At what point can magazine limits be contested as "Infringement"?

[epijunkie67]

At what point do restrictions on magazine capacity cross over from regulation to infringement? At what point can we get these laws struck down by the SCOTUS?

I've been wondering about this lately since seeing what's happening in NY and other Northeastern states. One common way of "regulating" firearms is to try to limit the capacity of magazines. Originally they limited them to 10 rounds. Now it is 7.

But what happens when this new limit doesn't have the effect they want? What happens when the next psychopath to come along decides to use a 1911? Obviously the next logical step is to reduce the magazine capacity again.

So they drop it to 5 rounds. Then 3 rounds. Then what? 1 round?

If congress passed a law limiting all firearms in the country to single shot it would not be difficult to claim this was an infringement of the second amendment. At what point can 'We the People' sue the government claiming that these magazine restrictions are unconstitutional?

 

[Sam1911]

It is an infringement whenever the SCOUTS SAYS it is. A citizen in any state that enacts a magazine ban and who then was caught in possession of one (or possibly was denied purchase of one) would have standing to appeal that conviction on Constitutional grounds. That would require a lot of funding and a very good legal team, and would also require that the courts actually agree to hear the case.

In theory, any restriction at all that resulted in a prosecution could provide the test case, but the more onerous the restriction the more likely the case would be to go forward.

Unfortunately, there is a certain about of precedent that mag restrictions of some sorts are acceptable under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[gbran]

At some point, they just ban semi-autos. As to SCOTUS, it could take several years for a case to reach them and don't forget they are not sure our 2A rights exist outside our homes.

 

[rcmodel]

And they will be even less sure to be unsure after Obama appoints a couple more Justices in the next four years!

rc

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

At any point.... at every point.

It strikes right at the heart of the effectiveness of a firearm as a tool with which one may protect one's self from tyranny.

Equal to regulation of caliber as far as I'm concerned.

 

[mnrivrat]

Sam got it right . The capacity has never been a challenged issue that I know of ,so the Court would have to decide.

As far as my opinion, which means absoluitedly nothing , any regulation that limits the weapons capacity below that of the Military used model would be infringement . My sig line pretty much explains the original guide line.

 

[PRM]

Agree with posts that say the Court ultimate decision. From my position, its when the government says "you cant."

 

[Hapworth]

The gun control side, all the way up to recent on-the-record remarks from Biden, have already laid the groundwork for an infringement argument: they specifically state a magazine capacity restriction will limit an active shooter's ability to do harm -- they rest their whole thesis regarding magazine restrictions on that.

If that's true, then the reverse by definition must also be true: it will limit he capabilities of an individual acting in legitimate self defense.

Whether or not that reaches legal thresholds for "infringement" has to be decided in courts.

 

[Gun Geezer]

If I can still pick up the loaded gun, then it does not have a Constitutional ammo count loaded in. Any restriction below my ability to pick it up is an infringment.

"Infringe" really is a simple word.

 

[schrodingerscat]

Formal Logic in Law is not read as the reversal in the manner you speak:

This is how it is actually done, you Negate Both sides, so:

"a magazine capacity restriction will limit an active shooter's ability to do harm"

"a magazine capacity restriction will NOT limit an active shooter's ability to NOT do harm"

 

[gym]

Now, would be good.

 

[Sam1911]

Indeed, SAF's coming assault on NY's new laws may indeed be the moment we've all been waiting for.

 

[47CubPilot]

"Regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment is NOT about regulations as we now think of them (rules, statutes, laws and such).

 

[beatledog7]

You can never, ever, say that some regulation is not an infringement of RKBA as long as that regulation could be restated in this manner:

"...shall not be infringed, but..."

For example: RKBA "...shall not be infringed, but you can only have 10 rounds..."

There is simply no way to "but" a God-given and Constitution-codified right.

 

[Pete D.]

Scotus

April 20, 2008. District of Columbia vs. Heller.
In a 5-4 decision the Court affirmed the individual's right to bear arms. Part of that decision was this: that right, like all rights, is not unlimited.
A magazine limitation does not limit one's right to bear arms, how ever much it may affect how much ammo is in the arm in question. Think back to when the law was enacted. They had the right to bear arms....muzzleloaders....one shot.

This is where the argument is going to go. Is limiting how much ammo you or I carry in a gun an infringement of our right to carry that gun? The 2008 decision seems to lead to a no. Further, a la NYS and the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act...is limiting the type of gun that I can own, an infringement my right to own a gun? Again, the court decision leads to a no. ("You can own a gun. Sure. You just can't own that gun.")
Pete

 

[Sam1911]

Think back to when the law was enacted.....muzzleloaders....one shot. They had the right to bear arms.

Absolutely not so. There were multi-barreled arms going back centuries and there were NO prohibitions on such "high-capacity" arms.

Argument falls apart instantly.

 

[kcgunesq]

You can never, ever, say that some regulation is not an infringement of RKBA as long as that regulation could be restated in this manner:

"...shall not be infringed, but..."

For example: RKBA "...shall not be infringed, but you can only have 10 rounds..."

There is simply no way to "but" a God-given and Constitution-codified right.

You are confusing two issues as the poster above pointed out. "Regulated" in the 16th Century vernacular meant "disciplined", "trained", "proficient" and the like as much or more than "controlled" or "licensed". So the previous poster is absolutely correct.

However, you too are correct. None of the individual rights are without limitation. Using the modern parlance, it is fair to say that our right may to some degree or another be "regulated", but that doesn't mean that the word in that context has the same meaning as in the 2nd Amendment.

Edited: BeatleDog7 - upon rereading, I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Either way, I wanted to make the point for others.

 

[xfyrfiter]

The same time period as the second was written, they also had a high power air rifle that would load and fire 21 rounds as fast as you could fire it. Lewis and Clark carried at least 1 on their expedition. The second was, and is not about limits, PERIOD.

 

[Pete D.]

Hmmm

Quote:
Think back to when the law was enacted.....muzzleloaders....one shot. They had the right to bear arms.
Absolutely not so. There were multi-barreled arms going back centuries and there were NO prohibitions on such "high-capacity" arms.

Argument falls apart instantly.

Ok. Point taken. Multi-barreled flintlocks, matchlocks, wheel locks.....I suppose so. They were a rarity, though that does not negate your point.
Please to remember that I am a gun owner also, one of us and not at all pleased with the attempts to control. I am merely trying to see where the arguments are and what counter arguments are viable.
So.....what about the other ideas?

The same time period as the second was written, they also had a high power air rifle that would load and fire 21 rounds as fast as you could fire it. Lewis and Clark carried at least 1 on their expedition. The second was, and is not about limits, PERIOD.

The Girandoni air rifle was a repeater. Twenty or so shots (lead round balls) in a tubular magazine. It had to be cocked manually for each shot. A really neat gun. In modern terms, it is not a firearm. Interesting.
The second amendment according to the court decision cited above does have limits. You may want to argue the point with them.

Once again...I am not arguing for limitations. I am pointing out what some of the arguments are.

 

[beatledog7]

You are confusing two issues as the poster above pointed out. "Regulated" in the 16th Century vernacular meant "disciplined", "trained", "proficient" and the like as much or more than "controlled" or "licensed". So the previous poster is absolutely correct.

My statement has no relationship to the the way term "regulated" was used when 2A was passed and ratified. I meant strictly the way it is used today. The OP's question was about magazine limitations, a topic which 2A does not address and which would therefore qualify as one of the unspecified infringements to which the amendment refers. The whole point of the Constitution is that whatever it does not explicitly allow it implicitly disallows. Too often we forget that.

My post was not intended to rebut the post that immediately preceded it, so that part of your rebuttal to me is irrelevant.

 

[Sam1911]

Please to remember that I am a gun owner also, one of us and not at all pleased with the attempts to control. I am merely trying to see where the arguments are and what counter arguments are viable.

Understood. It's good to bring up these things -- even potentially contrary suggestions -- so that we can hash them out.

I don't assume someone who posts a potential argument is actually committed to it unless they say so.

 

[boatmanschneider]

1 Man, 1 Vote, 1 Gun, 1 Bullet?

 

[hnk45acp]

I'm in NYC, what this law does is in effect time travel us back to 1911. Imagine your state saying you can buy any car as long as it's a Model T. We will only be able to buy revolvers and a handful of semi autos (1911s, sub compacts, basically modern day vest guns). It strips the ability of any new gun owner to own 85% of guns out there.

 

[msb45]

OK let's go back to the rules of 1700

Restriction on destructive devices? NO
OK to own a canon? Yes
OK to arm your own warship with multiple cannons? YES
OK to have explosives, unlimited number of guns without permit? Yes
OK to have bladed weapons and bear them without restraint? YES
Limits on importation? NO
Limits on short barrel rifle/Shotguns? NO
Concealed carry without permit? YES

If you want to play that card, I'm willing to.

Of course the fact that your 1st amendment is not restricted by the advent of the computer, phone, or texting has no impact.

That's how we fight stupid limits on magazines.

 

[Pete D.]

Nope

I'm in NYC, what this law does is in effect time travel us back to 1911. Imagine your state saying you can buy any car as long as it's a Model T. We will only be able to buy revolvers and a handful of semi autos (1911s, sub compacts, basically modern day vest guns). It strips the ability of any new gun owner to own 85% of guns out there.

As the argument goes, that is incorrect as far as pistol (most pistols) are concerned. The limitation is not on what guns you can own, but on how much ammo you can load into them and the magazines available for doing so. For example, you could still buy a Glock 17 or a Browning Hi-Power. They gotta have seven round magazines.
85%? Did you make that up or do you know for a fact that revolvers, 1911s and subcompacts represent only 15% of the handgun market?


We have to do better....

OK let's go back to the rules of 1700

Restriction on destructive devices? NO
OK to own a canon? Yes
OK to arm your own warship with multiple cannons? YES
OK to have explosives, unlimited number of guns without permit? Yes
OK to have bladed weapons and bear them without restraint? YES
Limits on importation? NO
Limits on short barrel rifle/Shotguns? NO
Concealed carry without permit? YES

If you want to play that card, I'm willing to.

That is how to fight limits on magazines??? None of those examples have anything to do with magazines. In fact, I am pretty sure that none of those weapons had magazines.

Also... it is probably not a good idea to compare a basically pre-industrial society to what we have today.
Note:For example, the population of NYC in 1700 was less than 5000 people. Today.....it is over 8,000,000.

Pete