this SCOTUS analysis under Heller; a magazine capacity limit may pass muster.

From such a foothold, what are their next steps? Limiting total rounds that can be possessed at one time? Limiting number of magazines that can be possessed? Limiting number of firearms that can be owned? Limiting reloading capability by restricting volume of bullets, powder and primers? Prohibiting defined circumstances as illegal "cache" or "arsenals"?

The litigation sword has two edges it seems.
 
I'd estimate there's about a 95% chance that the Supreme Court would uphold a 10-round limitation on magazines, and I'm probably being really generous with that estimate (when I really ponder it, I'm inclined to say 100% but you can never be 100% certain).

In reality, though, the Supreme Court would not even take a case with such a trivial issue. After one of the Courts of Appeal upholds the limitation, that would be the end of it. The only way the Supreme Court will ever be looking at this issue is if it was somehow wrapped up in a case with a lot of other gun-related issues.
 
The militant purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow average citizens to pose a threat to forces of foreign and domestic militaries.

People like to conveniently ignore this today.
What is the average global round count of rifles around the world? Most professional forces around the world consider 20-30 to be standard.

I think 30 is the most 'in common use' number.


But yes it is all up to twisting interpretation to what is desired rather than sticking with the reality of the 2nd Amendment. So what could be decided is unknown. After all the average firearm of the world is also selective fire, they are the most 'in common use' firearms.
 
Yes, and the Constitution, not the Amendments, specifically mentions the suppression of rebellion. The SCOTUS ordered DC to issue Heller a permit and not a lot more. And, they have declined to hear similar follow-on cases.

A magazine limit will pass muster. Should they get a limit of 10 or even fewer what does it matter with regard to the weapon?
 
What we don't want is for the anti's to manage to bust the crust and plant the seed that would, not so long after, sprout into a poison ivy that itches and burns all freedoms of the american citizen until nothing is left but a memory of scars and trying to scratch away the itch that they created by planting the seed in the first place.
 
If they stuck to precedent, under Miller vs US; the appropriate magazine size would be the current issue 20 and 30 round magazines.

They could, however, entertain banning 10 round magazines or non-detachable magazines. At least in the 5.56/.223 caliber rifles. Once you step into .30 call, then the military does use alot of lower capacity and/or fixed magazines [ ala M24 ]
 
The main reason for the RKBA is so that the citizenry would be able to stand up to the government and say "no" with a meaningful promise of recompense if government failed to listen. That's why the government and its supporting case of media puppets use the emotional (and temporary) fervor of events such as Sandy Hook to play the ban card. Under normal day-to-day conditions, which by definition prevail most of the time, such a play gets no traction.

We have already seen too much erosion of RKBA. We must not allow more, of any kind (no hi-cap mags, no semi-autos, no whatever), and we must make it clear to our elected reprehensibles that if they don't stand firmly against further erosion of the RKBA we will see them booted from office. Then we must make it stick.

Don't all 50 states have recall procedures?

Anything less than that is a failure on our part.
 
Forgive the newb question.

But when a Ban is put in place on something like this.. in what direction does it go.

from a certain date onward is it illegal to purchase a high capacity magazine. But what about people who own stuff previously. Do they have to then surrender those items, or what?

if i have a high capacity magazine that i bought legally under current laws, then the law changes, how do i prove to someone that i acquired it legally before the law was put into place?

Cheers
Swilling.
 
There are two answers to the question. The first is the ban isn't really effective, so they come back and ban more. That doesn't work either, so they keep repeating. So best to not let them start the process.

They could ban possession of existing magazines, but I don't think that will happen. They should really reimburse you for property "taken" by outlawing, but seeing how they violate the constitution anymore I don't know if they'd worry about that. The government can not afford to buy back that many magazines. I have a box full of magazines for rifles I don't even own, which I gathered in the past and after the last ban expired in case they tried it again.

If they ban magazines, since they aren't serialized, it will have to be assumed to be pre ban if not marked. During the last ban, over 10 round magazines manufactured after the law went into effect were labeled "Law Enforcement Use Only". Today, you can buy and sell those, as the AWB has expired. But expect marking of new ones to identify they were built after the ban date.

Not having the existing ones registered and serialized makes rules on transfer difficult to enforce. My kids will have had them "transferred" to them prior to the ban date if that happens. Likewise, giving them to someone you know won't be a problem. Just watch for BATF stings...
 
Smaller mags = larger bullets.

If you can only carry 10 rounds, as opposed to unlimited, then your 10 rounds might be larger bullets.

When 15 round mags are allowed, 9x19 is common. When 10 is the max, you'll see more1911's.

And of course, reloads for either...

Stupid laws.
 
If the supreme court will uphold a 10 round max (and I think they will too), where does it end? When they find out that doesn't work (which it doesn't), what's to stop them from saying 8 rounds? Or 6 rounds? Is there an end? Can we go to single shots eventually?

This is a serious question. Some on TV have been calling Glocks and Sigs military weapons too, trying to regard them with the same disdain that they do "assault weapons".
 
Zoogster said:
The militant purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow average citizens to pose a threat to forces of foreign and domestic militaries.
People like to conveniently ignore this today.
Click to expand...

Not just ignoring it, but refuting it.

I have seen severely ignorant people outright say that the 2nd amendment framers had nothing in mind about protecting the citizens from an oppressive government...and stated that the "well organized militia" is obsolete do to our military and National Guard.

The absolute ignorance of our own history and the words of the founding fathers is astounding.

I was a history major, and I actually wrote a thesis on James Madison's thoughts on the necessity of a Bill of Rights, but I was taught as early as middle school and high school, that many of the founding fathers thought standing armies were merely the tools of tyrants.

There is just so much ignorance of the past and naive shortsightedness in the arguments of the antis this past week.


"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." Thomas Jefferson

"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." Thomas Jefferson

"the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms'
Thomas Jefferson

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"I consider all the ill as established which may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jeffrerson
 
Last edited:
I get beat up over at the Smith&Wesson forum, we are revolver fanatics and I try to point out these concerns. Some surprisingly don't seemed concerned, "Won't bother my revolvers" and I disagree, once the avalanche starts it will keep going!!

My best friend and I have gone around in circles on why the AR should not be banned. One day I visited and he showed me his brand new semi auto shotgun. I said

"John your shotgun is exactly the same operating system as the AR, do you think they won't ban it as well"?? He tried to come back with a denial and I pointed out the parts, mechanisms of similiarity and capacity.
When finally done with my class he admitted he understood better why if you ban one type of firearm all could be affected.
Sadly, he spent 30 years in the Army shooting the M-16 rifle!!
 
peyton said:
"Won't bother my revolvers"
Click to expand...


First they came for the semi-automatic rifles
and I said nothing because I don't own any semi-automatic rifles

Then they came for the 11+ capacity magazines
and I said nothing because I don't own any 11+ capacity magazines

Then they came for the handguns
and I said nothing because I don't own any handguns

Then they came for my guns
and there were no other gun owners left to speak for me
 
HOOfan_1 said:
Not just ignoring it, but refuting it.

I have seen severely ignorant people outright say that the 2nd amendment framers had nothing in mind about protecting the citizens from an oppressive government...and stated that the "well organized militia" is obsolete do to our military and National Guard.

The absolute ignorance of our own history and the words of the founding fathers is astounding.

I was a history major, and I actually wrote a thesis on James Madison's thoughts on the necessity of a Bill of Rights, but I was taught as early as middle school and high school, that many of the founding fathers thought standing armies were merely the tools of tyrants.

There is just so much ignorance of the past and naive shortsightedness in the arguments of the antis this past week.


"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." Thomas Jefferson

"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." Thomas Jefferson

"the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms'
Thomas Jefferson

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"I consider all the ill as established which may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jeffrerson
Click to expand...
+1

I often refer people to the link in my signature for a quick overview of what the 2nd Amendment and rights in general are all about. http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html
 
Another problem we face is a lot of people see the constitution as a living document. They don't care about the intent of the founding fathers. They feel it can be rewriiten or read to suit the "needs" of America today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top