Another loss in court - will we lose the right to standard capacity magazines?

[Deanimator]

Military also uses nuclear missiles.
No "right" to possession there.

Those aren't "arms". They're "munitions".

And one more time, what is a "hi-cap" magazine?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

The Supreme Court has already ruled about in common use with the military....so we have the right to use what ever the military uses....they use 30 round mags.

What case was this?
.

 

[DPris]

I'm not going to waste time in debating hi-cap definitions.
Just saying, again, in line with the thread title, not aware of a specific "right" to own one.
Denis

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not going to waste time in debating hi-cap definitions.

Sounds like because you can't even DEFINE the term.

Kind of hard to debate something you can't even describe.

Just saying, again, in line with the thread title, not aware of a specific "right" to own one.

Right to own WHAT? You can't seem to say.

 

[DPris]

Not going to get bogged down in this.
I am unaware of any "right" to own any specific-capacity magazine.

You want to play semantics games, do it on your own time.
Denis

 

[Deanimator]

Not going to get bogged down in this.

You're not going to defend your own "argument".

You concede the point.

Actually, since you won't even define your OWN terms, you don't HAVE a "point".

I am unaware of any "right" to own any specific-capacity magazine.

So then ONE round magazines could be banned, banning most repeating firearms, RIGHT?

And if ALL magazines could be banned, why not revolving cylinders and tubular magazines?

Is it your claim that ONLY single shot firearms are protected... or not even them?

 

[DPris]

Geeze.
I concede nothing.
Pointless on this one, last word's yours.
Enjoy yourself.
Denis

 

[barnbwt]

"The Supreme Court has already ruled about in common use with the military....so we have the right to use what ever the military uses....they use 30 round mags."

That would be Miller, if I'm not mistaken, though it also only applied to militia uses. Heller had to do with individual's having a RKBA provided the implements used are commonly available/used to that end (purposely left vague by SCOTUS cowards so most laws outside the case could remain unaltered ). So no, we do not yet have a court-recognized individual right to whatever capacity magazines. An the ATF has made it abundantly clear we do not have the right to form armed militias (let alone those rivaling regular military capabilities). 1+1= no, we don't have a enumerated right to magazines --technically that'd mean by default we do, courtesy of the structure of the Bill of RIghts, but that isn't how our nation has worked since the Civil War (if ever).

So, we do have the "right" from a philosophical perspective (which is the only perspective needed to justify our efforts), but from a legal perspective (the perspective that actually matters as far as we're concerned), we have not won recognition yet. The real grey area at this point are the bans on guns that can accept hi cap mags but aren't actually being used that way. Those bans serve primarily to limit access to the guns, something it's been established can not be the goal, as opposed to merely restricting their capabilities (which they will be so long as the short mag is installed). Very hard to justify that position legally or logically, and I'll bet we'd have a pretty easy time getting those types of regulations struck down (bullet buttons, AK/AR bans, bans on anything but the mags themselves)

TCB

 

[Deanimator]

I concede nothing.

Actually, by failing to address a SINGLE point, you've conceded EVERYTHING.

It seems to me that you never actually had any sort of argument or any intention of defending it, such that it existed.

Instead what you've done is to assume an attitude of faux intellectual superiority while presenting NOTHING in the way of facts OR reasoning. When challenged, you SAID you were running away... without actually even bothering to do THAT.

 

[zoom6zoom]

will we even have Justices that know what they're doing?

Oh, they'll know... they just won't be on our side. I wish Justice Scalia long life and good health.

 

[JSH1]

What IS a "hi-cap mag"?

You can never define the right without defining what it covers.

OK, I'll bite. There is no constitutional right to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Why 10? No reason, it is an arbitrary number. So why isn't there a constitutional right to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? 25 years of case law. The following states have magazine restrictions:

California - 10 rounds
Colorado - 15 rounds
Connecticut - 10 rounds
District of Columbia - 10 rounds
Hawaii - 10 rounds
Maryland - 10 rounds
Massachusetts - 10 rounds
New Jersey - 15 rounds
New York - 10 rounds

None of these restrictions have been overturned in a court of law despite the California passing their law 25 years ago. Likewise the Federal ban on new production of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was challenged in court and upheld.

Do I think magazines restrictions will reduce crime? No. Are they legal? Yes

 

[Solo]

So why isn't there a constitutional right to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? 25 years of case law.

I can think of laws that were backed up by more than 25 years of case law, yet were declared unconstitutional.

 

[barnbwt]

"I can think of laws that were backed up by more than 25 years of case law, yet were declared unconstitutional."

But until then... (which is entirely the point being made)

TCB

 

[danez71]

...based on observed reality, in appropriate context.

.

When you call entire states cesspools the only context that can be observed in reality is the complete lack of any class from the one saying it.

In regards to your other posts towards DPris, get off your high horse. You have provided nothing to support you assertions and have only undermined the credibility of your other posts up to now.


Seriously, I used to put some value to your posts when I read them but your attitude in this thread is not only disappointing, it brings down the entire community.

 

[Deanimator]

OK, I'll bite. There is no constitutional right to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Why 10? No reason, it is an arbitrary number.

Why not 5... or 0?

Chicago's HANDGUN BAN was "constitutional"... until it wasn't... just like Jim Crow.

 

[Deanimator]

When you call entire states cesspools the only context that can be observed in reality is the complete lack of any class from the one saying it.

It's a value judgement, and one by which I stand.

And regarding the kabuki theater regarding "hi-cap magazines", you can tell the worth of somebody's "argument" if they won't even define the CENTRAL aspect of it. I don't let explicit anti-gunners get away with that nonsense either.

 

[danez71]

It's a value judgement, and one by which I stand.

And regarding the kabuki theater regarding "hi-cap magazines", you can tell the worth of somebody's "argument" if they won't even define the CENTRAL aspect of it. I don't let explicit anti-gunners get away with that nonsense either.

Ditto. I'll stand by mine as well.

I wont ask you to define 'cesspool states' as its beneath the integrity of the THR and your.....

Originally Posted by Deanimator
.. attitude of faux intellectual superiority while presenting NOTHING...

....has already been exposed.

 

[Sam1911]

Getting too close to insults to go any further. Insults require "official" actions on the part of the Staff, and we hate to have to do that...