SCOTUS.. Even bigger than NRA decision...10 round and AW bans second look..

[icenoir]

Much bigger than the shall issue directive affecting 8 states, SCOTUS directing lower courts must take a second look at 10 round magazine bans and AW bans in Hawaii, NJ, ML, CA....

The Seattle Times: Supreme Court says several gun cases deserve a new look.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...S_nation-world

[Brownstone322]

Yes indeed. This means the 4th Circuit, among other circuits, has to reconsider its ruling that previously upheld Maryland's ban on "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines.

I agree that, on balance, this is much bigger than Bruen, as these kinda bans are mantra among the gun-control crowd (and we once had a federal law to that effect, of course). Plus I live in the 4th Circuit, in Virginia, where those precise bans were proposed in the 2020 legislative session (although the bill failed in the Senate, because Democrats couldn't get it through their own party).

My prediction: The weasels in the First, Fourth and Ninth Circuits will cling to their bans, but this time the high court will hear the subsequent appeals. This ... is the beginning of the end.

[44 AMP]

This ... is the beginning of the end.

For whom???

In my state a high capacity (more than 10rnds) magazine ban goes into effect today. If you own them today, you get to keep them, but you cannot buy, sell, trade, or give them to anyone, in this state, ever again. This includes your heirs.

You cannot buy them out of state and bring them in, and if you live out of state and move to my state, you cannot bring them with you. Under this POS law, you could move here with your AR or Glock (or any of the other semis you own-special requirements for "assault weapons" but you can't bring the magazines, if they hold more than 10 rnds.

Other than the obvious irritation and inconvenience I find it ironic that the gov is so scared of the people that they make owning a spring loaded metal (or plastic) box a crime if it is bigger than they deem acceptable.

I would dearly love to see the Supreme Court issue a ruling to make all this nonsense regulation go away. Within my remaing lifetime would be nice, too.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I would dearly love to see the Supreme Court issue a ruling to make all this nonsense regulation go away. Within my remaing lifetime would be nice, too.

Apply the evaluation approach from NYSRPA v. Bruen to your state's mag limit (and slow motion confiscation). Can you think of any historical support for laws limiting a firearm's capacity from the Founding era or Reconstruction?

Now consider that the Supreme Court remanded California and New Jersey mag limit cases this week for reconsideration under the new evaluation approach. You might get your wish sooner than you imagine.

[Tom Servo]

Can you think of any historical support for laws limiting a firearm's capacity from the Founding era or Reconstruction?

They'll use the tired "but muskets and muzzle-loaders" argument, which was plainly rejected by Bruen. Still, they'll try to make it stick at the state and Circuit level the way they tried to make "intermediate" scrutiny a thing after Heller.

And we'll have to spend time and money fighting each of these dumb laws and the dumb court decisions upholding them. It's always been a strategy of the gun-control lobby to wear us down through attrition.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by gc70

Apply the evaluation approach from NYSRPA v. Bruen to your state's mag limit (and slow motion confiscation). Can you think of any historical support for laws limiting a firearm's capacity from the Founding era or Reconstruction?

"When the Second Amendment was written, all firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, so obviously the right to keep and bear arms holding more than one shot isn't protected."

Response: "When the First Amendment was written, all they had was quill pens, so obviously anything written with a ballpoint or on a personal computer isn't protected speech."

[cdoc42]

44AMP: "In my state a high capacity (more than 10rnds) magazine ban goes into effect today. If you own them today, you get to keep them, but you cannot buy, sell, trade, or give them to anyone, in this state, ever again. This includes your heirs."

Is there anything in the law in your state that addresses how they know you went out of state and happened to buy 6 more magazines for your AR-15 to match the 6 you already have? How do they know how many anyone has in the first place?

If you don't leave your guns to your children in your will, how do they claim....after you die and your children now own the guns because they claim you gave them ownership years before the new law was passed...that they are not telling the truth?

[icenoir]

With the second look directive it is pretty clear the Supreme Court is looking to strike down these prohibitions in the near term.

[44 AMP]

How do they know?? Obviously, they don't. But, practical difficulties in enforcement never got in the way of a good gun control law, that I know of...

Also, specific to this law, its not the guns that are being restricted (there are other laws covering that) it is just the magazines.

How would they know you went out of state and bought more? Without you being foolish enough to retain proof of where and when you got them, they won't. BUT, if they should happen to "catch" you on your way home from out of state with them, you might have your day in court....

And remember with things like this, they don't have to win a conviction for you to lose. What I mean is, even if you beat the charges, the cost of doing that is a net loss. A win over going to jail, sure, but otherwise a loss that decent folk should not have to risk enduring.

As to inheritance, there's the whole "burden of proof" thing. It SHOULD be up to the state to prove criminal wrongdoing, but remember, we're talking about "evil" gun parts here, things who "only purpose is to facilitate mass murder" and who knows whether a rational, or a fanatic attitude about guns will dominate those who sit in judgement of any specific case.

It MIGHT be that absent specific proof of ownership before the law's effective date MIGHT be considered enough proof to rule they are contraband. Is that right? Hell no! Is that possible? sadly, yes...

MOST people will not have their guns (and particularly gun accessories) individually listed in their wills. It is possible some court might decide that without that, your heirs claims are just hearsay, with no legal weight. Sad, but not impossible.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is what we're stuck with until/unless we get a court ruling tossing these laws into the crapper where they belong.

[icenoir]

I don't think the burden of proof is really relevant. I'm taking about the Supreme Court is setting up the wholesale elimination of all these statutes in the near term.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by icenoir

I don't think the burden of proof is really relevant. I'm taking about the Supreme Court is setting up the wholesale elimination of all these statutes in the near term.

First, it's FAR from guaranteed that the Supreme Court is going to wholesale eliminate "all these statutes" at all.

Secondly, even if they do eliminate some of them, it won't be in the near term. It's going to take years for cases to wend their way through the courts.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by icenoir

With the second look directive it is pretty clear the Supreme Court is looking to strike down these prohibitions in the near term.

I don't think so. Remember that Heller was 14 years ago.

You and I might be fine with a statutory scheme that lets people stop in at an Ace Hardware to pick up a select fire rifle and suppressor without federal involvement. The Sup Ct is drawn from a cadre of people who are smart, but spent most of their waking hours since turning 12 sitting in a classroom, doing homework, or sitting at a desk doing research or drafting. These aren't people who take a Saturday to travel to a 3 gun match or shoot as hobbyists. (I think Scalia may have done some bird hunting - an area not entirely the same as rifle and pistol sport shooters). They aren't going to have an experience and intuition that drives them to reflexively dismiss magazine limits or type restrictions on arms. It doesn't mean some of them couldn't reason their way into a liberal result, but all of them grew up just like me and probably you, in an environment with lots of gun restriction, few carry permit laws, and everything new from an FFL.

I think this will be a long process, and can be interrupted by death, elections and nominations.

[cdoc42]

A bright light is the recent action by the SCOTUS to return abortion decisions to the States, and to the people through their elected representatives. When that bell rings loudly and long enough, it might recover the mindset that for far too long, unelected bureaucrats have been making the rules by which we are forced to live, and eventually, hopefully, limit the duties of Uncle Sam to those in the Constitution and leave the rest of our daily life decisions to those who live in states that are compatible with each of our individual preferences.

[icenoir]

After Heller, the Court turned away 150 gun cases. Now it's telling the federal courts in the most blue states to take another look at their decisions.
This in the same week it stuck down an unrelated 50 year precident and cut the legs out of a regulatory agency.
I think things are a little different than 14 years ago.

[Doc Intrepid]

It's a step in the right direction:

"The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) vacated and remanded a number of cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii.

Among the cases are Bianchi v. Frosh, challenging Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban; Young v. Hawaii, which deals with carry restrictions in Hawaii; and Duncan v. Bonta, which challenges California’s “high capacity” mag ban."

"A challenge to New Jersey’s “high capacity” ban was also among the cases vacated and remanded."

Bloomberg Law noted that in remanding the cases Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

“While that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.”

SCOTUS vacated the rulings and asked lower courts to revisit the cases in light of the June 23, 2022, NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling.

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion in that case, noting:

“We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”"

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...acity-mag-ban/

[Metal god]

In my state a high capacity (more than 10rnds) magazine ban goes into effect today. If you own them today, you get to keep them, but you cannot buy, sell, trade, or give them to anyone, in this state, ever again. This includes your heirs.

CA had/has that and when it first past years ago they allowed you to keep your mags if you already owned them . They also allowed you to repair your mag if a part broke . What did this mean . There were "repair" kits for every possible mag on the market . What was a repair kit ...... a complete mag disassembled lol .

Among MANY other things , one that upsets me the most is that you can't pass your mags or AW to your kids or grandkids . I know it's not a tax but I feel that part of the law will stand . The government takes all kinds of money from dead people as a tax . Not sure why they can't take other property as well ? Not saying I agree with the theory , just thinking out loud that maybe they just call it a firearms tax when you die . If a mandate and penalty can be a tax even though the word tax/s is nowhere in the affordable care act . So
some how the penalty for refusing to do something is now a tax . So why can't the have a death gun tax ?

Ok , generally speaking taxes are money not property So the government says the inheritors must destroy or sell the firearms and if sold the state gets the proceeds lol ? That way it's a choice you make and not the state forcing you to do anything

[44 AMP]

ONE of the irritating things, to me, is that previous gun control laws ALLOWED inheritance of the restricted, but legally possessed guns. This one does not.

Call it a tax if that makes you feel better about it. What I call it would trip TFL language filters and so, I won't print it here...

[Metal god]

Call it a tax if that makes you feel better about it.

It's not about feeling better because as you this makes me sick . I just feel there's a long fight ahead over not being able to hand/pass down your firearms and other related items .

CA just passed firearm precursor laws . Meaning they are banning thing that are not firearms but could be if you choose to make it a firearm . Like a hunk of steel is a firearm "precursor" .

[natman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

They'll use the tired "but muskets and muzzle-loaders" argument, which was plainly rejected by Bruen. Still, they'll try to make it stick at the state and Circuit level the way they tried to make "intermediate" scrutiny a thing after Heller.

The "muskets only" argument was firmly rejected in Caetano before NYSPRA* (Bruen) and in Heller before Caetano. Caetano was overturned by a per curiam decision, which is like saying your argument is so flawed we're not going to waste our time hearing arguments. I would be surprised if anyone tries it again, but desperate people do desperate things.

NYSPRA firmly rejected any sort of intermediate scrutiny, but it's either try that or construct a hopelessly flimsy "strict" scrutiny. We shall see.

*The case was NYSPRA v Bruen. It's customary to refer to cases by the petitioner.

[Butzbach]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

"When the Second Amendment was written, all firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, so obviously the right to keep and bear arms holding more than one shot isn't protected."

Response: "When the First Amendment was written, all they had was quill pens, so obviously anything written with a ballpoint or on a personal computer isn't protected speech."

Didn’t the Lewis and Clark air gun hold 30 rds?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Butzbach

Didn’t the Lewis and Clark air gun hold 30 rds?

Bill of Rights ==> 1791

Lewis & Clark ==> 1804 - 1806

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by natman

The case was NYSPRA v Bruen.

I've been referring to it as Bruen as well. NYSPRA is too much; it's the 2d Am. version of LGBTQIA+.

[44 AMP]

Whatever you call it, I'd like to point out a practical point of the decision about NY permits.

The NY laws about pistol ownership and carry were not struck down, no matter how badly the media wants to convince you they were.

What was found to be wrong, constitutionally, was the State's requirement on having to provide a "valid reason" and the State's authority to decide what was, and was not a valid reason.

TO me, this is not a ruling about the validity of a fundamental right, it is about the state infringing on the right by its procedures in accepting or denying permit applications.

what I am getting from the recent court rulings on guns, abortion, and the EPA is vastly different than what is being shouted from the proverbial rooftops in the electronic and print media.

I see these rulings are not about the fundamental issues involved, directly, they are about correcting "procedural errors" in the way the state or Federal govt has addressed those issues. Things like exercising authority not specifically granted in law, primarily.

I feel that the court is trying to require the govt and its various agencies to operate within the rules as written. Of course, its all more complex than that, and extremist on both sides of every issue LIE, further confusing people, but overall, I'm fine with what the court is actually doing, and why. They aren't doing what the ranting fanatics are saying they did, on either side of the issues.

[Butzbach]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Bill of Rights ==> 1791

Lewis & Clark ==> 1804 - 1806

Quite right. I probably had this in the back of my mind:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...2nd-amendment/

Not that it has anything to do with the main point af the amendment.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

TO me, this is not a ruling about the validity of a fundamental right, it is about the state infringing on the right by its procedures in accepting or denying permit applications.

The Court could have addressed the procedural issue by simply saying license decisions have to be made on objective standards, but the ruling went beyond that.

A case involving procedural questions about how licenses were issued happened to be the vehicle that allowed the Court to address fundamental matters involving the right:

• The ruling clarified that the Second Amendment is not substantially limited to the home as many lower courts tried to portray, and;
• The two-step approach to evaluating cases that developed to justify rational basis or means-ends decisions is not acceptable.

NYSRPA was not the end of all gun control as some hysterics in the media claim, but it is substantially more than a determination about the role of governmental discretion in a particular type of licensing process.