The case against magazine limits and restrictions

[usmarine0352_2005]

Many people say that most self-defense shootings use less than 7 rounds or that there's usually only 1 assailant.

Besides the fact that you never know how many rounds that you may need in self-defense and shouldn't be restricted in how many rounds you can carry here you see you don't know how many assailants there maybe.


This appears to be a case where the victims cooperated with the suspects and still were shot. Which goes to show you just because you cooperate with the bad guys doesn't mean they won't kill you.



This case just happened recently.



http://bringmethenews.com/2015/08/2...rning-home-invasion-police-looking-for-4-men/

4 people shot during early morning home invasion; police looking for 4 men

8:14 p.m. EDT August 26, 2015

Four people were shot during a home invasion in Brooklyn Center early Wednesday morning, and police are now searching for the four suspects involved.

Police said four male suspects entered the home on the 5000 block of Drew Avenue around 3:15 a.m. Wednesday. Police say the suspects shot four people, three men and one woman. A man who identified himself as one of the people shot, said one of the suspects held a gun in the mouth of his 10-year-old son.

The victims told police that four men entered the home and “made demands of the victims”, before searching the home and then shooting the victims and fleeing the residence, the release notes.

 

[HammsBeer]

Mag limits of X# of rounds are just arbitrary numbers. When those limits don't stem the gang shootings, they will demand smaller and smaller mags until all you get are single shots.

The AWB mag limits didn't seem to stop the Columbine shootings in the least.

 

[denton]

I think there is a good argument to be made that might eventually banish arbitrary magazine limits.

Magazines are not accessories. They are necessary, functional parts of semi-auto firearms. They are covered by 2A.

Under the criteria established in Heller and McDonald the entity that passes the law has a burden to meet. Gun owners don't have the burden, the legislating body does.

Part of the burden on a state banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is that they have to show that something gawdawful happens when the 11th round is added. I believe it is not possible to meet that burden.

So, hopefully, when the Supreme Court gets around to calling me for advice, I can fill them in and we can get an end to this nonsense. Still waiting for the call.

 

[herrwalther]

Magazines are not accessories. They are necessary, functional parts of semi-auto firearms. They are covered by 2A.

Supreme Court disagrees with you. They are not considered essential components of a firearm. If they were considered essential, long standing magazine bans in NY, NJ, CA and other would be over turned shortly after being passed. That is not the case.

Magazine bans are a feel good measure. A mass shooter will either A) ignore the ban and use high capacity magazines anyway or B) carry more "legal" magazines. It doesn't make any sense to pit a law abiding owner against an illegal act while limiting the ammo to defend oneself. Then again I have never understood the anti mindset.

 

[Tommygunn]

Supreme Court disagrees with you. They are not considered essential components of a firearm. If they were considered essential, long standing magazine bans in NY, NJ, CA and other would be over turned shortly after being passed. That is not the case.

Magazine bans are a feel good measure. A mass shooter will either A) ignore the ban and use high capacity magazines anyway or B) carry more "legal" magazines. It doesn't make any sense to pit a law abiding owner against an illegal act while limiting the ammo to defend oneself. Then again I have never understood the anti mindset.

"Not considered essential"???? Have any of the SCOTUS judges tried to operate a magazine fed weapon without the mag????

 

[gbran]

Even if banned, hi-cap mags can be made in your garage with just a little bit of skill and tools.

 

[TruthTellers]

Even if banned, hi-cap mags can be made in your garage with just a little bit of skill and tools.

Or just drive over state lines and go on a shopping spree.

 

[TruthTellers]

Mag limits of X# of rounds are just arbitrary numbers. When those limits don't stem the gang shootings, they will demand smaller and smaller mags until all you get are single shots.

The AWB mag limits didn't seem to stop the Columbine shootings in the least.

You're completely right about the magazine round limits, they're completely arbitrary that get pulled from out of nowhere. The new tactic that's being floated about is banning anything semi automatic. I don't think that's going to fly nationally, but I wouldn't be surprised if NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA, of HI pull it off on a state level.

Of course, it will never stop at semi automatics because if we look at Australia, they've had semi autos banned for nearly 20 years and they're now talking about banning bolt actions and lever shotguns with 7 round tubes.

 

[denton]

Supreme Court disagrees with you. They are not considered essential components of a firearm.

Have they issued a decision to that effect? Or are we just waiting?

Anything essential to a right is as protected as the right itself. For example, being able to purchase a firearm is essential to owning one. So purchasing a firearm is a protected right.

You heard it here first: We are not one Justice away from having Heller overturned. That is now settled law. The Supreme Court would only revisit it if it were a truly awful decision, which it is not. (I'd still like 2-3 more Scalias on the bench though.) A new AWB would be unconstitutional under the reasoning of Heller, as would a ban on semiauto firearms: 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms commonly held for lawful purposes. X is a firearm commonly held for lawful purposes. Therefore, the right to keep and bear X is protected and a blanket ban on X is unconstitutional. Substitute semiauto, AR15, AK47, etc. for X.

Will we continue to see silly, propagandist legislation from some of the blue states? Sure. Will it endure? My bet is that it will not. The tide is very much running in our favor. It just takes a long time for most of these issues to reach the Supreme Court. We probably still have a couple of decades of cases before the landscape is settled.

 

[JSH1]

The landscape will never be settled. Gun control laws go back to the very start of our nation. The first I can find is from 1813 when Louisiana banned concealed carry. Like many other issues the 2nd amendment will continue to be a focus of debate.

I agree limits on magazine sizes are ineffective, feel-good measures. I also don't see the courts striking them down. California's assault rifle ban dates from 1989 which is plenty of time for cases to make it through the courts. Banning a whole class of firearm like semi-automatics likely wouldn't stand. I see no evidence limits on magazine capacity will be struck down.

 

[denton]

JSH1....

You may very well be right. If I'm sure of one legal notion, it's that I have a miserable track record at predicting what the Supreme Court will do.

But I think we have more reason to be optimistic than you're indicating.

Under Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS requires legislating authorities to meet either intermediate or strict scrutiny in the laws they pass. Rational basis is not good enough for 2A issues, because 2A guarantees a fundamental right. That puts the burden on the legislating authority to show that there is a strong government interest at stake. IOW, in the case of 10 round magazines, they have to show that 11 round magazines are somehow much more dangerous, and carry some special hazard not present in 10 round magazines. The burden is not on the magazine owners to show that normal capacity magazines are OK.

I also think that it is reasonable to expect a ruling that says that semiauto function is seriously crippled without a magazine, and that magazines are therefore essential to their operation. It follows that magazines are as protected under 2A as firearms.

30 round and larger magazines are protected. They are commonly held for lawful purposes. Therefore, they are protected and blanket bans violate 2A under the reasoning in Heller.

But, as I've said, I'm still waiting for that call from SCOTUS asking me to advise them on the issue.

We'll see what happens over the next decade or two.

 

[JSH1]

A blanket ban on magazine fed firearms may well violate the 2nd amendment. (I personally think it would) I see no reason to believe limiting magazines to a specific size is a violation. Plenty of things about laws in general and gun laws in specific are arbitrary. Barrel lengths are arbitrary but have been uphead. Why is a 17" shotgun more dangerous than a 19 inch? There is nothing magical about that number but the court has ruled that barrel lengths are constitutional.

You seem to be forgetting the part of the Heller cause that said the 2nd amendment is not unlimited and is subject to "reasonable" restriction. What is reasonable or not is very subjective but in the end the court will decide. Is limiting magazines to 15 rounds reasonable? How about 10, 7, 5, 3? Time will tell as the cases make it to court.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I agree limits on magazine sizes are ineffective, feel-good measures. I also don't see the courts striking them down. California's assault rifle ban dates from 1989 which is plenty of time for cases to make it through the courts. Banning a whole class of firearm like semi-automatics likely wouldn't stand. I see no evidence limits on magazine capacity will be struck down.

Well, for starters, there has been significant changes in the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court since then. The Heller decision is less than 10 years old. Prior to that, the Ninth Circuit (California) took the collective rights position, which basically holds that you can regulate guns out of existence if you want to and the Second Amendment means nothing.

So relying on the the 1989 date of the California ban isn't very useful in predicting future outcomes.

I'd like to add, that in general, I find your support of gun control to be more of a constant than your opposition to it. If anything, you seem to state your opposition to gun control as more of a hypothetical before you give 20 reasons why we should accept the latest gun control proposal. I'd like to be fair to you and hope that I am misunderstanding your "devil's advocate" stance; but it doesn't seem like I am

 

[JSH1]

We disagree on background checks. What does that have to do with magazine limits?

 

[GEM]

I agree. Reasonable restrictions will be used to support mag limits and the like. The mantra that you only need 3 shots (so you are an idiot if you carry an extra mag) has been common in internet discussions and picked up by antigunners. The idea of a modern sporting rifle (I'm a hunter!!) is a ghastly mistake as you don't need 30 rounds for hunting (and can't in many places). There's no hunting that can't be accomplished with a bolt action gun. That has been put forward by pseudo-gun rights organizations for years as a reason to limit long arms.

You can argue for the 30 rounders for gun games like carbine matches but they aren't hunting but oriented towards practicing killing and thus the domain of nuts. In fact, the modern sport folks undercut all the arguments for freeing up NFA guns. I remember watching a Guns and Ammo tv segment spouting the MSR mantra by comparing an AR to a fully auto M4. The hosts said the former was nice because it was semi but the latter was evil as being full auto.

The main reason for the high capacity mags is their aid in making the gun being easily more lethal. That makes them a risk for nuts as it eases their killing sprees according to the antigunners. The RKBA reason for the high cap mags is their use in SD and defense against tyranny.

Who wins the debate? Scalia certainly empowered the restriction mantra.

You can reasonably hunt with a bolt gun or a tube limited shotgun. You can defend your house against most miscreants with an SW Model 10 in 38 SPL. Thus, why not restrict ownership to such. That's what reasonable restrictions can be used argue for controls.

4 attackers, get two Model Tens and some speedloaders for Anthony. Don't hold your breath until this is clarifed. I'd bet the state laws stay and don't get to the SCOTUS - even with districts being in opposition to each other.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

We disagree on background checks. What does that have to do with magazine limits?

We disagree on a great many matters I suspect. As to magazine limits, your opinion seems to be much like that on background checks - you kind of disagree with the general concept as applied but here are 20 reasons why it will happen and you shouldn't worry too much when it does.

 

[yugorpk]

"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun." Bill Ruger

Its the dishonest ones I worry about.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Who wins the debate? Scalia certainly empowered the restriction mantra.

You have to get five votes to have a majority opinion. You aren't going to get there by throwing all the federal gun restrictions out the window. At the same time, you don't want to encourage strict analysis by the lower courts because they might reach conclusions that aren't helpful in the long term. A broad, vaguely defined phrase like "dangerous and unusual" serves both those needs. You've developed dicta that will get you five votes and give lazy judges an easy way to justify their decisions but still leave them vulnerable to being overturned later based on lack of solid reasoning - and if you are political, it serves the useful purpose of letting your foot soldiers know that they can still lose if they don't stay engaged and active while the margins of "dangerous and unusual" are defined in litigation.

Scalia's interest was probably not to categorically defend the Second Amendment as many here see it - and had it been, you'd probably not have five votes. Scalia's interest (IMO) was to bring the pro-RKBA crowd and the GOP closer together in interest.

 

[JSH1]

My thoughts on magazine limits:

• I don't support them
• They are an ineffective, feel-good measure
• All current evidence points to them being legal (Over time the courts will determine what a "reasonable" limit is)
• There is no chance of a magazine limit passing at the federal level in the near future (The 2020 state level elections are key)
• The battle will be at the state level

 

[Darkhorse]

"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun." Bill Ruger

Its the dishonest ones I worry about.

I guess Reginald Denny was dishonest?

He could have used 30, or 40, or 50...