|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2020, 12:56:32 pm
News: First US presidential debate discussion thread link:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=400306.0

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자))
  large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: How will/should the Supremes decide bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?
#1
they will side with the states (bans being legal) and I'm pro gun control
 
#2
they will side with the states (bans being legal) and I'm NOT pro gun control
 
#3
they will side against the states (states can't ban magazine sizes that are commonly used), pro gun control
 
#4
they will side against the states (states can't ban magazine sizes that are commonly used) NOT pro gun control
 
#5
some third thing
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think  (Read 766 times)
dead0man
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,460
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 06, 2020, 08:01:11 am »

The 9th Circuit Court blocked CA's ban last month and this week, the 3rd Circuit Court upheld NJ's ban so this is probably going to get pushed up to the big dogs.  I have biases, but it seems to me that the fact that many hand guns come standard with a magazine that is larger than 10 rounds that banning them would be banning something that is commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  That goes against the constitution.
Logged
#proudtikitorchmarcher
lfromnj
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2020, 08:54:58 am »

Blue states repeal the law at the last second so there isn't any binding decision.  Red states need to put similar laws with a $1 fine or so to force a binding decision.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2020, 10:02:12 am »

Let's wait for an en banc review from the 9th Circuit first before we discuss whether or not this might go to SCOTUS.
Logged
politicallefty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2020, 10:18:15 am »

That's a tough question. The Court really hasn't taken up many Second Amendment cases and they seem to want to avoid them. I've always thought this was one of the more common sense gun safety proposals that would be presumed constitutional, but this is a very conservative Court. I've always read the prefatory clause as a limitation on the operative clause. I think one must read the entire amendment to understand the purpose and meaning. The so-called originalists have really perverted the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment. Altogether though, there really isn't a significant amount of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence to really draw from.

Let's wait for an en banc review from the 9th Circuit first before we discuss whether or not this might go to SCOTUS.

That's true and actually quite likely really.
Logged
DeSantis/Rice 2024
TheFonz
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 251
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.74, S: -4.52

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2020, 07:12:18 pm »

Option 4, consistent with Heller
Logged
MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,598
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2020, 07:34:20 pm »

^^^
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,543
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2020, 12:17:22 am »

I think it likely that SCOTUS will strike down blanket bans based on magazine size but allow States to do limits on large magazines similar to those on automatic weapons.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,923
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2020, 01:15:57 am »

5-4 Ruling that ALL gun restrictions violate the second amendment, if Roberts wants to rewrite precedent.

Otherwise, a 5-4 ruling striking down the large capacity magazine restrictions only.

I can't see a right-wing Supreme Court not taking this up.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2020, 03:45:16 pm »

5-4 Ruling that ALL gun restrictions violate the second amendment, if Roberts wants to rewrite precedent.

Otherwise, a 5-4 ruling striking down the large capacity magazine restrictions only.

I can't see a right-wing Supreme Court not taking this up.

I mean, given that all 12(!) 2A cases up for consideration this past term were denied cert, neither the conservative nor liberal wings are confident in Roberts siding with either of them on this issue, so it's honestly a complete wash as to what might happen if/when this were to hypothetically wind up before the Roberts Court.
Logged
politicallefty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2020, 08:55:29 pm »

DC v. Heller did not grant an unlimited right. I don't even believe the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment for self-defense of person or property, but I am not an originalist, so their intent is irrelevant to me either way. I look at the actual text. I can accept that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights does make several references to "the people" and those have all been interpreted and understood to be individual rights. I think the proper way to view the text of the 2nd Amendment is that it is both an individual right and a collective right at the same time, similar to the right of the people peaceably to assemble. I would say that the "Militia" in the prefatory clause is the entirety of the people that opt to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, not necessarily anything organized by the government or even in any organized fashion. We all know of the arguments about an armed citizenry versus a tyrannical government or even invasion.

I don't really see or understand where those that argue against various restrictions view the line, because apart from a small minority, most people across the ideological spectrum agree that the mentally ill have forfeited the right and that the scope of the right does not extend to nuclear weapons or even machine guns. Clearly, there is some limitation in the minds of that would argue against a ban on high-capacity magazines. As I said before, it is my belief that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms as it allows for some level of regulation If you ignore the prefatory clause, I don't see where you get any basis of a limiting principle.

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,460
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2020, 08:36:14 am »

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.
the biggest issue, to me at least, with the 10rd limit is that many/most hand guns come standard with a magazine larger than that.  They are commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  I'd have a problem with a 30rd limit too, but my arguments wouldn't be as good/easy.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,543
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2020, 03:22:29 pm »

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.
the biggest issue, to me at least, with the 10rd limit is that many/most hand guns come standard with a magazine larger than that.  They are commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  I'd have a problem with a 30rd limit too, but my arguments wouldn't be as good/easy.

Just because a gun maker has included a high capacity magazine as standard has no bearing on whether a magazine-size limit is constitutional.  In any case, if you need a 12 round magazine to deal with a problem you are either:
1. A bad shot who shouldn't be handling a gun outside of a practice range.
2. An indiscriminate shooter who shouldn't be trusted with a gun in the first place.
3. Dealing with multiple individuals, and thus someone who needs to be reminded that your name isn't Harry Callahan.
4. Harry Callahan, who does just fine with only 6 rounds in his .44 Magnum.
Logged
politicallefty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2020, 09:25:01 pm »

I agree with what Ernest said above. That's not a legal argument as to the constitutionality of such a restriction. If you were to tell me that maybe 15 was more appropriate than 10 for particular purposes, I could potentially be persuaded in terms of the constitutional arguments. If a 30-round cap is insufficient for self-defense, there is no way you're defending oneself or one's property. It's something far bigger than that. There is a legitimate governmental interest in restricting rounds in such a manner, which is part of the basis of strict scrutiny in evaluating fundamental rights.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,460
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2020, 08:01:46 am »

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.
the biggest issue, to me at least, with the 10rd limit is that many/most hand guns come standard with a magazine larger than that.  They are commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  I'd have a problem with a 30rd limit too, but my arguments wouldn't be as good/easy.

Just because a gun maker has included a high capacity magazine as standard has no bearing on whether a magazine-size limit is constitutional.  In any case, if you need a 12 round magazine to deal with a problem you are either:
1. A bad shot who shouldn't be handling a gun outside of a practice range.
2. An indiscriminate shooter who shouldn't be trusted with a gun in the first place.
3. Dealing with multiple individuals, and thus someone who needs to be reminded that your name isn't Harry Callahan.
4. Harry Callahan, who does just fine with only 6 rounds in his .44 Magnum.
do you think people chose how many attackers they will have to face?  If there are 3 dudes trying to come through a young lady's front door and she only has a 10rd magazine are you going to explain to her family that she wasn't Harry Callahan?  A small person can not fire a .44 Magnum, should they not be able to defend themselves the way they see fit because they can't safely fire a hand cannon with the accuracy of a fictional anti-hero?
Logged
Corbynite
CraneHusband
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,318
Yemen


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -3.83

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2020, 11:18:38 am »

They should be upheld, on our way to beginning a larger scale ban on the production of firearms in general.

Rambo fetishist libertarians notwithstanding.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,460
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2020, 12:24:00 pm »

First Blood was an awesome movie and I still don't own a gun.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,543
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2020, 03:56:58 am »

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.
the biggest issue, to me at least, with the 10rd limit is that many/most hand guns come standard with a magazine larger than that.  They are commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  I'd have a problem with a 30rd limit too, but my arguments wouldn't be as good/easy.

Just because a gun maker has included a high capacity magazine as standard has no bearing on whether a magazine-size limit is constitutional.  In any case, if you need a 12 round magazine to deal with a problem you are either:
1. A bad shot who shouldn't be handling a gun outside of a practice range.
2. An indiscriminate shooter who shouldn't be trusted with a gun in the first place.
3. Dealing with multiple individuals, and thus someone who needs to be reminded that your name isn't Harry Callahan.
4. Harry Callahan, who does just fine with only 6 rounds in his .44 Magnum.
do you think people chose how many attackers they will have to face?  If there are 3 dudes trying to come through a young lady's front door and she only has a 10rd magazine are you going to explain to her family that she wasn't Harry Callahan?  A small person can not fire a .44 Magnum, should they not be able to defend themselves the way they see fit because they can't safely fire a hand cannon with the accuracy of a fictional anti-hero?

I do think most gun fetishists vastly overestimate their ability to defend themselves with a gun. And in your fictional example, if she can't deal with three dudes with 10 rounds, I don't see where she could realistically expect either two or twenty additional rounds in a magazine to be a help. Even if she had them, by the time she could fire rounds 11 and beyond, her hypothetical home invaders would have already closed and physically overpowered her, assuming they didn't simply shoot her themselves as soon as they realized they were being shot at. And they would've have had the advantage of being prepared from the start for a violent encounter.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 16 queries.