PDA

View Full Version : Increasing Magazine Capacity in CA


shooterdude
02-02-2010, 7:14 AM
Maybe this has been discussed before but searching "magazine" on this forum brings up millions of threads.

What would it take to change the regulations on the 10 round limit? Even if it only starts with rimfire, it is at least a start.

cineski
02-02-2010, 7:19 AM
A massive reelection.

Noraku81
02-02-2010, 7:23 AM
An act of God

dantodd
02-02-2010, 7:26 AM
One lawsuit. (After a good decision in McDonald.)

In 99% of cases getting any relief from overbearing firearms laws in CA will require judicial intervention.

mark2203
02-02-2010, 7:29 AM
What would it take to change the regulations on the 10 round limit? Even if it only starts with rimfire, it is at least a start.

Leaving California completely

CHS
02-02-2010, 8:44 AM
It will take a well-written lawsuit that addresses the people already exempt (law enforcement for personal use, tubular fixed magazines), and why the existing law is not even enforceable to begin with, and addresses the fact that if hi-cap mags are so bad, why isn't possession even regulated at all?

That lawsuit will need to be brought at the right time, and will cost a lot of money.

If you feel strongly about the issue, please join the NRA and the CRPA and donate to the Calguns foundation today.

pTa
02-02-2010, 9:56 AM
it'll take a WIN at the SCOTUS in the form of McDonald vs Chicago

AND the cash to file suit against the State of CA

CAL.BAR
02-02-2010, 10:22 AM
One lawsuit. (After a good decision in McDonald.)

In 99% of cases getting any relief from overbearing firearms laws in CA will require judicial intervention.

Unfortunately, NO. This one is very interesting. From a legal standpoint, this limitation is rock solid. 2A doesn't have anything to do with Mag capacity. Even if we can use Heller as a crowbar to curb wholesale bans, states will always have the ability to "reasonably" regulate firearms within their borders. Mag capacity is certainly within that purview. No court decision to date or ever envisioned will ever tell states that they can't regulate the number of rounds mags can hold b/c all the 2nd allows us is the right to have the firearms and obviously the ammo and mags to make them work, but unlimited number of rounds in the mag is nowhere in site.

Sorry . . . a bit of reality for the legal desk.

bodger
02-02-2010, 10:37 AM
Unfortunately, NO. This one is very interesting. From a legal standpoint, this limitation is rock solid. 2A doesn't have anything to do with Mag capacity. Even if we can use Heller as a crowbar to curb wholesale bans, states will always have the ability to "reasonably" regulate firearms within their borders. Mag capacity is certainly within that purview. No court decision to date or ever envisioned will ever tell states that they can't regulate the number of rounds mags can hold b/c all the 2nd allows us is the right to have the firearms and obviously the ammo and mags to make them work, but unlimited number of rounds in the mag is nowhere in site.

Sorry . . . a bit of reality for the legal desk.


Supports the earlier posters opinion: MOVE.

Lone_Gunman
02-02-2010, 10:43 AM
Waiting for one of The Right PeopleŽ to chime in.

darkshier
02-02-2010, 10:45 AM
I see this law as very discriminitory. Younger shooters are discriminated against, just because of their age. If someone born around 1992, who would just be old enough to buy their first rifle, is very doubtful to already be in possession of STANDARD capacity magazines.

Why is it that older shooters enjoy more gun rights than younger shooters?

madhatter
02-02-2010, 10:51 AM
Funny you should ask. We have retained an attorney and formed a subsidiary to "study" the problem...

http://www.exilemachine.com/exile_magazine.jpg
:King:

You need to drive to every range in the state like mobile shoe truck http://www.redwingsafety.com/assets/content/safety/images/09_IndWeb_Full_ShoeTruck.png

curtisfong
02-02-2010, 10:51 AM
No court decision to date or ever envisioned will ever tell states that they can't regulate the number of rounds mags

While technically true, it doesn't mean that existing regulations will hold up under strict scrutiny (if we get it). Not because they merely "regulate magazine capacity", but because the way are written may not be constitutional. Further, future regulations must also be airtight if they are to survive strict scrutiny as well.

This is my understanding of incorporation. YMMV.

CABilly
02-02-2010, 10:55 AM
I see this law as very discriminitory. Younger shooters are discriminated against, just because of their age. If someone born around 1992, who would just be old enough to buy their first rifle, is very doubtful to already be in possession of STANDARD capacity magazines.

Why is it that older shooters enjoy more gun rights than younger shooters?

It's the whole concept of "grandfathering." Eventually the state will get what it wants when everyone who can own hi-caps is either dead or working for the state (or some government agency).

I may be completely off base here, but the PoI aspect of McDonald may help in this area, but I'm doubtful. This is just the kind of "reasonable" restriction that's going to be really hard to overturn.

darkshier
02-02-2010, 11:07 AM
It's the whole concept of "grandfathering." Eventually the state will get what it wants when everyone who can own hi-caps is either dead or working for the state (or some government agency).

I may be completely off base here, but the PoI aspect of McDonald may help in this area, but I'm doubtful. This is just the kind of "reasonable" restriction that's going to be really hard to overturn.

While I understand the concept, I don't understand it at the same time.

You are older, therefore, you get more rights! Screw you younger folk, and relish in your limited-capacity magazines! It makes no logical sense, but then the people in charge, aren't logical.

CAL.BAR
02-02-2010, 11:34 AM
While technically true, it doesn't mean that existing regulations will hold up under strict scrutiny (if we get it). Not because they merely "regulate magazine capacity", but because the way are written may not be constitutional. Further, future regulations must also be airtight if they are to survive strict scrutiny as well.

This is my understanding of incorporation. YMMV.

Incorporation only applies Fed. law to the states. . . That's it. (really)

So.. . . since there is nothing in Fed. law which regulates the capacity of magazines - incorporation won't help much.

dantodd
02-02-2010, 11:45 AM
Unfortunately, NO. This one is very interesting. From a legal standpoint, this limitation is rock solid. 2A doesn't have anything to do with Mag capacity. Even if we can use Heller as a crowbar to curb wholesale bans, states will always have the ability to "reasonably" regulate firearms within their borders. Mag capacity is certainly within that purview. No court decision to date or ever envisioned will ever tell states that they can't regulate the number of rounds mags can hold b/c all the 2nd allows us is the right to have the firearms and obviously the ammo and mags to make them work, but unlimited number of rounds in the mag is nowhere in site.

Sorry . . . a bit of reality for the legal desk.

I am fairly certain you are incorrect. The courts have no ruled on level of scrutiny yet, much less something as oblique as magazine capacity. Your idea of "reasonably regulate" obviously differs from mine and quite possibly from SCOTUS's. One example is the Springfield XDm which does not have 10 round magazines available. Does this mean that California can prevent me from owning one of these?

If we get even intermediate scrutiny it will be the state's responsibility to show that the law "furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest." Since Heller defines arms that are regulable as those that are both "unusual and dangerous" California would be required to show that magazines larger than 10 rds. create a firearm that is both unusual and more dangerous than other firearms. Since a VERY LARGE percentage of firearms sold outside of California as well as those owned by LEO's in California have a capacity greater than 10 rds. I believe the state will find that a hard row to hoe.

Even if we ignore the fact that they are unregulable as an arm there is the equal protection issue to face. Why can you have an 11 rd. magazine and I can't? Simply because you purchased your weapon before I purchased mine? Why is your magazine not a threat to public safety but mine is?

drutledge79
02-02-2010, 11:54 AM
Why can you have an 11 rd. magazine and I can't? Simply because you purchased your weapon before I purchased mine? Why is your magazine not a threat to public safety but mine is?

If you're the cynical type you might think that in order to push a more state-controlled, disarmed populace agenda you might have to let people keep what they already have.

It is an easier pill to swallow. It will keep those who would be most against the policy change (the owners of guns w/ >10 capacity magazines) partially appeased while screwing over everyone else in the future. I'd say that is some pretty standard psychology / salesmanship right there.

dantodd
02-02-2010, 12:00 PM
If you're the cynical type you might think that in order to push a more state-controlled, disarmed populace agenda you might have to let people keep what they already have.

It is an easier pill to swallow. It will keep those who would be most against the policy change (the owners of guns w/ >10 capacity magazines) partially appeased while screwing over everyone else in the future. I'd say that is some pretty standard psychology / salesmanship right there.

Correct. And that makes it a policy issue. Your rights cannot be abridged for a "policy" only if it advances and important government interest. What government interest says that I can have 1000 pre-magazines of indeterminate capacity but not 1 that was purchased last year?

If there is a compelling interest in restricting magazine capacity to 10rds. it must therefore be a complete ban or risk an equal protection claim.