So Is There a Right to Bear Glocks? - Page 3

Kleinzeit · January 11, 2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

The whole "its a republic not a democracy" bit is a rhetorical trick used to divert and stall debate. It has no informational value.

+1

Quote:

Okay, we really don't vote for our President in our republic.

Who defines democracy in terms of the direct election of a president? Don't know where you got that from.

Kleinzeit · January 11, 2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

this would imply that limiting the capacity of magazines could pass constitutional muster, as it is currently interpreted.

Agreed. I can't see anything in Heller or elsewhere that would prevent this.

carguychris · January 11, 2011, 03:54 PM

Quote:

The Clinton era awb was deemed constitutional at the time.

Really? I didn't think there was ever a definitive court challenge at the federal level. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

They would be much more so, if Kel-tec would get their PMR-30, out faster...

AFAIK it is now shipping at the originally-promised rate, but many dealers are still trying to catch up with a backlog of orders.

Brian Pfleuger · January 11, 2011, 03:57 PM

If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?

egor20 · January 11, 2011, 04:02 PM

If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?

I'm gonna be one step ahead of them, I'll get a Wheellock pistol, don't want to be caught with one of the assault flintlocks or tactical percussion pistols.

**Tom Servo** · January 11, 2011, 04:11 PM

Actually, Frank Lautenberg is calling for a ban on "high-capacity clips" holding more than ten rounds.

Shhh...nobody correct him.

stargazer65 · January 11, 2011, 05:10 PM

Peetzakilla:

Quote:

"If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?"

Probably the criteria of what they arbitrarily perceive Joe citizen should be allowed to have, and swayed one way or the other by arguments from both sides.

csmsss · January 11, 2011, 05:18 PM

Here's the problem as I see it. Assuming such a law were to somehow be enacted, and its constitutionality heard by the court, we face a Hobson's choice. By that I mean a lose-lose proposition. I think the court would first set out to determine, first and foremost, whether a magazine/clip/whatever is covered under Heller/McDonald. Likely, that test would be whether the loading device can be said to be a firearm. If it's not a firearm, then it is not covered under Heller/McDonald and therefore can be restricted statutorily. If it IS a firearm, then it would be subject to the same purchase restrictions, NICS check, etc. that a firearm is subject to. Either way, the antis win.

Brian Pfleuger · January 11, 2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csmsss

Here's the problem as I see it. Assuming such a law were to somehow be enacted, and its constitutionality heard by the court, we face a Hobson's choice. By that I mean a lose-lose proposition. I think the court would first set out to determine, first and foremost, whether a magazine/clip/whatever is covered under Heller/McDonald. Likely, that test would be whether the loading device can be said to be a firearm. If it's not a firearm, then it is not covered under Heller/McDonald and therefore can be restricted statutorily. If it IS a firearm, then it would be subject to the same purchase restrictions, NICS check, etc. that a firearm is subject to. Either way, the antis win.

I don't know if it could be that simple. There's got to be some sort of limit on restricting the necessary parts of a firearm. I mean, a barrel isn't a "firearm", could they set barrel length limits at 1 inch? Could they say you can own all the firearms you want but they're not allowed to have TRIGGERS.... or sights?

Al Norris · January 11, 2011, 05:42 PM

Expounding upon what type of political structure our nation entails, is off topic for this thread and off topic for TFL in general.

Be Warned.

I'm leaving the posts, as is, for now....

csmsss · January 11, 2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

I don't know if it could be that simple. There's got to be some sort of limit on restricting the necessary parts of a firearm. I mean, a barrel isn't a "firearm", could they set barrel length limits at 1 inch? Could they say you can own all the firearms you want but they're not allowed to have TRIGGERS.... or sights?

You're probably right - but my "simple" test is really intended to demonstrate how difficult interpreting such legislation in the light of a post-Heller/McDonald context will be. What is an essential part of a firearm and which is not? You don't necessarily need a magazine in a semi-auto for it to be operable, except in certain cases (which can usually be defeated). So is the magazine a firearm or is it merely an accessory? Or is it a restrictable firearm component (like a receiver) or not? Does any of this reflect/impinge upon 2A protections as defined under Heller/McDonald? I have no idea whatsoever. This would truly be an example of where the SCOTUS might be asked to write law on our behalf - and who knows where that might lead?

e4for2 · January 11, 2011, 05:48 PM

Rule by MAJORITY is not what we live under,,We are protected by the constitution for our rights,A Majority system (Democracy) can do any thing they wish to the minority's life,,even taking it and anything else they wish,,Democracy and Democratic form of govt are not in the same thing,,a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected reps and governed by law.. In a Majority,,
they can remove the right to vote to anyone..For example,a Majority could lay excesesive taxes on a class of people or create a debtors prision,deni the right to own property,,anything !!!

Brian Pfleuger · January 11, 2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csmsss

Does any of this reflect/impinge upon 2A protections as defined under Heller/McDonald? I have no idea whatsoever.

Well that makes two if us!

The whole idea seems like a Pandora's Box of epic proportions.

langenc · January 11, 2011, 05:57 PM

Many of the people mentioned in post #1 would still be here if within the group attending the Reps meeting there would have been eight or ten w/ guns.

Was the Safeway (the store where the meeting was being held) or the mall (i believe the store was part of a mall) a gun free zone. I thought I read/saw that in some early TV coverage. I could be wrong. Please advise, if so.

The first thing several persons did was call the police (GUNS). Too bad there werent guns already there.

Brian Pfleuger · January 11, 2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by langenc

Many of the people mentioned in post #1 would still be here if within the group attending the Reps meeting there would have been eight or ten w/ guns.

Was the Safeway (the store where the meeting was being held) or the mall (i believe the store was part of a mall) a gun free zone. I thought I read/saw that in some early TV coverage. I could be wrong. Please advise, if so.

The first thing several persons did was call the police (GUNS). Too bad there werent guns already there.

What happens when the 8 or 10 with guns don't know who's a good guy and who isn't?
What if they start shooting each other?
What if the cops see 8 or 10 people with guns and start shooting them?
What if 2 or 3 of the 8 or 10 with guns miss the target and kill or injure 4 or 6 other innocents?

Oh, if life were so simple.

**Tom Servo** · January 11, 2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

The first thing several persons did was call the police (GUNS). Too bad there werent guns already there.

I argued that an armed civilian would have made a difference at Westroads Mall. And at Luby's, and at Virginia Tech.

But here? I don't think it would have helped.

This guy was relatively inconspicuous, and he emptied the magazine fast. He was in the middle of a crowd. Heck, he probably knew that lots of Arizonans carry.

As such, it'd take a couple of seconds to identify the threat and acquire the target. Then, what's my backstop? A whole bunch of innocent people. It's a tactical nightmare.

I'll argue all day for an unfettered right-to-carry, but this isn't an example of where it would have helped.

ETA: Yoink! Peet beat me to it

pichon · January 11, 2011, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Last year, it [Arizona] got 2 points out of a possible 100 in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state score card, avoiding a zero only because its Legislature has not — so far — voted to force colleges to let people bring their guns on campuses.

Two points? Shame on you AZ... Utah got zero.

If the issue is lethal potential, and we are blaming Hi-cap mags, then we need to ban commercial air planes and fertilizer. Together they have been responsible for two of the largest murders (as far as victim count) this country has ever seen.

Brian Pfleuger · January 11, 2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pichon

then we need to ban commercial air planes and fertilizer

They're ahead of you on that one.... it's harder to get Ammonium Nitrate (in quantity) than it is to get a gun in most places.

Bernie Lomax · January 11, 2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Two points? Shame on you AZ... Utah got zero.

Well, we beat you (and everyone else) on this anti list:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...highlight=lcav

Still, I am disappointed that we didn't make it to the bottom of the Brady bunch's list as well.

The 2011 legislative session starts tomorrow. We'll work harder this year. In fact, I already have an email composed that I'm sending to my reps tomorrow, regarding some "changes" (hehehe) that I'd like to see made.

**Mike Irwin** · January 12, 2011, 09:10 AM

My friend easily got ammonium nitrate fertilizer mail order.

No muss, no fuss.

We used it to make Tannerite-type targets.

Ticked his Mom's neighbors off to no end.

teeroux · January 12, 2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

I doubt very much that many lives would be saved by banning semiautomatic pistols, or banning high-capacity magazines.

I doubt it to. If you ban em someone who wants to do this kinda thing will just make them or obtain them illegally. Second a person could just carry several low capacity firearms. Then they will look to ban how many you can own.

Glenn E. Meyer · January 12, 2011, 09:59 AM

The AWB - guns, mags - was studied intensively - no effect on any crime indices were found.

It is amazing how politicians and the media are obviously to using things like Google Scholar - OH, no it isn't - politicians are immune to evidence.

This is true for every shade of the political spectrum.

OscarTurner · January 12, 2011, 12:55 PM

A ban on magazines that extend below the grip of the firearm is what I think they will go after. They look menacing and are easily identifiable - just like bayonet lugs. Whether or not it turns out to be constitutional is a matter for the lawsuits that would certainly follow from the NRA. But, in the immediate I can see it going through as a 'matter of National Security" just based on who the targets were in this case. I don't think Columbine is an appropriate choice of president since no politicians were targeted. 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.

**44 AMP** · January 12, 2011, 02:14 PM

A restriction (virtual ban) on an item that is not a firearm, by a firearm law. The NFA 34 restricts silencers (any device intended to reduce the sound of a gunshot), and has survived without any serious challenges to date.

The precedence is there, it does not have to be a firearm, only something that can be attached/used by a firearm to be covered under a firearm law. We have laws currently remaining at state level that cover folding stocks.

They can do whatever they want, assuming they have the votes to pass it, and it becomes law until/unless the High Court voids it. That's our system, and isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.

Various states have bans on "hi cap" magazines, and many other things. NJ even has a ban on hollowpoint ammo in public, so I am told.

The general attitude of the govt is that as long as you can have some kind of arms (and ammo) prohibition of specific items does not infringe on our rights.

We don't have a constitutional right to own a Glock. We have a right to keep and bear arms. Which arms those are is something decided by law, and court interpretations of law. As long as they allow us something, they aren't denying us our rights. At least, that is how they see it.

And that point of view has been law in this country for 76 years, and still going strong.

MLeake · January 12, 2011, 02:42 PM

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

January 11, 2011, 03:57 PM	#54
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10? __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

January 11, 2011, 04:02 PM	#55
egor20 Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,824	If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10? I'm gonna be one step ahead of them, I'll get a Wheellock pistol, don't want to be caught with one of the assault flintlocks or tactical percussion pistols. __________________ Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand

January 11, 2011, 04:11 PM	#56
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Actually, Frank Lautenberg is calling for a ban on "high-capacity clips" holding more than ten rounds. Shhh...nobody correct him. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

January 11, 2011, 05:48 PM	#62
e4for2 Member Join Date: July 10, 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 25	I believe some need to return to school Rule by MAJORITY is not what we live under,,We are protected by the constitution for our rights,A Majority system (Democracy) can do any thing they wish to the minority's life,,even taking it and anything else they wish,,Democracy and Democratic form of govt are not in the same thing,,a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected reps and governed by law.. In a Majority,, they can remove the right to vote to anyone..For example,a Majority could lay excesesive taxes on a class of people or create a debtors prision,deni the right to own property,,anything !!!

January 12, 2011, 09:10 AM	#70
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	My friend easily got ammonium nitrate fertilizer mail order. No muss, no fuss. We used it to make Tannerite-type targets. Ticked his Mom's neighbors off to no end. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

January 11, 2011, 05:18 PM	#58
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Here's the problem as I see it. Assuming such a law were to somehow be enacted, and its constitutionality heard by the court, we face a Hobson's choice. By that I mean a lose-lose proposition. I think the court would first set out to determine, first and foremost, whether a magazine/clip/whatever is covered under Heller/McDonald. Likely, that test would be whether the loading device can be said to be a firearm. If it's not a firearm, then it is not covered under Heller/McDonald and therefore can be restricted statutorily. If it IS a firearm, then it would be subject to the same purchase restrictions, NICS check, etc. that a firearm is subject to. Either way, the antis win.

January 11, 2011, 05:42 PM	#60
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Expounding upon what type of political structure our nation entails, is off topic for this thread and off topic for TFL in general. Be Warned. I'm leaving the posts, as is, for now....

January 11, 2011, 05:57 PM	#64
langenc Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2007 Location: Montmorency Co, MI Posts: 1,551	Many of the people mentioned in post #1 would still be here if within the group attending the Reps meeting there would have been eight or ten w/ guns. Was the Safeway (the store where the meeting was being held) or the mall (i believe the store was part of a mall) a gun free zone. I thought I read/saw that in some early TV coverage. I could be wrong. Please advise, if so. The first thing several persons did was call the police (GUNS). Too bad there werent guns already there.

January 12, 2011, 09:59 AM	#72
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	The AWB - guns, mags - was studied intensively - no effect on any crime indices were found. It is amazing how politicians and the media are obviously to using things like Google Scholar - OH, no it isn't - politicians are immune to evidence. This is true for every shade of the political spectrum. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 12, 2011, 12:55 PM	#73
OscarTurner Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 109	I can see a Hi Cap magazine ban getting passed A ban on magazines that extend below the grip of the firearm is what I think they will go after. They look menacing and are easily identifiable - just like bayonet lugs. Whether or not it turns out to be constitutional is a matter for the lawsuits that would certainly follow from the NRA. But, in the immediate I can see it going through as a 'matter of National Security" just based on who the targets were in this case. I don't think Columbine is an appropriate choice of president since no politicians were targeted. 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.

January 12, 2011, 02:14 PM	#74
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	76 years and still going strong.... A restriction (virtual ban) on an item that is not a firearm, by a firearm law. The NFA 34 restricts silencers (any device intended to reduce the sound of a gunshot), and has survived without any serious challenges to date. The precedence is there, it does not have to be a firearm, only something that can be attached/used by a firearm to be covered under a firearm law. We have laws currently remaining at state level that cover folding stocks. They can do whatever they want, assuming they have the votes to pass it, and it becomes law until/unless the High Court voids it. That's our system, and isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. Various states have bans on "hi cap" magazines, and many other things. NJ even has a ban on hollowpoint ammo in public, so I am told. The general attitude of the govt is that as long as you can have some kind of arms (and ammo) prohibition of specific items does not infringe on our rights. We don't have a constitutional right to own a Glock. We have a right to keep and bear arms. Which arms those are is something decided by law, and court interpretations of law. As long as they allow us something, they aren't denying us our rights. At least, that is how they see it. And that point of view has been law in this country for 76 years, and still going strong. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 12, 2011, 02:42 PM	#75
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Problem with the suppressor argument is that it is NOT essential to operation of a firearm.