large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think

[politicallefty]

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.

[politicallefty]

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.

[politicallefty]

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.