Magazine restrictions

Mr. terzmo said:

The Congress is talking magazine restrictions on "certain" type of guns . So if they spell out what mags for what guns are restricted...how will that affect States (NY) that restrict all. The dummies may restrict an AR-15 but not a mini 30 or Remington 7400. And so on

Click to expand...

Wont affect New York at all, unless the restriction them even further tha 10 rounds

Mr. terzmo said:

so States can restrict further than the Feds ?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Mr. terzmo said:

The Congress is talking magazine restrictions on "certain" type of guns .

Click to expand...

I had heard this from a friend but could find nothing. Got a link or source for this news?

Mr. terzmo said:

so States can restrict further than the Feds ?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

The state can restrict federal law further but not loosen it. For example if a federal law says that a barrel can only be a minimum of 16 inches to be considered a rifle, the state cannot say that the rifle can have a minimum of 15 inches. They can say that the rifle can only have a minimum of 17 inches however.

With that said, neither law is constitutional since it goes against the 2A.

Willjr75 said:

The state can restrict federal law further but not loosen it. For example if a federal law says that a barrel can only be a minimum of 16 inches to be considered a rifle, the state cannot say that the rifle can have a minimum of 15 inches. They can say that the rifle can only have a minimum of 17 inches however.

With that said, neither law is constitutional since it goes against the 2A.

Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you, but, the states do loosen federal law every time another one makes pot legal.

garyv350 said:

I am not disagreeing with you, but, the states do loosen federal law every time another one makes pot legal.

Click to expand...

Not supposed to be though.

garyv350 said:

I am not disagreeing with you, but, the states do loosen federal law every time another one makes pot legal.

Click to expand...

And if the feds really wanted to (and they have) they can kick doors down and make arrests

The Leftist Progressives want to start by banning all rifles that accept magazines. Next, they'll make a play to ban all pistols that accept magazines. They've already plainly stated that they want to ban all semiautomatic firearms.

I am waiting for Judge Benetiz (sp?) Ruling on Cally 10 round cap being unconstitutional to make the rounds beyond just out there.

NJ just had their mag ban upheld.

I am not holding my breath.

BDinPutnam said:

I am waiting for Judge Benetiz (sp?) Ruling on Cally 10 round cap being unconstitutional to make the rounds beyond just out there.

NJ just had their mag ban upheld.

I am not holding my breath.

Click to expand...

Hes the one that stopped the ban the a few days later let it go into effect?

Edwardteach72 said:

Hes the one that stopped the ban the a few days later let it go into effect?

Click to expand...

I don't believe so. He's the one that told California it beggars belief that standard cap magazines are dangerous since they're inherently more useful in a self defense situation.

BDinPutnam said:

I don't believe so. He's the one that told California it beggars belief that standard cap magazines are dangerous since they're inherently more useful in a self defense situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah the one judge who blocked the ban allowing all mags into cali, the about 3 days later over turned the injunction

Perhaps it's selfish, but part of me says if they make a federal magazine ban , or a federal "unsafe act" that it might be our only hope of getting a case fast tracked to the scotus and finally getting some relief because we have no hope of getting it in New York.

Celt said:

Perhaps it's selfish, but part of me says if they make a federal magazine ban , or a federal "unsafe act" that it might be our only hope of getting a case fast tracked to the scotus and finally getting some relief because we have no hope of getting it in New York.

Click to expand...

Yup because IIRC atleast one of the circuit courts have ruled them unconstitutional and the feds would be in direct violation of that ruling which could fast track SCOTUS to actual hear such a case

Edwardteach72 said:

Yup because IIRC atleast one of the circuit courts have ruled them unconstitutional and the feds would be in direct violation of that ruling which could fast track SCOTUS to actual hear such a case

Click to expand...

We talking the potential mag ban or federal "unsafe act"?

ArmedCorgi said:

We talking the potential mag ban or federal "unsafe act"?

Click to expand...

Magazine

Edwardteach72 said:

Yup because IIRC atleast one of the circuit courts have ruled them unconstitutional and the feds would be in direct violation of that ruling which could fast track SCOTUS to actual hear such a case

Click to expand...

I believe that's the case I was referring to but dont have the citation handy.

BDinPutnam said:

I believe that's the case I was referring to but dont have the citation handy.

Click to expand...

Ooh ok I see what you are saying now

Celt said:

Perhaps it's selfish, but part of me says if they make a federal magazine ban , or a federal "unsafe act" that it might be our only hope of getting a case fast tracked to the scotus and finally getting some relief because we have no hope of getting it in New York.

Click to expand...

I call this the "Share the Pain" strategy.

Let those gun owners who've heretofore been on the sidelines in the "real United States" face the real prospect of losing their 20 & 30-round rifle mags, the 15-round mags for their Glock 19s, the 17-round mags for their Glock 17s, and the 12-round magazines for their EDC compact pistols. Only then might we see some stirring.

But...there is also the real possibility that our federal overlords simply accede to the whims of the whining Left and steamroll the 2A rights of everyone everywhere in the nation.

They've done it before, they'll do it again.

I read either a thread or an article where it mentioned that 58 shots were fired towards the Dayton shooter by police.

If 6 highly trained. B.A.M.F.s need that many rounds to collectively stop a threat, as the writer stated, your wife deserves a standard capacity 17 rd mag for her Glock to single handedly protect herself.

Target said:

I read either a thread or an article where it mentioned that 58 shots were fired towards the Dayton shooter by police.

If 6 highly trained. B.A.M.F.s need that many rounds to collectively stop a threat, as the writer stated, your wife deserves a standard capacity 17 rd mag for her Glock to single handedly protect herself.

Click to expand...

I think this is what you were talking about @Target.

garyv350 said:

I am not disagreeing with you, but, the states do loosen federal law every time another one makes pot legal.

Click to expand...

There is no penalty to the States for doing this. If there were, they would not do it. Which is why States can get away with laws against 2A, there's no penalty and until there is or the Fed rules some or all gun laws null and void.....they will keep doing it.