The CA mag “surrender” was defeated in Fed court - have all states grandfathered mags?

[Lycidas Janwor]

Saying the law will be ignored as a reason they will be useless really doesn't understand the purpose of such laws. Why?

1. It sets a standard of owning them being socially unacceptable behavior that will influence new possible entries into the gun culture. Most new people aren't 't going to purchase forbidden items. So old toots will have them and maybe move them among themselves. New folks probably won't.
2. This affects general attitudes towards gun culture.
3. If you do have them and don't turn them in:
a. You cannot hunt with them.
b. You cannot compete with them
c. If you use them in self-defense, you will be hurt in court and perhaps charged as a separate crime from whatever is happening in yourself defense incident.
d. If the items are discovered as in a burglary, fire, you are in a traffic stop while transporting, your ex turns you in, your kid babbles in school or the like, you are sunk. While the sheriff might not charge you, an antigun city or state cop will.

So it is just virtue signaling to say that you won't turn them in. Announcing that on the Internet may give zealous law enforcement a reason to come to your house.

As an example, why in IDPA matches do we limit mags to 10 rounds - guess. Going to be the first guy in NJ to shoot a match with a 17 round mag and stick your tongue out to the law? No, your mag sits in your secret place. Whoopee! Why do NY folks use Ruger 9mm and Mini-14 long arms. Because you can't have new ARs without them being mutilated?

Gun folks continually don't understand that there is tremendous surface validity to the gun bans. The main driving force is people fear violence. It is not the horsepoop of fighting the 'socialist wave'. Saying you won't obey the law is not a convincing argument. It, in fact, it will be an argument for a stronger law as you have defined gun owners as probable law breakers.

What the gun world needs is messaging that indicates why such privately held weapons are a positive for society. Saying you will not comply is a very weak argument for the integrity of gun owners.

I hear what you are saying. We all know that criminals certainly don't obey laws, so more gun restrictions is meaningless to them. Gun restrictions only apply to people who obey the law, which is the vast, vast majority of gun owners. I guess a black market could result from draconian gun laws (much like outlawing liquor did in the 1930s which forced you average law-abiding citizen to go underground to enjoy an alcoholic beverage, which in turn created a huge criminal element which was the supply chain for the underground demand for alcohol). There is already a black market for guns for the criminal element of every society, I'm guessing it would simply expand to include people who are not criminals, but want to own/possess a firearm that is illegal to own.

 

[Pudge]

Regardless of whether confiscation is "taking" or not, I would think that the black market value would have significant influence on any proposed compensation. I mean if you offer someone $100, for a handgun they paid $300-$500 to acquire, and they can get $700 on the black market, that $100 isn't much of an inducement to obey a law that might be seen as unjust. Especially if you have more than one. But make the offer $1000, and voluntary compliance would make becoming a criminal look foolish. I hope they wait until after I am no more to decide their course of action.

 

[milemaker13]

They are trying to get an AWB in Illinois, thanks the "donkey" supermajority (all three branches). Unless they reword it later, they are planning on banning ANY firearm that can "accept" a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds. The Marlin Model 60 with its tubular magazine would be exempt as the magazine can't be changed. Even though the 10/22's original magazine is only a 10-rounder, the fact that it can "accept" larger magazines is what they are using as a guide.
The fact that it is a little rimfire means nothing to these brain-dead morons.

The way I read that proposed bill was that the marlin 60 would also be banned.. theres a bit towards the middle saying something about non detachable mags as well.... I hope I am wrong... give it another read and let us know what you think...

 

[Basura Blanca]

It may not necessarily be true that requiring he surrender of firearms and/or magazines is a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. I know that has been the classical view of the Fifth Amendment, but that's not what the Amendment actually says. The Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when property is taken "for public use."

That's an important distinction (no disagreement from me) but since the thread title references Duncan v. Becerra, it's maybe worth pointing out that Benitez did touch on the problem of "takings" in his injunction, if I recall.

The real takeaway from all this should be the aggressive posturing which lawmakers are exhibiting in the post-Heller environment. The authors of these bills and such don't seem concerned that their proposals aren't just potential overreach with respect to the second amendment, but also cause collateral damage in the broader scope of rights. IMHO, this recklessness may be to our advantage in the court of public opinion. A neutral minded person might not care about guns, but they could be bothered greaty by the property rights issue that's hitched to these bans.

 

[jmorris]

1. It sets a standard of owning them being socially unacceptable behavior that will influence new possible entries into the gun culture. Most new people aren't 't going to purchase forbidden items....

As an example, why in IDPA matches do we limit mags to 10 rounds - guess.

Yeah, in the most crime ridden places illegal gun ownership is admonished by peers...



Again, that only influences people who abide by the law. Believe it or not, in some circles breaking the laws makes you “cool”.

I don’t have to guess why IDPA limited themselves to 10 rounds. It was formed two years after Clinton’s AWB that forced 10 round mags on everyone.

 

[The Liberal]

I’m probably going to get slammed but I find your nonsense VERY OFFENSIVE.

you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Guess what? I’ve survived TWO campus shootings

Yes TWO

Virginia Tech and New River Community college

So unlike you, I know what it’s like to have someone shooting up the place. I know what it’s like to have people shot where I studied and where I taught.

Mag limits don’t work the kid that shot up New River Community College used a shot gun. I heard him reloading outside my classroom while waiting for the police. Had I been armed he would have been dead.

Instead one of my students died because I couldn’t confront him because of STUPID gun free zone laws.

And I heard the kid fumbling with the ammo.

What stopped him was that I didn’t cower under a desk like the “experts” say to do. Instead I started him as he tried to get in my classroom and a security guard was able to grab him.

So excuse me if I call you on your uninformed stupidity. You’ve picked “solutions” based on emotion not facts.

I’ve trued to share my experience but have had the AG on VA tie me up in law suits even though I’ve won multiple times.
NRCC ended my contract because I knew what happened and because I didn’t die there and instead ruined their claim to fame. The shooting was the day before the Boston Bombing so it got buried in the news. And because the victim died months later.

So if I’ve offended anyone, I say tough..

Seeing your BS and what’s going on here by Mark Herring, and Ralph Northam and the rest of the antis who want to make me more volurnable annoys me.

Go stand up to an ANTIFA mob and tell me how many rounds you need.

Go drive into DC at night and go to a drug infested neighborhood and tell me how many rounds you need.

There’s a reason that the M&P 9 Compact and the Glock 19 are so popular. 15 rounds and the ability to use 17 round are perfect. Carry 15 plus one plus two 17 round mags and you at least have a fighting chance against a mob until the police arrive.

You probably also believe in Duty to Flee. Or as I call it the give criminals free reign to do as they like laws.

So please take your lies and ignorance and get a clue because unlike you, I got informed and I’ve seen what the laws you want do.

Gun free zones are dumb. Teachers, responsible/mature students, and other faculty ought to be armed.

@Art Eatman , here’s another wrinkle for you. Let’s assume Trump declares a national emergency and tries to build his wall. Eminent domain, etc. Can you see a liberal President using a national emergency to speed through gun confinscation? I certainly can, which is why I want better constitutional protections for gun ownership and use.

The 2A is not unlimited. There is a reason we don’t have common civilian ownership of machine guns, home-defense flamethrowers or carry of grenades. There is a reason we don’t sell AT4s at Academy. All rights have limitations. Gun ownership is no different.

@GEM , you hit the nail on the head. I think it is completely appropriate, acceptable and right to own, carry and responsibly use a firearm. I just think that we ought to make guns that can put a lot of bullets down range quickly ought to be scrutinized more closely than they currently are, regardless of shape, caliber or other characteristics.

 

[badkarmamib]

I just think that we ought to make guns that can put a lot of bullets down range quickly ought to be scrutinized more closely than they currently are

Why? For what purpose? That class of firearm is used in the SMALLEST minority of illegal firearm crimes. What difference could it possibly make, other than being a stepping stone to further bans when it is proven ineffective?

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” - Jeff Cooper

 

[Tommygunn]

Gun free zones are dumb. Teachers, responsible/mature students, and other faculty ought to be armed.

@Art Eatman , here’s another wrinkle for you. Let’s assume Trump declares a national emergency and tries to build his wall. Eminent domain, etc. Can you see a liberal President using a national emergency to speed through gun confinscation? I certainly can, which is why I want better constitutional protections for gun ownership and use.

The 2A is not unlimited. There is a reason we don’t have common civilian ownership of machine guns, home-defense flamethrowers or carry of grenades. There is a reason we don’t sell AT4s at Academy. All rights have limitations. Gun ownership is no different.

@GEM , you hit the nail on the head. I think it is completely appropriate, acceptable and right to own, carry and responsibly use a firearm. I just think that we ought to make guns that can put a lot of bullets down range quickly ought to be scrutinized more closely than they currently are, regardless of shape, caliber or other characteristics.

"All rights have limitations." Ok, but it becomes perverted to use that as an excuse for further unconstitutional limitations. AT4s are ordinance, like bombs or sidewinder missiles, not "arms" which are carried by soldiers. Deceitful, willful politicians use the "limitations" excuse to further circumscribe and diminish our rights.
"...Guns that can put a lot of bullets down range quickly ought to be scrutinized more closely than ..." what?.....Chuck Connors tricked out 1892 Winchester? Adolf Topperwein's Single Action revolvers?
"The deadliest implement of the soldier is the birthright of Americans," said one of our country's founders. He said it for a reason.

Gun control is not really about controlling guns, in the end ..... it's about CONTROLLING US.

 

[GEM]

When I read the 'controlling us' meme - I would appreciate if folks would realize that both the right and left extremes are equally controlling of personal liberty and maintain elite status. If you think deeply, the lack of enthusiasm from the GOP legislative leadership and usually the President (and past complicity in gun bans) is because both parties have economic elites and they are cahoots together when it comes to maintaining their status.

They have no interest in having a locus of power outside the government - that is what the 2nd Amend. is about.

 

[AlexanderA]

AT4s are ordinance, like bombs or sidewinder missiles, not "arms" which are carried by soldiers.

I disagree with the distinction between "ordnance" and "arms." At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it certainly applied to artillery, such as that carried by privateer vessels. There is no requirement that "arms" must be man-portable to be covered by the 2nd. Belt-fed MG's are covered, certainly. That's not to say that they shouldn't be subject to a tighter degree of regulation, but they shouldn't be banned entirely. The argument that, carried to the extreme, this would allow nuclear weapons to be in the hands of civilians is silly. Civilians don't have the means to develop, produce, store, or deploy nuclear weapons. This is a red herring.

 

[Tommygunn]

When I read the 'controlling us' meme - I would appreciate if folks would realize that both the right and left extremes are equally controlling of personal liberty and maintain elite status. If you think deeply, the lack of enthusiasm from the GOP legislative leadership and usually the President (and past complicity in gun bans) is because both parties have economic elites and they are cahoots together when it comes to maintaining their status.

They have no interest in having a locus of power outside the government - that is what the 2nd Amend. is about.

"Politicians pretend to be the servants in order to become the masters,"~~Charles DeGaulle, a former army general and President of France.

True, Gem, and I often suggest people "choose their poison wisely."
People ought to read both The Federalist Papers and The Antifederalist Papers .... there are good books by John Locke and other good political philosophers .... but for me, MUST READING should include Machiavelli's THE PRINCE, and if possible, DISCOURSES ON LIVY.
Only the most naive will read Machiavelli and think the same of politicians.

 

[Tommygunn]

I disagree with the distinction between "ordnance" and "arms." At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it certainly applied to artillery, such as that carried by privateer vessels. There is no requirement that "arms" must be man-portable to be covered by the 2nd. Belt-fed MG's are covered, certainly. That's not to say that they shouldn't be subject to a tighter degree of regulation, but they shouldn't be banned entirely. The argument that, carried to the extreme, this would allow nuclear weapons to be in the hands of civilians is silly. Civilians don't have the means to develop, produce, store, or deploy nuclear weapons. This is a red herring.

I've heard the theory. To me, the phrase "to keep and bear arms" states the Founders' intentions in what the right gauranteed. Some people back in their time, who had the $$$$, might have owned cannons or possibly ships, but that's an artifact of that age.

Mine IS a somewhat conservative interpretation, which still, IMHO, should allow for ownership of everything from single shot to full auto arms (the "terrible implements of the soldier") even though I fully acknowledge we are NOT as free as we were when our Constitution was adopted.
I respect your opinion , and my beliefs are subject to modification when I find a sound basis for it.
One reason why I distinguish between ordnance and arms is many antigunners point out things like nukes, bombs, missiles, handgrenades, and similar weapons are already banned or severely controlled, and use that as an excuse for further bans, so I try to "cut that off at the knees," so to speak, by creating that distinction.
Perhaps it is not technically accurate ... but I truly despise the tactic of pointing to past restrictions as justification for even more.

 

[GEM]

I wrote this for TFL, it was another aspect of the magazine ban debate - so I think I will add it here:

Reading lots of posts about upcoming or proposed bans on guns and mags in various states, inevitably someone proclaims that they will not turn theirs in or most folks won't.

As I've said before, even if you keep them, they are now useless for any lawful activity and except for being hidden, so what.

OK, gun loving Grandpa kicks off or goes to home as he is now not able to take care of himself. What do the kids do with the forbidden items? Unless they are hard core, they probably don't want a hidden stash in their house?

They can't sell them legally. Yeah, they could drive them to another state and if stopped by the law - oops.

If they call the local law to come get the forbidden times, does a surviving Grandpa get hit with the legal penalties of fines and time?

If Grandma is in the house and knew of the stash - is she a felon? Now maybe your Andy of Mayberry type will handle it on the sly but I wouldn't trust all law officers to do such.

I wouldn't want to put my kids in such a bind.

 

[GEM]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but to act as a privateer, you needed a letter of marquis from the government. So that's a license to use the cannons. Now did that mean that private cannons are not allowed at that time, I don't think so - but again, not my area. Anyway, being a privateer is an example of a regulated use, so is that any good?

 

[Art Eatman]

I've been in this gun-control squabble for just over a half a century. As I've said before, nobody has ever answered my question about any law which has served to reduce the rate of violent crime where firearms were involved. Seems to me that that means that gun-control laws are inefficacious and we might as well erase all of them.

One comment in the Anti-Federalist Papers about the issue of gun ownership said that the Right should not apply to "those of unsound mind and of ill repute". I take that to mean those adjudicated as insane, and felons. For the latter, I'm of the opinion that it should be limited to violent criminals; not such as embezzlers. What sane people and non-violent people possess in the way of firearms is irrelevant.

Why should the citizenry NOT be armed in parity with the individual infantryman? The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the purpose of the first ten amendments it to avoid the abuse of power by the State.

First paragraph: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Given that the writers had recently finished in an effort to achieve independence, it seems to me that they recognized a possible need at some future time to replace the soap box and the ballot box by the cartridge box. Why else the Preamble?

My umpteenth grandfather Witherspoon pledged his life, fortune and sacred honor. Why should I be less willing, if necessary?

 

[Robert]

Art, you should know by now, facts and citations mean nothing compared to feeling and emotions.

 

[Art Eatman]

True, Robert, very true. Except in race cars, Cessna spam cans and Bambi-hunting. Wish in one hand, poop in the other and see which fills up first.

Enuf drift. Back to the topic.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but to act as a privateer, you needed a letter of marquis from the government. So that's a license to use the cannons. Now did that mean that private cannons are not allowed at that time, I don't think so - but again, not my area. Anyway, being a privateer is an example of a regulated use, so is that any good?

Merchant vessels in that era routinely carried cannons for defensive purposes, particularly if they were sailing into areas known to be infested by pirates. "Letters of marque and reprisal" were issued by the government in time of war, to allow private vessels to be used for offensive purposes. This was to augment the official navy. Vessels sailing under letters of marque would raid the enemy's commerce, with the profit motive of getting to keep whatever they captured. (This in effect was legalized piracy, recognized under the laws of war.) I don't know of any cases where privateers would go up against regular navy warships. First of all, they would be overmatched, and secondly, there would be no profit motive for doing so.

The last time the U.S. issued letters of marque was during the War of 1812. However, the arming of vessels (for defensive purposes) continued after that time.

 

[Spats McGee]

Gun free zones are dumb. Teachers, responsible/mature students, and other faculty ought to be armed.

@Art Eatman , here’s another wrinkle for you. Let’s assume Trump declares a national emergency and tries to build his wall. Eminent domain, etc. Can you see a liberal President using a national emergency to speed through gun confinscation? I certainly can, which is why I want better constitutional protections for gun ownership and use.

What better language would you suggest to protect the RKBA than "shall not be infringed?"

The 2A is not unlimited. There is a reason we don’t have common civilian ownership of machine guns, home-defense flamethrowers or carry of grenades. There is a reason we don’t sell AT4s at Academy. All rights have limitations. Gun ownership is no different.

The existence of some current limitations is not necessarily a sound justification for the implementation of new ones. And I submit that many of those restrictions are constitutionally questionable, if one honestly & seriously looks at: (a) the usual standard of constitutional scrutiny afforded to individual, fundamental rights (strict scrutiny); and (b) the "text and history" evaluation by which SCOTUS says we should judge 2A challenges.

@GEM , you hit the nail on the head. I think it is completely appropriate, acceptable and right to own, carry and responsibly use a firearm. I just think that we ought to make guns that can put a lot of bullets down range quickly ought to be scrutinized more closely than they currently are, regardless of shape, caliber or other characteristics.

Scrutinized more closely than what? So an AR chambered in .223, requires closer scrutiny than a Winchester Model 100 chambered in .308? Simply because 30-round magazines are more readily available? Where does a Glock 19 fit in that scheme?

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but to act as a privateer, you needed a letter of marquis from the government. So that's a license to use the cannons. Now did that mean that private cannons are not allowed at that time, I don't think so - but again, not my area. Anyway, being a privateer is an example of a regulated use, so is that any good?

I'm not a historian, but my gut reaction to that is that I don't think you had to have a license to own the cannons, or even to use them, but only to use them as a privateer. If we have a historian that knows better, please step up and correct me.

ETA: Looks like @AlexanderA beat me to it while I was typing.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'VE ALREADY POSTED IN THIS THREAD THAT THE TROLL-CALLING NEEDS TO STOP.

 

[Pudge]

Gun free zones are dumb. Teachers, responsible/mature students, and other faculty ought to be armed.

@Art Eatman , here’s another wrinkle for you. Let’s assume Trump declares a national emergency and tries to build his wall. Eminent domain, etc. Can you see a liberal President using a national emergency to speed through gun confinscation? I certainly can, which is why I want better constitutional protections for gun ownership and use.

The 2A is not unlimited. There is a reason we don’t have common civilian ownership of machine guns, home-defense flamethrowers or carry of grenades. There is a reason we don’t sell AT4s at Academy. All rights have limitations. Gun ownership is no different.

@GEM , you hit the nail on the head. I think it is completely appropriate, acceptable and right to own, carry and responsibly use a firearm. I just think that we ought to make guns that can put a lot of bullets down range quickly ought to be scrutinized more closely than they currently are, regardless of shape, caliber or other characteristics.

I am much more interested in considering gun control legislation which focuses on reducing violent crime rather than restricting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.

 

[Zoogster]

Violent crime is far more complex, and most of it for awhile now stems from violent glorified subcultures in minority communities that are shielded as a result of political correctness. This is funded through drug use by an even larger population.
The jails and prisons members of these communities then go to are organized violent crime zones where the more organized and violent prevail and help to encourage loyalty to a violent and predatory way of life.

It is more politically correct to make the object the problem and divert attention from that far more complex failure.
Most murders are gang members killing rivals in the drug world, and most of the rest of the population has a murder rate similar to parts of Europe without common firearm ownership.