PDA

View Full Version : Guns Are Protected but Nothing Else ...


dfletcher
01-12-2011, 3:10 PM
In Heller and McDonald we see that arm are constitutionally protected and in Herrington protection was afforded possession of ammunition. I believe DC Court of Appeals stated the 2nd Amendment protection afforded ammo was equal that of arms. What I see popping up are assertions of "while arms are protected magazines are not - magazines can be banned" or "parts are not protected, they can be banned". I've yet to see "holsters are not protected" but perhaps that's only because carrying outside the home is not yet protected.

I think it strains credulity to assert "functional" arms are protected but the parts that go into making those arms fuctional are not. What is the proper response to assertions that magazines, gun parts and ammunition are not protected because they have not been specifically litigated? Do we really need, for example, a legislature to pass a law banning replacement parts and to have it overturned by a court to affirmatively state "parts are protected"?

hoffmang
01-12-2011, 4:00 PM
Heller specifically protects functional firearms that are in common use. It's going to be very hard to say that a semiautomatic handgun issued to and carried by beat cops isn't common for self defense. That includes the firearm, ammunition, and firearm parts.

-Gene

RobG
01-12-2011, 4:13 PM
The magazine is an integral part of a semi auto. Without it, it is a hunk of plastic and metal. No different than the cylinder of a revolver.

falawful
01-12-2011, 7:21 PM
I would think that mags are specifically included in the definition of a firearm in USC already.

922r anyone?

Hint: Mag parts count....

RRangel
01-12-2011, 7:29 PM
The argument will be that restricting magazine capacity is not actually restricting magazines. That it's not protected. A similar excuse used to implement the new restrictions on ammunition sales in our state. We are hearing as much from Robert A. Levy (http://gunalizer.com/gunrights/magazine-restrictions-supposedley-make-sense/).

dfletcher
01-12-2011, 7:41 PM
The argument will be that restricting magazine capacity is not actually restricting magazines. That it's not protected. A similar excuse used to implement the new restrictions on ammunition sales in our state. We are hearing as much from Robert A. Levy (http://gunalizer.com/gunrights/magazine-restrictions-supposedley-make-sense/).

I wasn't speaking of hi caps but magazines of any capacity. Posts pop up from time to time supposing only guns are protected and that magazines, parts, etc have no constitutional protection because SCOTUS did not specifically include them in their decision. I believe SCOTUS did reference parts and magazines by using the term "functional" but there are others on occasion asserting otherwise.

RRangel
01-12-2011, 7:58 PM
I wasn't speaking of hi caps but magazines of any capacity. Posts pop up from time to time supposing only guns are protected and that magazines, parts, etc have no constitutional protection because SCOTUS did not specifically include them in their decision. I believe SCOTUS did reference parts and magazines by using the term "functional" but there are others on occasion asserting otherwise.

My point was only that will be the argument used. That's what I couldn't help but think when I read your statement. Which is why I posted it. The "functional firearms" angle has already been mentioned.

It probably wouldn't stop gun banners from trying to ban accessories or various parts in this state if they can. Though our gun laws will eventually change whether they like it or not.