The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 11, 2011, 12:25 AM   #26
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Heller stated that a complete prohibition of the most common weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense would be invalid.

Handguns are the most common weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense and semi-automatic handguns are the most common type of handgun chosen. Magazines are integral to the design of semi-automatic handguns. Magazine capacity has historically been based on the number of rounds of ammunition that could be accommodated by the handgun's form factor, rather than an arbitrary number. The Glock 17 is probably the most common individual model of semi-automatic handgun in use in the United States. The Glock 17's design accommodates a magazine with a standard capacity of 17 rounds, making it the most common magazine capacity in use in the United States.

Design characteristics, including ammunition capacity, define the nature and utility of weapons. Legislatively mandating different characteristics for a weapon effectively results in the prohibition of the original weapon and the arbitrary creation of a substitute. Heller prohibits such a prohibition of weapons in common use.

---

That's how I would address arbitrarily-limited capacity magazines versus standard capacity magazines. Somebody smarter than me would have to articulate a rationale to sustain extended capacity magazines.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:32 AM   #27
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,356
Quote:
I wonder how they sound to the parents of Christina Green, the 9-year-old girl curious enough about government to attend Giffords’ community event, where she was slain.
Actually, there was an interview with her father today, in which he laid blame squarely on the person pulling the trigger. He specifically stated that new laws would not have stopped this from happening.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:49 AM   #28
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
..."How about Hi Cap magazines, would a ban on that pass strict scrutiny...how about intermediate scrutiny?"...
Beats me.

The thing is that anything we can say here is pretty speculative. If we see a high capacity magazine ban, it will no doubt be challenged and the government will get a chance to try to make its case as to (1) what level of scrutiny applies; and (2) why the ban passes that level of scrutiny.

As I sit here, I'm not sure how the government would be likely to try to support a ban under either level of scrutiny. We know that some state magazine capacity laws are currently being challenged in court, and those cases may give us some clues.

But in the meantime, I doubt that we can meaningfully handicap the question.

I do think that given the "common use" language of Heller, government would have a tough time making a semi-auto ban stick.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 02:01 AM   #29
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,321
Magazine capacity restrictions have no case history at the SCOTUS level. I'd think any speculation would be exactly that...speculation!
raimius is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 03:27 AM   #30
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Quote:
This is not a democracy, its a republic.
Incorrect, and off-topic.

The USSR was a republic, and the People's Republic of China is a republic. But they aren't democratic republics. Which is what the US is.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 08:56 AM   #31
a.lol.cat
Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2010
Location: Da Interwebz
Posts: 69
Has anyone stopped to think that if this incident had involved something like an 18rd/15rd flush mount magazines that they might have had MORE trouble stopping him when he went for a change? 30rd magazines are much longer and increasingly more unwieldy than a shorter lower capacity one. The window of opportunity to disarm might be cut that slice of a second that was the deciding factor in a successful disarm as was done in this case.

Just a thought that had been bouncing around in my head for the last couple of nights.
a.lol.cat is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 09:10 AM   #32
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
On the local radio news I heard a new term being applied to Glocks...

Ultra high powered handguns.

The speaker (I didn't catch who it was) was also saying that this would be a good time to reintroduce an assault weapons bill.

Excuse me, but what did a mythical assault weapon have to do with this incident?

Oh, wait. To the anti-gunners, EVERYTHING is an assault weapon...
__________________
"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.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 09:22 AM   #33
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,440
Quote:
Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”
So I guess the Brady folks don't want us to carry guns that are not suited for hunting or personal protection. Wait, the Glock is very much suited to those tasks. So maybe the Brady folks are endorsing Glocks!

Quote:
This is not a democracy, its a republic.
Quote:
Incorrect, and off-topic.
I take it, Kleinzeit, you don't remember your Pledge of Allegience

http://thisnation.com/question/011.html
http://thecapitalist.newsvine.com/_n...-or-a-republic
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 09:55 AM   #34
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
It might pass "intermediate" scrutiny, but the parameters of that are still a bit fuzzy. We could easily show that pistols with 15-round magazines are "weapons in common use" by both the military and law-enforcement.
I agree, although I would put the "common use" cutoff at ~17-20 rounds.
Quote:
The only thing "irregular" about this guys pistol was the 30 round mag.
+1, but therein lies a problem. IMHO one could successfully argue that 30rd mags for handguns are not in "common use". I'm only aware of a handful of pistols that will accept a commonly-available >20rd mag.
Quote:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't any use of said child's name or photo need to be approved by the parents if it was to be used in a public manner?
I am not an expert in privacy, slander, and libel law, but my understanding is that once a person crosses a somewhat nebulous line established by court precedent and becomes a so-called "public figure", that person (or his/her parents, attorney, whomever) has much less control over how his/her likeness is used and what the media can or cannot report about him/her. This is how the tabloids are able to report largely unsubstantiated rumors about the love lives of Hollywood stars, to give one example.

AFAIK parents have the right to keep a minor child's name and picture private from the news media, but once they release his/her name and likeness to the media and it is published, he/she has crossed the "public figure" line.

Micropterus is correct, however, that her name cannot be used for commercial or advertising purposes without permission from the parents.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 12:15 PM   #35
Cowboy_mo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 901
Agree with Tom Servo

With the current makeup of Congress, this proposed bill stands very very very little chance of getting out of committee.

If by some remote chance it does get out of committe, it stands even less chance of being passed by the House and sent to the Senate.

The NRA and its supporters had a very successful election in November and my guns & I feel pretty safe for at least 2 more years.

What happened was a tragedy just like a drunk driver killing a family is a tragedy. But trying to ban any gun or removable magazine because of capacity will not prevent another tragedy like it from happening.
Cowboy_mo is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 12:37 PM   #36
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,482
Quote:
Not suited for personal protection. Wow.
Every one knows that Glocks are useless for personal protection, that's why so many police departments use them.

You have just got to love the spin that the Brady bunch is laying down on this one.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:10 PM   #37
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
How exactly do you make the case that a handgun that's "good for... killing and injuring a lot of people quickly." would not, by default, make for a fantastic SD weapon?


How are the Brady's chiming in on this anyway? Don't they have like $500 total? Must be that have piles of volunteer gun-haters to spew this nonsense in their name?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:17 PM   #38
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
With the current makeup of Congress, this proposed bill stands very very very little chance of getting out of committee... If by some remote chance it does get out of committe, it stands even less chance of being passed by the House and sent to the Senate.
I agree 100%. IMHO much of the current media hoopla is being fed by gun-control groups so they can rebuild their moribund fundraising base, NOT because they have any realistic hope of passing new national legislation.
Quote:
How are the Brady's chiming in on this anyway? Don't they have like $500 total?
Something like that.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=428376
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:25 PM   #39
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Quote:
IMHO one could successfully argue that 30rd mags for handguns are not in "common use".
They would be much more so, if Kel-tec would get their PMR-30, out faster...
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:31 PM   #40
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Quote:
I take it, Kleinzeit, you don't remember your Pledge of Allegience
Read my post again, DoubleNaughtSpy. I didn't say that the US isn't a republic. I just noted that it is a specific kind of republic: a democratic republic. (I take you don't remember the last time you voted?)

For a republic that isn't democratic, go to China. Gun issues are decided rather differently there.

Despite a common myth, the terms "republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. We shouldn't get hung up on the party-political connotations of these words. Early commentators (such as Madison) who critiqued "democracy" were referring to direct democracy; the US is a representative democracy, which is quite a different animal. This is why Cowboy_mo's comments pertain to this discussion:

Quote:
With the current makeup of Congress, this proposed bill stands very very very little chance of getting out of committee.

If by some remote chance it does get out of committe, it stands even less chance of being passed by the House and sent to the Senate.

The NRA and its supporters had a very successful election in November and my guns & I feel pretty safe for at least 2 more years.
It is also because the US is a representative democracy AS WELL AS A REPUBLIC that the effects of the media can be significant in shaping the debate. The Brady Campaign has influence largely because of the voting public. Which is why this ignorance about "ultra high powered handguns" is so vexing.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 01:56 PM   #41
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
it is a specific kind of republic: a democratic republic. .
I thought we were a federal constitutional republic, and Germany for instance...was once a democratic republic.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 02:12 PM   #42
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,625
The Clinton era awb was deemed constitutional at the time. It included restrictions on high capacity mags.

The current court "might" have struck it down. I tend to think they will if a similar case were brought today.


As far as legislation is concerned, remember Columbine? Nothing changed after that, nothing will change after this shooting either.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 02:25 PM   #43
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Quote:
I thought we were a federal constitutional republic
Yes, the US is all those things, and other things as well. The US can also be described as a "liberal democracy" (i.e., is based on free and fair elections and a competitive political process). Modern liberal democracies are also known as "liberal republics."

These terms only become contentious when people, either through ignorance or deception, misrepresent the meanings of these words - usually, to justify some spurious claim to the supremacy of one or the other of the major political parties on the basis of some supposed correlation between their name and the words used to describe the country. This kind of behavior is silly and does nothing to help us address the kind of issue we are discussing here.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 02:45 PM   #44
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Just the dunce in the corner trying to follow along. But when you said we are specifically a Democratic Republic, I got confused all of a sudden cause I was thinking about those huge female weight lifters representing East Germany in the Olympics. Don't mind me...it's a snow day.

Quote:
These terms only become contentious when people, either through ignorance or deception, misrepresent the meanings of these words
-
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 02:56 PM   #45
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Sorry alloy, I didn't mean you. Your question was a good one.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 03:04 PM   #46
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
The problem is that terms like "democratic," "republic," "socialist" etc. etc. etc. can mean a LOT of different things, which is why you end with these long strings of words that endlessly qualify what you actually mean by using them...

"Liberal" as in "liberal republic" doesn't mean the same thing as when we talk about "liberals," and "socialist" doesn't mean the same thing when you are talking about Nazis as it does when you are talking about Soviet states, or when you are talking about publicly-owned utilities or services, and "republic" doesn't mean the same thing when you are talking about the US as when you are talking about China. It really does get confusing.

So my point was just that we should focus on how things really happen here, and not get lost in an endless political/philosophical debate over whether the US is "really" a democracy or a republic.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 03:25 PM   #47
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,440
Quote:
So my point was just that we should focus on how things really happen here, and not get lost in an endless political/philosophical debate over whether the US is "really" a democracy or a republic.
Okay, we really don't vote for our President in our republic.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 03:29 PM   #48
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,625
The whole "its a republic not a democracy" bit is a rhetorical trick used to divert and stall debate. It has no informational value.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 03:42 PM   #49
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Interesting points, but OT for the original questions:

Quote:
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?
gc70 is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 03:43 PM   #50
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
From the Heller decision:
Quote:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
To me, this would imply that limiting the capacity of magazines could pass constitutional muster, as it is currently interpreted.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 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 09:23 AM.


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 0.13200 seconds with 7 queries