Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-13-2013, 8:05 PM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Would SCOTUS uphold the AWB and a ban on high capacity magazines?

If any case about assault weapons or 10+ round magazines went to SCOTUS right now, would we win?

I personally think we need to get this settled before any of the "Heller 5" pass away or retire.

I don't want to move to Arizona only to find out that AR15s and 30 round magazines are not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-13-2013, 8:17 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
If any case about assault weapons or 10+ round magazines went to SCOTUS right now, would we win?

I personally think we need to get this settled before any of the "Heller 5" pass away or retire.

I don't want to move to Arizona only to find out that AR15s and 30 round magazines are not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
I assume they would. If not, why hasn't someone appealed CA "assault" weapon ban? I believe that it was challenged and got to the State Supreme court where it was upheld but no one bothered to appeal to SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-13-2013, 8:22 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,163
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Challenges are already in progress. Of course, any new ban could speed the process via preliminary injunction.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA

Last edited by M. D. Van Norman; 02-14-2013 at 10:01 AM.. Reason: Grammar.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-13-2013, 8:24 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

As Gene has said first things first and the first is carry and who knows we might just get strict scrutiny out of a carry case. I'm sure that both are queued up as projects 2 and 3 right behind carry.

I honestly don't think we could have gotten the Supreme Court to take on either of those two issues anytime soon but NY's move to 7rd mags and no grandfathering I think all but assures that they'll want to put a stop to less than 30rd restrictions and since that's tied to the NY AWB who knows.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-13-2013, 8:33 PM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
As Gene has said first things first and the first is carry and who knows we might just get strict scrutiny out of a carry case. I'm sure that both are queued up as projects 2 and 3 right behind carry.

I honestly don't think we could have gotten the Supreme Court to take on either of those two issues anytime soon but NY's move to 7rd mags and no grandfathering I think all but assures that they'll want to put a stop to less than 30rd restrictions and since that's tied to the NY AWB who knows.
When it comes to the courts, time is NOT on our side. The sooner we can get EBRs and standard capacity mags settled, the better (at least in my opinion).
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-13-2013, 8:41 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This is a risky battle and it calls for a well-deliberated strategy. We've already seen where a loose cannon with a J.D. has done some damage.

There is a critical mass of law developing with McDonald and Heller now on the books. But remember that Heller was very limited as to the type of weapon (ruling that weapon types could be restricted by the law, but not setting specific restrictions in the ruling) and to place (in the home).

Heller was a landmark decision. But it left the boundaries of the law to be defined by future cases.

You make a good point about the "Heller 5." The inference is the "Anti-Heller 4." It's going to be a close call, both in terms of the court's polarization (5 to 4) and on the limits of weapon type and place restrictions.

This is a time to move slowly and deliberately. Gura's strategy of going after the "low hanging fruit" first is a sound one. We need to build a solid base of law to confront the 5-4 court.

Last edited by RickD427; 02-13-2013 at 10:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:02 PM
Richard B Richard B is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There needs to be greater emphasis on the application of the "close scrutiny" test to all regulation of arms, including, but not limited to, firearms.

There are also a number of citizenship cases asserting that constitutionally protected rights are not subject to regulation or restriction by (undefined) "ordinary legislation".

Even existing laws should be examined anew. For example, the NFA and GCA of '68 are filled with obviously arbitrary and capricious restrictions. Just why is it that rifles have a different barrel length restriction than shotguns? Just what is it about a silencer that is actually so bad? In Europe, which has firearms restrictions which make California's look loose by comparison, the failure to use a suppressor in many circumstances borders on being anti-social because of the noise.

The GCA of '68 intended (as shown in the legislative history) that FFLs were intended to be issued to "ordinary citizens" so that persons conducting interstate or mail order firearms transactions would have a background check (as a response to Lee Harvey Oswald's mail order purchase. It was never intended that it should be used as an oppressive restriction upon the citizens' ability and right to engage in such transactions. It is not a "dealer license" as it has been construed.

The problem is that it has been so long since government has been held to its constitutional powers that the courts have become accustomed to approving the exercise of virtually plenipotentiary powers.

Last edited by Richard B; 02-14-2013 at 7:26 AM.. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2013, 4:22 AM
CDFingers CDFingers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The OP really asks two questions. I think an AWB has no chance to pass due to the "in common use" clause of Heller.

A limit on magazine size for newly manufactured magazines has a larger chance of passing because magazines, not being actual "arms", are not protected by the Second.

Now, whether pols want to get themselves dis elected is another question. I think those pols who are tired of politics will vote in favor of a magazine size limit.

CDFingers
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2013, 5:10 AM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
The OP really asks two questions. I think an AWB has no chance to pass due to the "in common use" clause of Heller.

A limit on magazine size for newly manufactured magazines has a larger chance of passing because magazines, not being actual "arms", are not protected by the Second.

Now, whether pols want to get themselves dis elected is another question. I think those pols who are tired of politics will vote in favor of a magazine size limit.

CDFingers
My lawyering skills being far inferior to my veterinary skills, take this for what it's worth, but magazines may be protected by the 2nd Amendment in the way that shooting ranges and ammunition are protected. I seem to recall that there was a case where possession of handgun ammunition without a handgun permit was ruled invalid. Logical extension of the 2nd would include protection of sources of supply, ammunition, those parts essential to the functioning of the firearm, i.e. magazines, loading and reloading equipment and supplies, and the legitimate trade thereof. Magazine capacity directly effects usefulness as a means of self-defense, as evidenced by police agencies being exempt from magazine limitations, so that the government recognizes, in statute, that those magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds are essential to personal self-defense. The 2nd and 14th Amendments do not recognize a special class of self-defense restricted to government agents or justify exclusion to the people.

I wonder about the entire basis of federal power regulating the trade of firearms, magazines and ammunition. Does the Commerce Clause apply to goods protected as a fundamental right in the way it would to bushels of wheat? More questions than answers. I am really good on questions, but have few answers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-14-2013, 6:12 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrangler John View Post
My lawyering skills being far inferior to my veterinary skills, take this for what it's worth, but magazines may be protected by the 2nd Amendment in the way that shooting ranges and ammunition are protected. I seem to recall that there was a case where possession of handgun ammunition without a handgun permit was ruled invalid. Logical extension of the 2nd would include protection of sources of supply, ammunition, those parts essential to the functioning of the firearm, i.e. magazines, loading and reloading equipment and supplies, and the legitimate trade thereof. Magazine capacity directly effects usefulness as a means of self-defense, as evidenced by police agencies being exempt from magazine limitations, so that the government recognizes, in statute, that those magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds are essential to personal self-defense. The 2nd and 14th Amendments do not recognize a special class of self-defense restricted to government agents or justify exclusion to the people.

I wonder about the entire basis of federal power regulating the trade of firearms, magazines and ammunition. Does the Commerce Clause apply to goods protected as a fundamental right in the way it would to bushels of wheat? More questions than answers. I am really good on questions, but have few answers.
The commerce clause covers wheat and marijuana grown for personal consumption, prices on in-state-only private railroads, and discrimination in local hotels and restaurants. The first amendment prohibits a special tax on ink and paper.

I don't see how a lawyer for a state or local jurisdiction can possibly look themselves in the mirror and state that ammunition and magazines are not arms and therefore no second amendment analysis is required.

Well, maybe they've justified lying in their own minds because "it's for the children."
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:09 AM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,419
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
If any case about assault weapons or 10+ round magazines went to SCOTUS right now, would we win?

I personally think we need to get this settled before any of the "Heller 5" pass away or retire.

I don't want to move to Arizona only to find out that AR15s and 30 round magazines are not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
YES we win...Heller stated that firearms commonly used are protected. AR-15 and 30 round magazines are commonly used.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:13 AM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
YES we win...Heller stated that firearms commonly used are protected. AR-15 and 30 round magazines are commonly used.
Yes, but they didn''t explicitly mention AR-15s or standard capacity magazines...

Scalia, of all people, said in his written opinion in Heller that "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons were not protected under the 2nd Amendment...

That could come back and haunt us if this politically hostile climate towards semi-autos and standard capacity magazines persists for much longer...
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:20 AM
m03's Avatar
m03 m03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,914
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
Scalia, of all people, said in his written opinion in Heller that "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons were not protected under the 2nd Amendment...

That could come back and haunt us if this politically hostile climate towards semi-autos and standard capacity magazines persists for much longer...
Semi-autos would not fall under the designation of dangerous and unusual, though, since they are neither.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:20 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
A limit on magazine size for newly manufactured magazines has a larger chance of passing because magazines, not being actual "arms", are not protected by the Second.
Don't agree. Could we have a right to books but ban ink, reading glasses, paper or presses?

Anything that is ancillary to the exercise of the right is protected, just as any law that is antithetical to the exercise of the right is unconstitutional (remember Heller struck the trigger lock law).

The second amendment protects a right to functional objects: ARMS. We can no more ban magazines than we can ban ammunition.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:32 AM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,063
iTrader: 125 / 100%
Default

We need to give money to our pro RKBA organizations as this battle is just beginning.

Any anti-legislation that gets passed must be fought. We are post Heller and it is clear from the FBI UCR data that there is no govenernment public safety interest in the "AW" bans with less than 3% of violence being attributed to "rifles-AWs" a small subset of that group.

The legislative and legal storm/winter is comming.
__________________
"The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed." Fontana PD Chief Rodney Jones on the FUSD decision to have AR-15s on school campuses.

CGF Contributor
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta, GLOCK, SA-Colt AR15/M16, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:34 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
When it comes to the courts, time is NOT on our side. The sooner we can get EBRs and standard capacity mags settled, the better (at least in my opinion).
I share your impatience at getting this done before one of the Heller 5 retires but we can't force them to take cases they aren't ready for. Gura tried that in Heller with his effort to get the court to bring the POI clause of the 14th Amendment back to life and got soundly rejected. The court just wasn't ready to take a leap that would slash the power of local and state governments to run our lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
A limit on magazine size for newly manufactured magazines has a larger chance of passing because magazines, not being actual "arms", are not protected by the Second.
Still on your reasonable people only need six-shooters thing? Magazines are a component of rifles and pistols in common use and therefore protected. They are also tools of a militia and protected a second way. Whether or not the court is ready to go there with all of the media pressure to ban full capacity magazines is another story. Of course we wouldn't have this problem if Obama hadn't appointed two justices that do not recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, two appointees that rejected the Heller precedent as legitimate in their McDonald descent. If he had appointed two justices that respected our constitutional rights we'd already be able to throw away our bullet buttons and order full capacity magazines.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 02-14-2013 at 8:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:37 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
A limit on magazine size for newly manufactured magazines has a larger chance of passing because magazines, not being actual "arms", are not protected by the Second.
Magazines are certainly covered by 2A since they are a fundamental part of the firearm required for its operation.

Note also that the word "magazine" is not used in the proposed law. Instead, it's "ammunition feeding device." The functional definition of magazine also ensures that the magazine itself is protected under 2A since without "feeding ammunition" there is no firearm.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:41 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Like everyone else, I loved Heller and McDonald at the time, but it clearly didn't settle the issue as much as we would have liked as the current storm post Sandy Hook has shown.

Will SCOTUS rule on carry and common use (as tortured a stretch of such a simple statement as "shall not be infringed" as it is) before there's a modern equivalent of Lexington and Concord is the question.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:41 AM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,419
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
Yes, but they didn''t explicitly mention AR-15s or standard capacity magazines...

Scalia, of all people, said in his written opinion in Heller that "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons were not protected under the 2nd Amendment...

That could come back and haunt us if this politically hostile climate towards semi-autos and standard capacity magazines persists for much longer...
Doesn't have to. They are commonly used by law enforcement, therefore, commonly used, as well as 30 round magazines in AR's and 15-17 round mags in semi auto handguns.

Much of the proposed legislation is unconstitutional...and...it is lawful to ignore unconstitutional laws.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-14-2013, 8:57 AM
todd2968's Avatar
todd2968 todd2968 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Never pass the house!!!!
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
VFW LIFEMEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:01 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
Much of the proposed legislation is unconstitutional...and...it is lawful to ignore unconstitutional laws.
Careful with how you apply this. A law is presumed constitutional unless stricken down. In other words, you say it's unconstitutional, DA says it's constitutional and he has the law on the books to prove it.

Circular logic, but you end up in jail until/unless the law is at some point stricken down by courts.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:05 AM
Richard B Richard B is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Careful with how you apply this. A law is presumed constitutional unless stricken down. In other words, you say it's unconstitutional, DA says it's constitutional and he has the law on the books to prove it.

Circular logic, but you end up in jail until/unless the law is at some point stricken down by courts.
You will find out whether it is constitutional at your trial...something most people are not anxious to experience. Sometimes it is better to let our RTKBA organizations pick and choose cases that are already in the system rather than place ourselves at such risk.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:05 AM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by m03 View Post
Semi-autos would not fall under the designation of dangerous and unusual, though, since they are neither.
If the opposition can drum up enough theatrics to scare Kennedy, then he'll flip and say that they are dangerous and unusual. He's the one to watch on things like this.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:08 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Look folks, none of us like the AWB and its obvious the AWB is a spearhead to own us on rifles. However the Heller and McDonald case present a clear opportunity for shall issue and the language of this rulings makes the case for shall issue a slam dunk.

The best avenue for AWB challenges is New York's ban. The ban is far stronger than Cali's ban and contains ex post facto elements. And talk about vague: you can own a 10 round mag but only load to 7?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:17 AM
Fufodog's Avatar
Fufodog Fufodog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My completely anecdotal observation is that a person's upbringing and environment have a lot to do with their support of gun rights. Even otherwise conservatives from urban environments like Los Angeles, New York, D.C., New Jersey, etc. (Chris Christie, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol) lobby for gun registration, talk about "heavy weapons" and refer to "clips" instead of magazines. The vast majority of urban residents seem to be perfectly happy to surrender their gun rights. To paraphrase Drinking With Bob on YouTube, listening to people from New York and Washington D.C. talk about guns is like watching Justin Bieber play chess with Lindsay Lohan.

Although the five conservative Supreme Court judges passed Heller and McDonald, in the majority opinion Scalia did leave room for gun control. His interview by Chris Wallace didn't give much of a read on how he would vote on specific measures. Given that Scalia grew up in New York and lives in D.C., I would suspect that he would draw the line much closer to the liberal judges than most members of CalGuns, however, that's a lot of real estate.

Samuel Alito was raised in New Jersey and went to Princeton University and Yale Law School. Like Scalia, I'd consider him unreliable but probably would vote to uphold gun rights. Clarence Thomas grew up in Savannah, Georgia, and I think is a solid supporter of gun rights, particularly with the racist history of gun control. John Roberts grew up in Indiana, which is a good thing, but with his vote on Obamacare, he's unreliable. Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote and he's from Sacramento. Game over, man. Kiss your standard capacity magazines good-bye.
__________________
Free Us From Our Dependence On Government
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:18 AM
PhalSe PhalSe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 162
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

A reasonable court would have to strike down an AWB or magazine capacity limit. After McDonald the 2A has been found to be a fundamental, enumerated, individual right. The appropriate test for infringement on such a right is Strict Scrutiny, meaning a regulation has to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest and to minimally impact legitimate exercise of the right. An AWB or magazine capacity limit are bans on the most popular arms in use by law-abiding citizens for overwhelmingly legitimate purposes in order to address a very small percentage of overall violent crime and they have been shown to be ineffective at that during the previous ban. They cannot reasonably pass that test. That doesn't mean the SCOTUS is a reasonable court and we have certainly seen that the 2nd and 9th circuit courts are unreasonable. So far courts have been following a two step approach by first checking to see if the regulated activity falls under the protection of the 2A and only if it does then determining if the regulation is constitutional. Unreasonable courts merely decide in that first step that the regulated activity is not covered and call it a day or if they cannot do that they use a lower standard. The 9th is fond of applying the almost comically meaningless Rational Basis test to 2A cases, but I think even a progressively biased SCOTUS would have a hard time doing this. I think the current court will likely support us, but I don't think the court will maintain the same bias by the time a good AWB or magazine capacity limit case finds it's way to them. I also think that SAF and Gura are following the correct path by securing Carry before tackling other issues. Good solid rulings on the low hanging fruit such as outright bans on Keep and Bear will build support for later cases. But there is risk that by the time later cases get to the court it's bias will have shifted significantly and we will just have to hope that previous precedent is binding enough to force their hand in our favor.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:48 AM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,751
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by todd2968 View Post
Never pass the house!!!!
I think these questions seem to imply a ruling for both federal and state since states are going nuts on these bills and wasting our tax payer dollars. A ruling from SCOTUS gives the lower courts something to go on.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-14-2013, 9:50 AM
Scott Connors's Avatar
Scott Connors Scott Connors is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 845
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
The OP really asks two questions. I think an AWB has no chance to pass due to the "in common use" clause of Heller.

A limit on magazine size for newly manufactured magazines has a larger chance of passing because magazines, not being actual "arms", are not protected by the Second.

Now, whether pols want to get themselves dis elected is another question. I think those pols who are tired of politics will vote in favor of a magazine size limit.

CDFingers
Standard capacity magazines are part of the firearms for which they are intended, and as such are arguably are protected as the firearms themselves. Extended capacity magazines, such as the 33 round Glock 18 mags or the 100 round drums for ARs may not be, or then again they may, depending upon the case in which they are presented, the quality of counsel, the judge, the type of defendant, and whether or not the month in which the case is heard has an "R" in it.
__________________
"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."--Spider Robinson.
"It is a ghastly but tenable proposition that the world is now ruled by the insane, whose increasing plurality will, in a few more generations, make probable the incarceration of all sane people born among them."--Clark Ashton Smith
"Every time a pro-terrorist Tranzi hangs, an angel gets his wings."--Tom Kratman
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-15-2013, 6:32 AM
CDFingers CDFingers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

MaestroPistolero makes a false equivalency:

>Don't agree. Could we have a right to books but ban ink, reading glasses, paper or presses?

A regulation on magazine size, or even on the capacity of a magazine feeding device, in my opinion, would be constitutional. Whether the magazine holds two or twenty nine, the weapon's function would remain unaffected.

The false equivalencies are legion in that statement, but the most obvious is that magazines are not proposed to be banned. It is capacity under question, not the magazine itself. And here in CA we already have a ten round capacity limit. The world has not come to a screeching halt somehow...

This does not mean I favor such a regulation.

As a responsible gun owner, I will not fall for hype. I will research about regulations and find their strengths and weaknesses. On that basis I'll argue the various points.

I know it is popular on this board to oppose mag size limits. But I have to ask "on what basis other than 'I want it to be so?'" do folks try to advance their arguments? If a poster cannot show mag size regulations to affect the function of the weapon, then upon what basis may the idea be opposed?

We can look to the "in common use" clause of Heller as regards a personal defense weapon. There, we find the AR platform to be in common use. On that basis I say a ban on the AR platform will not pass constitutional scrutiny.

I cannot make such a case about magazine size regulations.

The broader question from McDonald remains, about whether states may enact regulations more strict than Fed regulations. I say they may not, due to the Second being incorporated against the states. This is why I say I await the proper case to move up to the SCOTUS. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy guns and shooting.

CDFingers

Last edited by CDFingers; 02-15-2013 at 6:33 AM.. Reason: "s"-ed
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-15-2013, 7:52 AM
TempleKnight's Avatar
TempleKnight TempleKnight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lincoln, CA
Posts: 717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
I know it is popular on this board to oppose mag size limits. But I have to ask "on what basis other than 'I want it to be so?'" do folks try to advance their arguments? If a poster cannot show mag size regulations to affect the function of the weapon, then upon what basis may the idea be opposed?

CDFingers
I hope SCOTUS asks "why?" instead of "why not?". I don't see a compelling reason to use a magazine with capacity less than that which is in common use and for which the gun was designed. I just don't follow the logic of making a handgun safer with a 10 rd mag versus a 15/17. The STANAG M4 mag is 30 rd.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-15-2013, 7:57 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,163
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

On High-Capacity Magazines

Bans on magazines in common use should be ruled unconstitutional. They are also pointless.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-15-2013, 8:44 AM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 5,980
iTrader: 114 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post

I know it is popular on this board to oppose mag size limits. But I have to ask "on what basis other than 'I want it to be so?'" do folks try to advance their arguments? If a poster cannot show mag size regulations to affect the function of the weapon, then upon what basis may the idea be opposed?
That's fairly fundamental. Ask anyone who opposes standard magazine capacities this question:

Since someone who carries loaded weapons, wears body armor, has a long gun standing by and the benefit of backup (eg any LEO) is safer doing there job with 0 restrictions on the capacity of their firearms, how can you say that a citizen (who has less advantages) isn't handicapped by 10 or 7 round magazines?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-15-2013, 8:48 AM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,459
iTrader: 46 / 88%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Careful with how you apply this. A law is presumed constitutional unless stricken down. In other words, you say it's unconstitutional, DA says it's constitutional and he has the law on the books to prove it.

Circular logic, but you end up in jail until/unless the law is at some point stricken down by courts.
You bet.

And law enforcement and the District and US Attorneys enable this, afoul of the oath of office they all take.

As someone who has actively participated in it,

WAR.
__________________
Visit http://www.policemisconduct.net to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Obama's Favorite TV show? "Homeland", about a Muslim who betrays his nation on the way to the White House...http://tinyurl.com/c8tvk92
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-15-2013, 8:52 AM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,994
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
If any case about assault weapons or 10+ round magazines went to SCOTUS right now, would we win?

I personally think we need to get this settled before any of the "Heller 5" pass away or retire.

I don't want to move to Arizona only to find out that AR15s and 30 round magazines are not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Personally, I don't see how we can have US vs. Miller and a ban on 'military-style' firearms. Saying that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, and then saying 'but not those the militia wouldn't use' and 'not those like the militia would use' is utterly meaningless.

Further, I don't see how anyone can make the arguement that these weapons are a public nuisance for merely being owned, but perfectly fine for law enforcement and domestic agencies to carry them around on our streets in the line of duty.

Last edited by CBruce; 02-15-2013 at 9:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-15-2013, 8:59 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
MaestroPistolero makes a false equivalency:

>Don't agree. Could we have a right to books but ban ink, reading glasses, paper or presses?

A regulation on magazine size, or even on the capacity of a magazine feeding device, in my opinion, would be constitutional. Whether the magazine holds two or twenty nine, the weapon's function would remain unaffected.

The false equivalencies are legion in that statement, but the most obvious is that magazines are not proposed to be banned. It is capacity under question, not the magazine itself. And here in CA we already have a ten round capacity limit. The world has not come to a screeching halt somehow...
So you're saying that it's okay to ban books and newspapers longer than two pages because the function isn't effected. After all you could just buy more 2 page books - unless they restrict you to two books per subject like NY does with magazines - I guess you would just tell us the world will "not come to a screeching halt somehow..." . That's just how silly your argument is. But Obama says we don't need more than 10rds so in your mind we don't have a right to more than 10 (or 2) rounds.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 02-15-2013 at 9:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-15-2013, 9:00 AM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,776
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Careful with how you apply this. A law is presumed constitutional unless stricken down. In other words, you say it's unconstitutional, DA says it's constitutional and he has the law on the books to prove it.

Circular logic, but you end up in jail until/unless the law is at some point stricken down by courts.
And it is this very point which we must remember. Anti-freedom lawmakers all across this country know this very well. We often seem to overlook it as we debate these incursions against our freedoms.

What may well NOT be accomplished at the Federal level will be imposed in many anti-freedom states. (Calif., N.Y., New Jersey etc.)
While we may win many of the legal challenges which will surely be mounted it will take many, many years to prevail.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-15-2013, 9:26 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
A regulation on magazine size, or even on the capacity of a magazine feeding device, in my opinion, would be constitutional. Whether the magazine holds two or twenty nine, the weapon's function would remain unaffected.
If the "weapon's function would remain unaffected," then such a regulation is *by definition* an infringement - it has to serve a purpose before it can be considered a valid restriction.

We are talking civil rights here. The rules of how limits are placed on those rights are quite specific. The burden of proof that a regulation is not an infringement is on the government.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. What you say is "it's constitutional (has effect)," while saying "the firearm is unaffected (has no effect)."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-15-2013, 9:35 AM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 5,980
iTrader: 114 / 100%
Default

Another point; allowing the govt to limit capacities to ten rounds, opened a door. New York walked right on in by mandating their 7 round limit.

It's time to pull up that welcome mat.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-15-2013, 9:38 AM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonelar View Post
Another point; allowing the govt to limit capacities to ten rounds, opened a door. New York walked right on in by mandating their 7 round limit.

It's time to pull up that welcome mat.
And then slam the door right in their faces, love it.
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-15-2013, 9:40 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,043
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A firearm designed to function with a magazine in place, but does not have a magazine in place - is not a functional arm.

If it is not a functional arm then that configuration is not what is protected by the 2A. Since it is a functional arm which is protected by the 2A, the combination of the firearm and its appropriate accessories is protected by the 2A - and a magazine is therefore protected as a legitimate part of the RKBA.

And since common use firearms are protected, PDMs are protected - they are very common.

So PDMs will generally be found constitutionally protected by any court willing to reach for the proper interpretation.

That's not to say that PDMs will necessarily be allowed in all situations and locations - it is reasonable to assume that they will be restricted in "sensitive areas".
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:05 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.