holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Where in the constitution does it say that they cannot ban bullets? or barrels or weapon sights?
More pressure on SCOTUS to hear Maryland AWB
- Thread starter NY Leatherneck
- Start date
spat
.700 Nitro Express
How is a magazine not an integral component of "arms" ?
Are you saying that we could be limited to single shot rifles without violating the 2A ? The difference between a 1 round magazine and a 10 round is entirely arbitrary, if they can do 10, they could do 1.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
In the word "arms". It doesn't say "right to bear guns" it says "arms". If its a weapon, or a component of a weapon it is covered.
The Constitution only grants specific powers (as spelled out in the main body of the document) to the Feds everything else is off limits to them.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
ACLU interpretation of the second amendment.
Robin
Robin
Okay, you guys who believe that a mag is part of the 2A, go on and keep fighting that fight. It has been fixed so many tomes already in the Courts, right?
Me, I am hoping that more Lawyers and Gun Organizations fight the Magazine Capacity limitations by using some Rights that will actually work, the Fifth and the Fourteenth. Those two can and will prevail if argued correctly.
Me, I am hoping that more Lawyers and Gun Organizations fight the Magazine Capacity limitations by using some Rights that will actually work, the Fifth and the Fourteenth. Those two can and will prevail if argued correctly.
Whether the courts have fixed it or not is irrelevant. All governments are made up of man and men are corruptable. The court system is no different. We don't have a justice system any longer we have a Just Us system where the elite and powerful have "rights and privileges" while the serfs have "hopes and dreams of being treated fairly."
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
There have now been eight amicus briefs filed in favor of Kolbe. Maryland has until October 10 to respond.
Kolbe v. Hogan is docketed as 17-127 if anyone is interested in tracking the case.
Kolbe v. Hogan is docketed as 17-127 if anyone is interested in tracking the case.
Onegunnotenough
.40 S&W
they will not take the case. Reason is because if you read the rule of law, they must find favor that common use is common use, including magazine capacity. They would have to overturn too many restrictive laws in place, including our safe act. This will never happen, liberal influence is too strong on this coast and the other, and they have enough socialist/communistic idiots to keep it that way....its that simple... we know we would win the case hands down, and so do they. So, if they avoid taking the case, it all stays status quo.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You are just going by what has happened in the court system.
With that said, my point is that those court decisions are false and those rulings are based on politics and personal feelings rather than fair interpretations that don't even need to be interpreted but are due to infringements from the government.
I truly don't believe that you think that a magazine is not SUPPOSED to be protected part of an arm but are arguing against it anyway because for whatever reason, you accept their previous decisions.
Where there is dissention is NOT if the magazine is considered an integral component of the firearm that is protected under the 2nd Amendment, it's the capacity of that magazine and what exactly constitutes a "factory standard."
My belief is that as long as the manufacturers ship firearms with reduced capacity magazines i.e. 10 round mags, lawmakers and justices will refer these reduced capacity magazines as "not infringement" based upon the fact that one can still purchase the firearm with an established (since 1994) factory standard magazine and utilize it for all legal purposes.
This same argument is being deployed in CCW challenges. Can the State restrict firearms ownership to the home or does the 2nd Amendment carry over to concealed carry outside the home?
At every turn where lawmakers have attempted to go below the factory standard of 10 rounds, the legislation has been overturned because 95% of the firearms available in the marketplace today (full sized pistols and semi-auto rifles for example) are not offered with 10 round magazines. Of course sub compact handguns and revolvers are exceptions to the rule.
The Courts in socialist States have and will continue to adopt this strategy and its worked thus far. I don't see it changing in our favor anytime soon.
If magazine capacity was a watershed issue...we would have defeated the restriction by now.
My belief is that as long as the manufacturers ship firearms with reduced capacity magazines i.e. 10 round mags, lawmakers and justices will refer these reduced capacity magazines as "not infringement" based upon the fact that one can still purchase the firearm with an established (since 1994) factory standard magazine and utilize it for all legal purposes.
This same argument is being deployed in CCW challenges. Can the State restrict firearms ownership to the home or does the 2nd Amendment carry over to concealed carry outside the home?
At every turn where lawmakers have attempted to go below the factory standard of 10 rounds, the legislation has been overturned because 95% of the firearms available in the marketplace today (full sized pistols and semi-auto rifles for example) are not offered with 10 round magazines. Of course sub compact handguns and revolvers are exceptions to the rule.
The Courts in socialist States have and will continue to adopt this strategy and its worked thus far. I don't see it changing in our favor anytime soon.
If magazine capacity was a watershed issue...we would have defeated the restriction by now.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So if they make 1 round magazines for hunting, will those be the standard?
Every Court ruling, regardless of the jurisdiction incorporates "politics and personal feelings" and will continue to do so as long as human beings are making the decision.
Good luck eliminating those two factors from the equation.
We hate Ginsburg because she's an anti-gun zealot. We love Gorsuch because he supports the Constitution.
Are you telling me politics and personal feelings aren't involved here ?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don't understand your point or question. You either rule based on the Constitution without personal feelings or you don't.
I speak constantly about a 10 round factory standard magazine having been introduced in 1994 and the fact that every opportunity to go below that established standard by lawmakers has failed in the Courts.
...no one here is talking about a single round magazine for hunting.
Remember the ONLY victory we received from the 2nd Circuit concerned itself with the 7 round magazine limit ? Isn't that proof positive enough for you that my "opinion" just MAY have some validity ?
Never mind politics for a second....
Provide me ONE example of a decision you've made in your life that wasn't affected in the slightest bit by some degree of personal feelings, experience, subjectivity, or emotion.
You expect people , regardless of their political affiliation, to make judgments or issue rulings based on an emotionless interpretation of text.
I'm saying that's one hell of an expectation.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
No. That was because they wanted you to load 7 in a 10. 10 rounders weren't banned. Had they made 7 rounders in 1994, those would be the standard that you keep saying.
So when they start making 5 or 1 round magazines in 2020, those will be the new standard according to your argument.
You don't see that?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
My life has nothing to do with it. No one is paying me to not live my life based on personal feelings. However if I was hired to be a judge, I would rule in favor of gays being able to get health insurance from their partners even though I don't agree with homosexuality.
I do it now and call people sir who don't deserve to be called sir because I get paid to do it.
Yes..if they made 7 rounders in 1994 that would be the standard. Now you're getting it.
If we wanted to stop the reduced magazine capacity problem dead in its tracks manufacturers would have has to not offer anything but standard capacity magazines with their products thereby causing a complete and total ban on virtually every semi-auto firearm "in common use." Then there would be a constitutional issue. But because they didn't, now we have a new factory standard that will require a ban on 10 round magazines to create a new factory standard that even those scumbag politicians who would love to see firearms being driven out of civilian consumption couldn't support.
so...were stuck for the time being with 10.
You're also incorrect regarding Safe Act magazine capacity. The original intent was to only offer 7 round magazines with all new semi-auto firearms sold in the State. It was amended at the legislative level to allow 10 round magazines to be purchased but only loaded with 7 rounds for CCW and home defense and 10 rounds at the range. Then the 7 round stipulation was thrown out altogether by the 2nd Circuit.
It most certainly has EVERYTHING to do with it from the perspective that you expect others to act in a certain manner and you don't apply the same standards to your own actions.
Emotion, personal beliefs, prior experiences, influences all effect how we view the world and how we interact with it. Even "strict constructionists" are burdened by these factors.
Even you.....
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Emotions do tend to affect rulings unfortunately, but they are not supposed to. The system is supposed to be fair and impartial. Lady justice wears a blindfold. Decisions concerning constitutional issues should be guided by the constitution itself. Unfortuantely they are not always.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm not getting your argument. What's your argument with this standard thing? You say that because 10 were made that is the standard. Then you say they can't go below that because manufacturer don't make them. So assuming 10's were never made and 30's were the standard, wouldn't 5 rounders be the standard according to your logic? Those were made. But that would be too little so it wouldn't pass. Sounds like arbitrary to me.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
What? Read my post again. If I worked in a car wash, I would have to serve certain people. However, I don't have to in my personal life.
I agree completely. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws we all experience.
Ever have a bad day at work based upon something that happened in your personal life ?
Ever have a personal experience that changed the way you thought about your career or your professional relationships or the decisions you make?
You know EXACTLY what I'm taking about. No way you're that thick.
It is arbitrary....that's the point.
In 1994, someone came up with the bonehead idea that 10 rounds would be the "reasonable solution." So...factories who want to sell product and make a profit went along with it and now we're stuck with it.
In order for the max cap to change again, someone would have to come up with a new limit and it would have to be passed into law. then if the manufacturers wanted to accept the new limit, they'd build new magazines thereby creating a new industry standard. If they didn't they would simply abandon the marketplace.
This isn't that hard to understand.
Where we get into the heart of the discussion is when we investigate whether its an infringement to require reduced capacity magazines. So far, the Courts have said it isn't wither by ruling or refusing to hear the case. You say it is. I understand that.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Apples and oranges. You are reaching. What does having a bad day have to do with giving a fair decision based on many days.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
He is saying that judges are human and therefor fallible. They are not supposed to make rulings based on emotion or activism, but the trend has unfortunately been in that direction. I think you guys agree on this.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I feel like I'm just reading dead words. The same thing gets repeated over and over.
What is you argument? It comes down to this.
Are magazines protected by the 2 irregardless of what a corrupt judge had ruled? Yes or no.
Spare me with this standard nonsense argument. It's irrelevant. They weren't originally 10 so they cannot be standard.