So Is There a Right to Bear Glocks?

[carguychris]

Problem with the suppressor argument is that it is NOT essential to operation of a firearm.

+1; in light of the Heller decision, lack of a suppressor is not detrimental to effective defense of the home, but IMHO an excessively small magazine capacity restriction could be.

It all boils down to "common use". Although I personally dislike the idea of magazine capacity restrictions, in the interests of honesty, I would have to agree that 30rd pistol mags are not in common use.

I also have a tendency to believe that it may be hard to challenge state restrictions on >10rd pistol mags because (1) the restrictions have been in effect for almost 20 years in some states, yet people there are still buying automatic pistols, and (2) many popular automatics, including the vaunted 1911 platform, normally hold less than 10rds anyway, yet many people apparently believe that such guns are adequate for self-defense.

Also, I doubt 30 round magazines are much of a money maker, so I can't see the manufactures ponying up the money to fight the ban like they would a 10 Rd restriction or an additional safety mechanism. It does not involve altering any existing products.

That too.

[Wildalaska]

So is there a constitutional difference between a 30 round Glock mag and a 30 round AR mag?

WildsprayandprayAlaska ™©2002-2010

[Bartholomew Roberts]

MSNBC is reporting that Robert Levy of Heller fame has said that a magazine ban isn't necessarily foreclosed by the Heller decision and thinks it might make sense as a policy decision Source.

[boomboomthump]

Hello everyone, I'll get to the intro section in a bit but I wanted to put this out here for all to look at. Whether you like Ted Nugent or dislike him, in this opinion article he wrote for the Washington Times, is right on in my opinion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ared-for-evil/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's clear that if a mag ban was promoted that we would go back 10's for handguns and forget the 30s for ARs.

Here's the rub - the past ban was seen as ineffective because of existing stocks of AW and high cap mags. So don't anti gunners know this and argue for a confiscation and turn in of such? It would immediately turn millions of gun owners into felons if you didn't comply.

If it passes it would because of the panic mode that brought about the last AWB. We see Peter King in full squawk now.

Hopefully legislative leadership will not go for such.

[carguychris]

So is there a constitutional difference between a 30 round Glock mag and a 30 round AR mag?

Ooh that's a tricky one.

In terms of "common use", I would argue that yes, there is. 30rd AR and AK mags are so commonplace that they seem to go together with the gun like hand and glove.

OTOH this may not prevent the arguments in the second half of my last post from sticking.

[a.lol.cat]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

It's clear that if a mag ban was promoted that we would go back 10's for handguns and forget the 30s for ARs.

That brings up the ever popular dual use argument. Kel-Tec Sub-2000's use glock magazines, yet they are a rifle. SO, can I buy 30rd Sub-2000 rifle magazines that just happen to work in a glock? Or how about a Draco pistol? AR pistol? GSG-512 pistols and rifles use the same magazines, you can even get the big 90rd barrel mag that will work on the pistols. HK 9mm magazines work in mp5 clones and also in original SP89 "hand guns" and clones of it.

We see the failure of people to be able to understand the rules with handgun ammo that is also used in carbines 9mm, .40 S&W, .44 Magnum "Rimfire" rifles. What is a pistol magazine and what isn't?

[Nnobby45]

Does she have a point? Would the banning of semi automatic pistols be constitutional if revolvers were untouched? Can some arms be banned as long as all are not? How about Hi Cap magazines, would a ban on that pass strict scrutiny...how about intermediate scrutiny?

Your thoughts

I'd say no. The police use the semi-auto pistol to protect themselves, and the public at large. I believe banning all semi-autos, which make up the majority of pistols in the hands of CCW citizens, would be considered too sweeping by the courts--in the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

And, of course, there's the tactics of the anti-gunners. Brady II, which was just a "common sense" gun law, required licensing, registration, and banning all magazines over 6 rounds. Also, it required an arsenal license if you owned a few guns, and each magazine was considered the same as a firearm where that law was concerned. And, of course, there was the mandatory requirement that, before obtaining the arsenal license for $200 per year, you had to agree to allow the BATF to enter your home unannounced, twice a year to do a search and make sure you were complying with the law.

Not to get off subject, but I'm not sure the anti-s could settle on a first step law just banning certain magazines, and I don't know how the courts would rule on that issue alone--unless the President gets another SCOTUS appointment.

[tet4]

From my perspective, I think one could make the argument that if any LEO agent/agency (or military) stocked the glock 30 round mags, then it could not be banned, and I'm guessing that many departments actually do stock them or allow officers to have them in their cars.

Plus, we don't know the level of scrutiny yet, but it can't be rational (we know that from heller) so to stand muster, the government would have to show at least some reason why 30 round magazines are more lethal than 10 round magazines.

The pmr 30 is selling well, so 'in common use' may be justified based on that. The FN5.7 has been in use in miliaries and LEO for a while.

I think there is enough evidence that 30 round magazines are in common use that it would be difficult to try to ban them and make it constitutional.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if intermediate scrutiny is used then a mag ban would have to further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

The government clearly has an important interest in public safety, so it seems the key question is whether a mag ban furthers that interest and is substantially related to that interest?

So far the one government study examining that issue has said "Maybe; but we couldn't measure one." In theory that seems a little light to meet the "exacting scrutiny" of intermediate scrutiny; but in reality, I think it will be a lot more ideological than that.

[Tom Servo]

So is there a constitutional difference between a 30 round Glock mag and a 30 round AR mag?

I would say there isn't, and 30-round magazines for Stoner's little varmint rifle are pretty much "in common use" as observed in the Heller decision, but...

Well, if intermediate scrutiny is used then a mag ban would have to further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

Last March, the DC District Court ruled in Heller v. DC [pdf]:

there is at least a substantial fit between that goal [public safety] and the bans on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

That case is still in play, however. To this day, we still don't have a guideline on scrutiny. I doubt a ban on high-capacity magazines would pass strict scrutiny. We still have to get an acknowledgement for strict scrutiny.

Hopefully legislative leadership will not go for such.

So far, Speaker Boehner has shown absolutely no interest in hearing about gun control. He's already firmly rebuffed Representative King's proposed 1000-foot buffer bill.