large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 02:30:49 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think (search mode)
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: 33

Author Topic: large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think  (Read 1652 times)
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,325
United States


« 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
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,325
United States


« Reply #1 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
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,325
United States


« Reply #2 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
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,325
United States


« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2020, 12:24:00 PM »

First Blood was an awesome movie and I still don't own a gun.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.024 seconds with 15 queries.