Vermont Supreme Court upholds historic gun control law - High capacity magazines

Of course they did. Have to be careful about reporting that here...it may be "political" and against the rules.

9th Circuit in California did the opposite

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/9th-circuit-ends-california-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines

wbm said:

Of course they did. Have to be careful about reporting that...it may be "political" and against the rules.

Click to expand...

Most of his posts get closed. But luckily they stay up so we can read them.

As far as I can tell, he intentionally broke the law. That’s not a good way to challenge the statute. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a victim to get laws overturned.

As far as I can tell, he intentionally broke the law. That’s not a good way to challenge the statute.

Click to expand...

Guess those who stood their ground at Concord and Lexington were "intentional law breakers" also. How dare them challenge a statute. Should have just stayed home and been obedient.

Out of curiosity, does the magazine ban apply to law enforcement as well? Or does it only the effect the little people?

The "little people".

If it only applies to civilians and not law enforcement, then they're saying it doesn't work. If the restriction made society safer, law enforcement wouldn't need 30 rounders. So it is a "reasonable regulation" with no benefit, merely control for the sake of control.

Pudge said:

If it only applies to civilians and not law enforcement, then they're saying it doesn't work. If the restriction made society safer, law enforcement wouldn't need 30 rounders. So it is a "reasonable regulation" with no benefit, merely control for the sake of control.

Click to expand...

Naw, its FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!

Of course, the antis consider all of us to be children incapable of running our own affairs and in need of their benevolent enlightenment to live in their brave new (unarmed) world.

There’s a possible silver lining here. If the case gets appealed to whatever federal circuit Vermont is in and is overturned then they get to keep their magazines. If it is upheld then that creates a discrepancy between two federal circuit courts and opens the possibility if a (theoretically) friendly SCOTUS resolving the difference.

Really isn't that big of a deal, IMO. Lots of states still have magazine bans and none have been struck down so its not surprising. If it were in federal court that would be more concerning, and this may very well move up to the Supreme Court. I think state Supreme Court cases that get appealed go straight to the US Supreme Court but I could be wrong.

Here in IL, our FOID card law was challenged awhile back and it finally worked its way to the Illinois Supreme Court. They've been sitting on it for awhile now, I'm guessing because they know it will get appealed up to the US Supreme Court which would likely be more friendly to the pro-2A side. I keep ho0ing they'll decide on it so it can get appealed up with the current Supreme Court makeup.

Really isn't that big of a deal

Click to expand...

Well yeah it really is. Courts look at precedents and all too often it is "go along get along" on both State and Federal levels.

wbm said:

Guess those who stood their ground at Concord and Lexington were "intentional law breakers" also. How dare them challenge a statute. Should have just stayed home and been obedient.

Click to expand...

It’s not that simple and you (should) know it. This isn’t the revolutionary war. I didn’t say I agreed with the restriction. I certainly don’t. But when you intentionally break a gun law in a notoriously anti-gun state, what do you think is going to happen? I hope like hell they take it to SCOTUS. But I don’t have a whole lot of faith there either. But they have a better chance than in Vermont.

A note - THR does not encourage folks to break the law. If you want to break the law in an explicit attempt to be a planned challenge in court that is one thing. Just breaking laws is not for posting on THR. Nor is virtue signaling about it. Posts are deleted if they have no content besides a link and if they are explicitly political (that usually means ranting about politics outside of specific gun issues with no real content but the rant).

So, sunk inside is the justification of, to paraphrase:

"We're not saying that Vermont can infringe on your right to *bear arms*... We're saying that Vermont has every right to infringe on the ability of the plebeians to bear an arm loaded with so many rounds as to possibly, some day, maybe, increase the "... lethality of mass shootings..."

Or maybe: "We're not saying you can't *bear arms* to defend yourself - we're saying you haven't the right to defend yourself *that much*.

You know, hypothetically!

Sadly, this will be a rally-point precedent until overturned.

What I must give the VSC credit for is *handing down* a judgement so clearly worded. Hand down; gawd, but that phrase disgusts me and further illuminates the regal nature of S.C.s' "High Court" stature to "Lower Court" neither withstanding nor appreciated.

Todd.

Article 16 of Chapter 1 of the Vermont Constitution clearly preserves the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state. Why would self-defense be the only thing considered when justifying the magazine ban?

Growing up in Vermont was an incredible experience. I didn't require any carry permit and could buy whatever firearm I wanted when I had the money. When I visited there 2 years ago, I had to pick a firearm that complied with this ridiculous law. The vast majority of VT is pro-gun but Burlington has a way of swinging state-wide politics. Usually for the detriment of the state.

herrwalther said:

The vast majority of VT is pro-gun but Burlington has a way of swinging state-wide politics. Usually for the detriment of the state.

Click to expand...

Sadly, a condition repeated many times around the country. While folk in the middle/right of things are busy getting on with productive lives, the otherwise minority utopians undercut the the numerical majority.

Todd.

Burlington, Dallas, Nashville, Lexington, Atlanta, NYC, Chicago...

If the law was about hunting or sport shooting it would be a fish and wildlife rule limiting capacity in the spirit of fair chase. That’s pretty common. A flat out ban on magazines over X capacity is about control. The subjects of the Vermont governor have been forbidden from possessing an item arbitrarily.

I lived in Vermont 1956-1959, Grades 2-4, the old Vermont values of hard work, thrift, self reliance prevailed, a lot of pride in Native Son Calvin Coolidge, now they elect Bernie Sanders as Senator.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

I lived in Vermont 1956-1959, Grades 2-4, the old Vermont values of hard work, thrift, self reliance prevailed, a lot of pride in Native Son Calvin Coolidge, now they elect Bernie Sanders as Senator.

Click to expand...

I live a stones throw from where Calvin Coolidge went to school. My grandparents cared for a cousin of his for a period of time, Warren, who had disabilities.

Unless something has changed, Vermont doesn't have a ban on possession of 10+ magazines for rifles, but it does ban the sale, transfer, importation, etc of magazines greater than 10rds. I would guess that more good stuff is coming. The out of state hordes coming from MA, NY and CT have been snapping up real estate and taking up permanent residence at an alarming rate, steadily for the last 40 years, but at an unprecedented level for the last year since covid. It won't take long to feel that in the legislature.

Vermont is very liberal and crunchy, but nobody ever successfully touched our guns. Enter republican governor Phil Scott. Now we have a magazine restriction on pistols and rifles, no private sales and the age requirement went up. It happened within a matter of weeks, the event that triggered it was a kid who was writing about doing a shooting in a diary. One fool and all this.. talk about an over reaction. I could not believe it. They didn't make anything safer, they just made it a pain for the law abiding man and woman....

It is really saddening, I thought VT served as a good model for other left leaning, highly liberal states in that you could co exist peacefully with each other without screaming for gun control. It really bugs me that Scott was the one who started the ball rolling on the slew of 2018 restrictions. Feels like a knife between the shoulders, especially since he very publicly vowed not to pass gun control when he was campaigning.

When they first started throwing this legislation around the opposing argument was that the law restricting the sale of magazines would be impossible to enforce because there was no practical way to determine when a magazine was purchased. I was thinking the same thing but was also thinking that a really unfortunate way to rectify that lil caveat would be to simply ban them altogether, sale, possession, etc.

But last time I checked people who owned them before the ban went into effect were "allowed" to possess them. I guess I'll have to check again....smh.

I'd be interested to hear the facts of the case against the defendant, it sounds like they were found in his home so I'm curious how they determined they were illegal.

wbm said:

Well yeah it really is. Courts look at precedents and all too often it is "go along get along" on both State and Federal levels.

Click to expand...

Right, but other state Supreme Courts have upheld such bans before while Federal courts have overturned such bans (such as the district Court and 9th Circuit did in California). Is this ruling a good thing? No, especially if you live in Vermont. But this isn't groundbreaking and doesn't add anything to precedent that didn't already exist.

A ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds is likely to be passed by Congress and signed by Biden. With AR mags at less than 15 bucks apiece right now, seems crazy not to stock up.

I remember during the Clinton assault weapon ban, normal capacity Glock magazines went for about $100 each.