More pressure on SCOTUS to hear Maryland AWB

[ArmedCorgi]

Not going to read through all the BS...

I guess reading comprehension is a problem and the fact that there is arguing over magazines at all proves my point that I posted. Both sides of the argument are wrong, entirely!

If "STRICT" scrutiny is applied, as it "IS" to other rights, but not the 2nd. There is NO argument at all, because as such, I can enjoy exercising my 2nd Amendment Right any Damned way I see fit! So maybe those who profess to know how the courts work, and those who don't care, would do themselves all a world of good to understand the difference!

In a truly FREE society, whereas the inalienable rights are mine, and not granted, considered, or given by the courts, or politicians, but by birth, that says it all. When we allow and accept the thought that these Rights or any part of them are ok to be infringed upon, in any manner, then we have lost. Fact is, if the magazine is not protected, or has no real worth, then why regulate it? It's counterintuitive to say otherwise, like just because it's good for the children or LE. We could attach the same line of thinking to HP rounds. Green tip, etc., as has been tried. It's an artificial round-about method of control and little more. When you defacto disarm law abiding citizens at the expense of allowing the criminal element to have an upper hand, then you are lawfully denying your citizens their "Right" to defense, period! And the courts should not be setting the bar on what level of defense is acceptable. Furthermore, I find it counterintuitive as well that LE has justification to arm themselves to the teeth under the same premise, ie, protection/defense, and then claim a citizen not be afforded the same. In itself, it creates a separate class in my opinion as in all seriousness, it's just a job. It would be no different to allow those with household incomes above $500,000.00 to be exempt from being required to have a pistol license... It would be a separate class of people afforded special privileges due to their vocation or affluence! That's not where I wanted this to go, but it's a good example. See, in other countries, even the LE aren't allow to take their toys home and must be like every other citizen once they leave the office, lol. Anyways...

So... "STRICT" scrutiny is where we need to be!!!

That is all, thanks for reading, lol.

 

[Defilade]

other than read the 2nd Amendment

Like Will Said And yourself. You can't interpret what the 2nd says without having someone inject some kind of Grey area? It was written to be understood by common folk.

 

[Cooolone]

Like Will Said And yourself. You can't interpret what the 2nd says without having someone inject some kind of Grey area? It was written to be understood by common folk.

The Grey area you describe is the void created by medium scrutiny! There is "NO" grey area with "STRICT" scrutiny!

People need to understand that in its entirety...

Stop looking for scraps thrown off the table and demand to sit there with all others and enjoy the meal!

 

[dsdmmat]

Magazine restrictions are NOT a violation of the 2A! Period. Don't get me wrong, I hate the laws that restrict capacity but it is not a 2A violation.

The rest of the case is in direct violation.

Arbratrary and capricious, those are the two words that make 10 round limits unconstitutional. A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law. 5 USC. 706(2)(A) (1988).

 

[Marine Cpl]

This isn't a matter of winning or losing an argument. It's about determining whether a reduced capacity magazines is a 2nd Amendment infringement. I'm saying it isn't because since 1994 firearms have been shipped with 10 round magazines that are now considered an industry standard. You and others argue the opposite but provide NO proof of your position other than read the 2nd Amendment which my the way has been interperated a million ways to Sunday since time began.

Now show me where I'm wrong so I can change my opinion on the matter or let's agree to disagree. It's really that simple

According to your laws, magazines are weapons. If you get caught with a 30 rounder, you'll be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon. A weapon is an arm according to your laws. So if it's an arm, shall it be infringed?

According to common sense however, a magazine is an integral part of a firearm.

Either way, they are supposed to be protected. Nowhere does it say in the 2A that it is for standard arms.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

The Grey area you describe is the void created by medium scrutiny! There is "NO" grey area with "STRICT" scrutiny!

People need to understand that in its entirety...

Stop looking for scraps thrown off the table and demand to sit there with all others and enjoy the meal!

Why are there levels of scrutinty to begin with? If the amendments were written with simplicity in mind, for the common man to understand, why complicate things with different levels of how the law should be interpreted? Shouldn't all statutes passed by state and federal government be held to the same basic rubric of standards when it comes to our civil rights?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

According to common sense however, a magazine is an integral part of a firearm.

According to common sense, a magazine is a metal box, the possession of which should not be criminal.

 

[Cooolone]

Let's break it down to much simpler terms...

Do criminals use high capacity magazines?
If yes, then limiting law abiding citizens the same level of defense is an infringement.

Nowhere to hide with that!

If we examine NYS justifiable defense, as requiring only equal force be applied in defense. Wouldn't limiting me as a Law abiding citizen put me at a disadvantage to the criminal element that by definition does not obey the law?

Consider, if all guns evaporated and all the world was left to use sticks for its violence, would only allowing citizens a 10" stick for defense be a problem, when only the LE community and criminals used 72" staffs?

No different when you place an arbitrary limit upon a device that defines the capacity a firearm can carry without the necessity to reload. Yes the firearm will still function, but certainly to a lessor efficiency in the worst opportune time in a practical sense. But any way you want to slice it and dice it, it's just an element of control.

If we don't tell people how to vote, we shouldn't be telling them how to arm themselves. If we aren't controlling speech, we shouldn't be determining what accessories are acceptable on a firearm. I could probably write a hundred silly examples, but the point is made.

Regards
: )

 

[Chuck D]

According to your laws, magazines are weapons. If you get caught with a 30 rounder, you'll be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon. A weapon is an arm according to your laws. So if it's an arm, shall it be infringed?

According to common sense however, a magazine is an integral part of a firearm.

Either way, they are supposed to be protected. Nowhere does it say in the 2A that it is for standard arms.

Agreed...a magazine is an integral part of a firearm. Nowhere does it say a 30 round mag or 17 round mag. That's the problem.

The argument will be made that there is no infringement because you can still purchase the firearm with a working magazine.

....and that argument will fly same as you have 1st Amendment rights but once you make threats you can be charged with harassment.

No right is seen anymore as absolute even if it is.

By the way, they're not MY laws. Getting good and pissed off because someone points out the obvious doesn't serve your purpose. I didn't pass these laws nor dId I advocate for them. I'm stuck with them same as you.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Agreed...a magazine is an integral part of a firearm. Nowhere does it say a 30 round mag or 17 round mag. That's the problem.

The argument will be made that there is no infringement because you can still purchase the firearm with a working magazine.

....and that argument will fly same as you have 1st Amendment rights but once you make threats you can be charged with harassment.

No right is seen anymore as absolute even if it is.

By the way, they're not MY laws. Getting good passed off because someone points out the obvious doesn't serve your purpose. I didn't pass these laws nor dId I advocate for them. I'm stuck with them same as you.

Look up the stick analogy used above. The 2A was created to give the citizenry the same capabilities as the military. If you only allow the citizenry to possess 10 rounders than you just changed the capability of the same firearm that the military possesses with their 30 rounders.

It's supposed to not be infringed.

 

[Chuck D]

Look up the stick analogy used above. The 2A was created to give the citizenry the same capabilities as the military. If you only allow the citizenry to possess 10 rounders than you just changed the capability of the same firearm that the military possesses with their 30 rounders.

It's supposed to not be infringed.

I understand and I agree but the magazine capacity means nothing if you can't buy the firearm because it's banned.

Let's work on reversing the AWB ban THEN tackle the mag cap gig. We haven't made progress because in my opinion were looking for a home run when a ground rules double would be a great start.

 

[Robin]

Take it a step further, where in the constitution does it give the Supreme's the power of judicial review. Marbury v. Madison was a coup d'tat.
Robin

 

[Gunright]

Agreed...a magazine is an integral part of a firearm. Nowhere does it say a 30 round mag or 17 round mag. That's the problem.

The argument will be made that there is no infringement because you can still purchase the firearm with a working magazine.

....and that argument will fly same as you have 1st Amendment rights but once you make threats you can be charged with harassment.

No right is seen anymore as absolute even if it is.

By the way, they're not MY laws. Getting good and pissed off because someone points out the obvious doesn't serve your purpose. I didn't pass these laws nor dId I advocate for them. I'm stuck with them same as you.

By your logic, if a law was passed that only allowed single round magazines, and firearms makers started shipping them with the single round magazine, you would argue the law is constitutional because firearms were being sold with the one round magazine standard. [The makers WOULD do this - simply because they want to sell and will do anything they have to do (including going along with an unconstitutional law) to sell their stuff.]

 

[Marine Cpl]

I understand and I agree but the magazine capacity means nothing if you can't buy the firearm because it's banned.

Let's work on reversing the AWB ban THEN tackle the mag cap gig. We haven't made progress because in my opinion were looking for a home run when a ground rules double would be a great start.

Goal post change.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Goal post change.

It's pragmantic @Willjr75, not ideal. We are all with you on the ideal believe me. We are all on the same team here.

 

[dsdmmat]

Feature bans are also arbratrary and capricious, they were banned because someone though they looked scary. We would not ban a vehicle because it features that made it easier to drive. why is it we ban rifles with features that make them easier to control because some soccer mom and politician craps their pants when they see a picture of one?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

they were banned because someone though they looked scary.

You answered your own question here I think. Plus Shannon Watts is a twat.

 

[dsdmmat]

You answered your own question here I think. Plus Shannon Watts is a twat.

Unconstitutional either way you slice it.

 

[Chuck D]

Goal post change.

Nope....not for a second.

Smart strategy perhaps, just like eating the elephant one bite at a time vs. one big gulp you can't swallow

I don't know how else to point out the obvious. Believe what you must but when things don't change if you're honest with yourself you'll admit the strategy you implemented was flawed.

 

[Chuck D]

By your logic, if a law was passed that only allowed single round magazines, and firearms makers started shipping them with the single round magazine, you would argue the law is constitutional because firearms were being sold with the one round magazine standard. [The makers WOULD do this - simply because they want to sell and will do anything they have to do (including going along with an unconstitutional law) to sell their stuff.]

Nope. A reduced capacity offering is already established as an industry standard. That's why the 7 round limit in the Safe Act didn't survive judicial review.

That's established case law by the way. You're example is a rather ambitious stretch in an effort to make your point.

Besides, aren't there ammo capacity limits when hunting ? Do you consider them infringements?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Nope. A reduced capacity offering is already established as an industry standard. That's why the 7 round limit in the Safe Act didn't survive judicial review.

That's established case law by the way. You're example is a rather ambitious stretch in an effort to make your point.

Besides, aren't there ammo capacity limits when hunting ? Do you consider them infringements?

Yes. There are none in some states. That's my point regarding the indoctrination and brainwashing. You see it as normal.

It isn't. Neither are the 10 rounders.

 

[Chuck D]

Yes. There are none in some states.

Ok then.....what's your point? Some States cherish firearms rights and some don't ?

There is nothing more I can add to this discussion. It's an exercise in futility. We keep doing the same old thing and expect to get a different result.

All I'm certain of is that the past and current strategy has never yielded results. If and when it does, I'll admit publicly I was wrong. Until then....keep.arguing the same old tired argument that yields ZERO results in our favor.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Ok then.....what's your point? Some States cherish firearms rights and some don't ?

There is nothing more I can add to this discussion. It's an exercise in futility. We keep doing the same old thing and expect to get a different result.

All I'm certain of is that the past and current strategy has never yielded results. If and when it does, I'll admit publicly I was wrong. Until then....keep.arguing the same old tired argument that yields ZERO results in our favor.

You brought it up in regards to hunting. This discussion isn't about the strategy. It's about the incorrect statement that magazines aren't protected under the 2A.

 

[Gunright]

Ok then.....what's your point? Some States cherish firearms rights and some don't ?

There is nothing more I can add to this discussion. It's an exercise in futility. We keep doing the same old thing and expect to get a different result.

All I'm certain of is that the past and current strategy has never yielded results. If and when it does, I'll admit publicly I was wrong. Until then....keep.arguing the same old tired argument that yields ZERO results in our favor.

The current strategy is for them to take away a yard, and us to feel good if we get back six inches. This has been going on for the last 80 years this way. More and more "reasonable" compromises. That is the tactic that isn't working.

 

[Chuck D]

Where have I mentioned making compromises ? The approach I suggest is a layered approach. The approach that's being pushed here is all or nothing which has NEVER worked in NYS. Please show me two important things. One where have we in NYS ever regained 6 inches of ground and where in the 2nd Amendment does it address magazine capacity ?

If you can't....then admit it.
If your approach is the preferred method, why hasn't it worked ?

..oh wait...it must be my fault.

Sorry.....(ugh) .

 

[Chuck D]

Yes. There are none in some states. That's my point regarding the indoctrination and brainwashing. You see it as normal.

It isn't. Neither are the 10 rounders.

Next handgun purchase you make, let me know what capacity magazines it comes with then tell me about them not being "normal."

 

[holdover]

""where in the 2nd Amendment does it address magazine capacity?""


Where does it mention triggers?

 

[Chuck D]

""where in the 2nd Amendment does it address magazine capacity?""


Where does it mention triggers?

Yawn.....

 

[holdover]

According to your laws, magazines are weapons. If you get caught with a 30 rounder, you'll be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon. A weapon is an arm according to your laws. So if it's an arm, shall it be infringed?
QUOTE]

This is an excellent point. How can they reconcile this? A person in Possession of a 30 rd mag can be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon, but banning the 30 rd magazine because isn't considered a weapon is OK .

This is a definite conflict in the law.

 

[holdover]

Yawn.....

No answer? Go ahead , give it a shot.