The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28, 2014, 01:31 AM   #26
Cnon
Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2005
Posts: 94
Quote:
Why even IDPA (the self-proclaimed most tactical game) only allows 10 rounds!

I've always found this to be weird.


I guess it's to make sure everybody is even round wise, right?



Cnon

Last edited by Cnon; June 28, 2014 at 09:57 PM.
Cnon is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 10:51 AM   #27
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Egregious registry schemes like we're seeing in Connecticut and New York should probably be the main focus
Are the lawyers in Colorado the ones we'd need/use in New York and Connecticut to challenge those laws?

If we only give experience to a small handful of lawyers who are too busy putting out fires started by MAIG, what happens when they retire or pass on?
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 03:37 PM   #28
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,792
I just read the opinion. The argument that one 'needs' a 30 round in most SD wasn't really made in most criminal cases. The number of incidents cited by Ayoob and others is low.

However, it might behoove progun folks to look at the use of firearms by African-Americans in the Civil Rights days. I read one case where a guy emptied his mag at night riders but the details of the gun weren't in the book.

It will be tough to get SCOTUS to overturn mag bans unless they are outrageous like the NY 7 round ban.

Also, it shows how our own blather can be easily used to weaken the SD argument.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 04:09 PM   #29
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,338
I think we should fight it as an arbitrary number. 10 for the Federal ban, 10 in some states, 15 in CO, 7 in NY...the antis are pulling numbers out of a hat.
raimius is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 04:56 PM   #30
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by raimius
...we should fight it as an arbitrary number. 10 for the Federal ban, 10 in some states, 15 in CO, 7 in NY...the antis are pulling numbers out of a hat.
I think the CO 15rd limit and the (admittedly unenforced) NY 7rd limit are vulnerable to this argument.

However, due to the federal AWB and a number of similar continuing state laws, you can find 10rd mags for most commonplace modern firearms. IOW the argument isn't that strongly in our favor if the line is drawn at 10 rounds.

Just as an exercise in "What If...?", I'd be curious to see the results of a challenge to the NY law by a Beretta 81 owner on the grounds of non-availability of mags less than 12 rounds in capacity (or the CO law by an 18rd Steyr GB owner). The argument is simple: my only mag broke, now my only gun is a paperweight, and I can't afford another. The courts could rule very narrowly in such a case, but it's a kinda intriguing idea.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 05:12 PM   #31
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
15 is also picking up steam. I would imagine a 20 rounder with a 5 round limiter (to turn 10 round mags into hunting legal 5 round mags) would/could work for Pmags, though it may take another round of court cases to get there... i.e. why is it a 5 round mag for hunting but not a 15 round mag for possession... Which we could easily lose as well.
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 05:15 PM   #32
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
It will be tough to get SCOTUS to overturn mag bans unless they are outrageous like the NY 7 round ban.
Even then, how do we prove those limits are unconstitutional?

We hear the musket argument all the time, and it's hard to rebut someone who says, "the Founders never anticipated 30-round magazines and you can protect yourself just fine with 15."

I really, really think we need to leave this one to the legislatures.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 05:31 PM   #33
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
The founders anticipated any number of technological advances they themselves would have no comprehension of.

That's why they usually expressed themselves by protecting ideas and philosophies rather than details. It's also why they established the amendment process and the Supreme Court.

Speech does not mean two people talking then any more than it does today. The right to petition for a redress of grievances today often includes a web form the founders would have been mystified by for myriad reasons, not the least of which was the magic box that writes by witchcraft. Newspapers are a dying medium, but Freedom of the Press is at least as strong as ever, if not stronger no matter what you may or may not feel about the people currently so vocationally inclined. The fourth amendment specifies houses, but it now covers houses, apartments, tents, and a cardboard box in the park.

The rights they enumerated/enshrined/pick-your-verb were no more limited to technological advances as the government they founded.
JimDandy is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 05:52 AM   #34
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,765
I had heard one argument will come from the Americans with Disabilities Act.
HiBC is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 06:05 AM   #35
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
We hear the musket argument all the time, and it's hard to rebut someone who says, "the Founders never anticipated 30-round magazines and you can protect yourself just fine with 15."
SCOTUS has already dealt with the argument that "the 2A means muskets" argument, calling it "bordering on frivolous," IIRC.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 12:39 PM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
SCOTUS has already dealt with the argument that "the 2A means muskets" argument, calling it "bordering on frivolous," IIRC.
Yes, but that was an opinion written by Scalia, for which Ginsburg and Breyer wrote the dissents. They, along with Stevens, have made it quite clear (and quite public) that they'd interpret it differently if they were in the majority.

If we push this to the Supremes and Kennedy decides to swing the other way, we could see things tip the other way.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 10:17 PM   #37
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,330
tom servo
Quote:
Even then, how do we prove those limits are unconstitutional?
Why couldn't we use the allegory defense?
Maybe 30 rounds are unnecessary, unless it's a basic amendment-related freedom.
By comparison, couldn't people say the same thing about number of options on the ballot? That a cap is a perfectly logical restriction as the founding fathers never thought that 15 parties would be running the show? Or did Ben Franklin operate 15+ news papers b/c he thought that there was a minimum number that was required for a free press?
This is a restriction, placed by gov't on an amendment-protected freedom. How many comparisons do we need before this looks as silly as an emperor with no clothes?
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 11:47 PM   #38
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 512
Random question, sort of related...

If the magazine limit is ten, how is a belt fed counted? Are you only allowed to link in ten rounds? Are belt Feds even subject to your restrictions?
__________________
I love Full Auto!!
Machineguntony is offline  
Old July 3, 2014, 12:53 PM   #39
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Quote:
Random question, sort of related...

If the magazine limit is ten, how is a belt fed counted? Are you only allowed to link in ten rounds? Are belt Feds even subject to your restrictions?
Most of the magazine restrictions include broad enough language to include belts and clips. So yes, your belt could only be 10 rounds long in such a state.
wally626 is offline  
Old July 3, 2014, 01:01 PM   #40
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
So this court uses the Heller "common use" test for arms, then upholds a prohibition on magazines that are virtually ubiquitous because a magazine isn't a firearm? That's almost not funny enough to laugh at.

We certainly don't need paper, ink or money to exercise protected 1st Am. acts, but Buckley v. Valeo doesn't permit Congress to prohibit political speech through regulation of the components of that activity.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 3, 2014, 01:04 PM   #41
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machineguntony
If the magazine limit is ten, how is a belt fed counted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally626
Most of the magazine restrictions include broad enough language to include belts and clips. So yes, your belt could only be 10 rounds long in such a state.
Yup- most such laws use the phrase "Ammunition Feeding Device[s]" so the restriction applies to boxes, drums, tubes, pans, cloth belts, linked belts, whatever.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old July 12, 2014, 10:47 AM   #42
fshfindr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2013
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 143
Don't come here to NJ.
__________________
Richard L. (Lib With Guns)
fshfindr is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 12:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11873 seconds with 9 queries