Magazine Bans & Interstate Commerce

[dfletcher]

I hope those able to answer the question will allow me some leeway on the rough phrasing.

There are no federal restrictions on magazine capacity. There are, I would presume, several million +10 capacity magazines in CA. Were CA to ban possession of +10 capacity magazines it is reasonable to believe CA citizens will comply with the law and dispose of them. Given the options, selling them out of state and on the cheap seems a reasonable eventuality.

Can the commerce clause, stretched as it is, be applied to this situation and a prohibition on possession of currently owned +10 round magazines be prevented?

[Tincon]

Dormant commerce clause possibly, but the courts will weigh the "legitimate local interest" against the burden on commerce (of magazines). Particular weight is given to "safety regulations" and exercises of police power. The state could be made to prove that there is some legitimate public benefit to any regulation prohibiting import of 10+ round magazines. Possession within the state is probably not a commerce clause issue, except insofar as it effects import/export.

[Renaissance Redneck]

Possession within the state is probably not a commerce clause issue, except insofar as it effects import/export.

That is a KEY EXCEPTION, and is at the root of oppressive Federal overreach that we seemed doomed to endure forever. See Wickard v. Filburn for proof. The Federal government pretty much says it can regulate ANYTHING it wants, even when that thing is not actually being traded interstate. Warped logic by an activist Supreme Court is what this is. We are screwed.

[dfletcher]

Dormant commerce clause possibly, but the courts will weigh the "legitimate local interest" against the burden on commerce (of magazines). Particular weight is given to "safety regulations" and exercises of police power. The state could be made to prove that there is some legitimate public benefit to any regulation prohibiting import of 10+ round magazines. Possession within the state is probably not a commerce clause issue, except insofar as it effects import/export.

I may be misapplying the term, but it sounds as though the state need only show a "rational basis" to prevail against an assertion of dormant commerce clause violation, correct? That would put using commerce fairly low in any pecking order of challenging a magazine prohibition, yes?

[vtabiker]

The way I would attack it is, the states says it's legal to own if you owned before a certain date, however if you move into the state that no longer applies. Seems like as long as you owned it before a certain date you should be able to bring it into a new state of residence if they are legal for people who are residents already, that's interstate regulation. It would be hard to apply the public safety principle against that.

[dfletcher]

The way I would attack it is, the states says it's legal to own if you owned before a certain date, however if you move into the state that no longer applies. Seems like as long as you owned it before a certain date you should be able to bring it into a new state of residence if they are legal for people who are residents already, that's interstate regulation. It would be hard to apply the public safety principle against that.

Bringing the magazine into a new state isn't the issue, the theory goes something like this ........

Let's say CA residents now hold 15 million +10 round capacity magazines. Let's suppose further that effective 1 Jan 14 possession of those magazines is prohibited. CA residents may dispose of them by destroying, turning into LE or by selling them out of state. I think it is reasonable to presume CA gun owners will comply with the law.

Would a sudden influx of several million +10 capacity magazines into other states have an effect on the market of those states? If the answer is yes, even in theory only, then it could be said that interstate commerce is affected.

Unfortunately it seems the hurdle CA has to clear to support its case is rather low.

[zhyla]

The commerce clause isn't a protection you get to invoke, it's power the feds get to wield. You could get the feds to tell the states they can't regulate magazines (a gross abuse of the commerce clause, but that's how it works these days) but you can't sue a state because you think the commerce clause means they can't regulate magazines.

[dfletcher]

The commerce clause isn't a protection you get to invoke, it's power the feds get to wield. You could get the feds to tell the states they can't regulate magazines (a gross abuse of the commerce clause, but that's how it works these days) but you can't sue a state because you think the commerce clause means they can't regulate magazines.

I think it's accurate to say I could not initiate such a suit. Could NV, or AZ or OR retail stores initiate a suit against CA based on commerce? Could Midway or an online seller?