The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - What happens when a state limits the rounds to 10

**Aguila Blanca** · March 21, 2011, 10:31 PM

I'm pretty certain there's a thread about this in the Legal discussion area.

First, they are NOT voting on this bill Wednesday, they are having the public hearing on it before the committee. Don't know when it might actually be released for a vote. If there's enough solid testimony against it at the public hearing, it may never get to a vote.

Second, the proposed law does NOT grandfather existing magazines. As has been quoted, the proposed law would require that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds either be removed from the state, or turned in within 90 days of the effective date of the law.

AFAIK, no other state has made existing, legally-owned ~~large~~ normal capacity magazines illegal. If the law is passed, I would expect that some enterprising resident of Connecticut (or their gun rights group, I think they have one) will challenge it in court. IANAL but I can think of a couple of ways the proposed law seems to be constitutionally flawed.

March 21, 2011, 10:31 PM	#31
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	I'm pretty certain there's a thread about this in the Legal discussion area. First, they are NOT voting on this bill Wednesday, they are having the public hearing on it before the committee. Don't know when it might actually be released for a vote. If there's enough solid testimony against it at the public hearing, it may never get to a vote. Second, the proposed law does NOT grandfather existing magazines. As has been quoted, the proposed law would require that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds either be removed from the state, or turned in within 90 days of the effective date of the law. AFAIK, no other state has made existing, legally-owned ~~large~~ normal capacity magazines illegal. If the law is passed, I would expect that some enterprising resident of Connecticut (or their gun rights group, I think they have one) will challenge it in court. IANAL but I can think of a couple of ways the proposed law seems to be constitutionally flawed.