My theory (opinion) on why magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional

[CorpsVet]

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to firearms for self defense, and since if one must act in self defense it would be beneficial to have as much capacity as possible, then limiting capacity of ammo magazines should be an infringement on ones ability to act in defense of one's self.

Thoughts?

 

[Snattlerake]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Rod Snell]

Unfortunately, there are nine justices on the Supreme Court who have the final authority on what is and is not constitutional, and none of us are one of them. So it does not make a hoot in hades what we think. And the SCOTUS and other Federal courts have made no ruling on magazine capacity other than they can be regulated.

 

[Rollpin]

An unjust law is no law at all. I don’t need 9 dipshits to misinterpret the Constitution for me to know how I’ll behave or not in the interest of my family’s safety.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Are any of the nine shooters or gun enthusiasts?

The dems seem to think that the 2A should never have evolved with the firearms. Some claim that it only applies to the weapons that existed when the amendment was created, which is total BS because there are hundreds of thousands of other laws that have evolved over time.

 

[CorpsVet]

If the 2nd doesn't apply to modern weapons, then the 1st doesn't apply to radio and tv news, etc.

 

[dennishoddy]

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to firearms for self defense, and since if one must act in self defense it would be beneficial to have as much capacity as possible, then limiting capacity of ammo magazines should be an infringement on ones ability to act in defense of one's self.

Thoughts?

There is some legal precedent on the legality of high capacity magazines. I'll put in a small quote from the Cato Institute, but the entire article is best read to fully understand and it's way too long to post the text here.

As recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. By implication, that right is not limited to guns but extends also to the ammunition and magazines that make guns operable. The Court also held that the Second Amendment protects arms in “common use,” which would cover the 20-round magazines that are standard equipment for a significant portion of weapons currently in lawful use. Although banning some “novelty magazines,” such as the 100-round Beta C-Mag — unpopular because of its weight, expense, and propensity to jam — might be constitutional, there is no legitimate constitutional argument for removing common magazines from the scope of Second Amendment protection.
https://www.cato.org/publications/l...mpty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions

Since 30 round magazines are currently common issue for the Military, and every weapon ever developed for the most part was for military use, I would thing they would fall into "common use". Non Military currently has about 30 million of them in circulation according to some reports.

 

[Snattlerake]

Are any of the nine shooters or gun enthusiasts?

The dems seem to think that the 2A should never have evolved with the firearms. Some claim that it only applies to the weapons that existed when the amendment was created, which is total BS because there are hundreds of thousands of other laws that have evolved over time.

I will bet you some are packing heat.

 

[gerhard1]

I will bet you some are packing heat.

Actually, I carry a gun. I'm quite warm enough, thank you very much.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is some legal precedent on the legality of high capacity magazines. I'll put in a small quote from the Cato Institute, but the entire article is best read to fully understand and it's way too long to post the text here.

As recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. By implication, that right is not limited to guns but extends also to the ammunition and magazines that make guns operable. The Court also held that the Second Amendment protects arms in “common use,” which would cover the 20-round magazines that are standard equipment for a significant portion of weapons currently in lawful use. Although banning some “novelty magazines,” such as the 100-round Beta C-Mag — unpopular because of its weight, expense, and propensity to jam — might be constitutional, there is no legitimate constitutional argument for removing common magazines from the scope of Second Amendment protection.
https://www.cato.org/publications/l...mpty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions

Since 30 round magazines are currently common issue for the Military, and every weapon ever developed for the most part was for military use, I would thing they would fall into "common use". Non Military currently has about 30 million of them in circulation according to some reports.

Also note that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for banning anything that is not in common use. Flintlock arms are not in common use and they aren't banned. Nevertheless, 'use' is not mentioned in the Second Amendment.

In the Miller case, the Court added 'use' ("for lawful purposes") in their dissertation on the Second Amendment then made the claim that the right is not absolute when it comes to keeping and bearing arms 'for whatever purpose.' Laws can be written to prohibit and punish what ever is deemed to be an illegal use of arms but not the keeping and bearing of arms. Kill someone with a gun other than for self defense and you are up on murder charges. Pistol whip someone with a gun and you are up on battery charges.

The reference to Ginsberg's meaning of 'bear arms' in Muscarello is in no way the definitive meaning of 'bear arms.' She, her self, stated it was "a most familiar meaning," and not the only meaning, therefore, to limit the bearing of arms to any purpose is fallacious. I, myself, cannot give any sort of answer other than I carry (bear) my arms so I will not be caught empty handed if a need does arise. If that can be construed to constitute a purpose, I'll accept it as being all encompassing, non-limiting, and truly absolute.

What a person doesn't say, conflates, vitiates, and dissembles is just as important and can carry as much weight as what they state. In fact, it can render what they have stated meaningless under the cloud of conflation, vitiation, and dissemble. "(A)most familiar meaning" is just such a pile of hooey.

Remove all these obfuscations, ambiguities, diversions, and outright misconstruals from all the courtroom dalliances and all you have left of the Second Amendment is that it is absolute when it comes to protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period. Doesn't matter if it is magazine capacity, bore or gage size, requires a fork lift to pick it up, whatever it delivers, whatever size crater it can create upon detonation, or what the size of the brass bead is on a front sight.

If you want to attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms legally, pass an amendment. Good luck with that. Just bear in mind what sparked the American Revolution.

Woody