Does 10/7 round magazine restriction negatively impact women/elderly/physically disabled persons?

[LiveLife]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layman.

In light of last week's federal judge ruling against 10 round magazine limit for California, I read up on the US Constitution and found this particular article on layman's perspective of the Constitution - https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-laymans-perspective-on-the-constitution/

And I recently read the NYT piece about larger bullets being more lethal - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html

I also browsed through Pew Research Center article titled "America's Complex Relationship With Guns, An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults" - https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/


When California banned higher capacity than 10 round magazines, I switched from 9mm Glock 17/19/26 to 40S&W Glock 22/23/27 thinking if I am restricted to 10 rounds, using larger caliber bullet may provide me with greater effect on my threat. With this rationale, I also bought Taurus MilPro PT145, a 10 round double-stack pistol chambered for 45ACP, thinking even larger caliber bullet than 40S&W may be more effective carry option.

In Friday's ruling, judge Benitez cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and women would have been more effective if they had higher-capacity gun magazines. If a woman, elderly or physically disabled person with weaker upper body strength has to select smaller caliber 9mm over 40S&W/45ACP, does 10/7 round restriction discriminate against them?

As expressed by JAMA study, if smaller 9mm bullets inflict less damage than larger 40S&W/45ACP bullets, 9mm shooter may need to fire more rounds to inflict same amount of damage - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536

If this is the case, restricting magazine capacity to 10/7 rounds should be an issue for women's rights organizations, AARP and disabled people's organizations as these persons may need more rounds to achieve same level of damage for self defense.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Firearms - especially concealed firearms - are a matter of compromise.

I have always encouraged people to carry:
1) the largest firearm,
2) in the largest caliber,
3) with the largest legal capacity,
4) that they can shoot quickly and accurately,
5) and actually carry with them at all times.

To most people, that means a smaller firearm of a smaller caliber with a smaller capacity.
A large, heavy firearm that gets left in a drawer or a safe is no help in a confrontation.
It's an imperfect world.

The judge's ruling is good news, though.
It's good to have a choice.

 

[Deanimator]

Like all racially invidious gun controls, it's merely a mechanism to harass non-criminal gun owners and to discourage gun ownership by non-criminals.

You can never go wrong by assuming malice on the part of the other side.

 

[Telekinesis]

As expressed by JAMA study, if smaller 9mm bullets inflict less damage than larger 40S&W/45ACP bullets, 9mm shooter may need to fire more rounds to inflict same amount of damage - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536

Be careful about citing this source - it is a great case study in why researchers need to have a good understanding of their data before publishing.

What do you see wrong here?

These 367 cases were divided into 3 groups by caliber:

small (.22, .25, and .32),
medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or
large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm)

Rifle calibers are substantially more lethal than pistol calibers. Throwing the fatality data from a rifle round into the "large pistol" bucket skews the data significantly and invalidates the point the study was trying to make.



To your overall point though, I think everyone needs the ability (whether they choose to take advantage of it or not) to have more than 10 rounds available, and I think those with disabilities do have a very good reason for having more ammo in their magazine. On the other hand, I think you are going to have an incredibly difficult time convincing anyone that limited magazine sizes meet the legal definition of discrimination.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

It infringes on the second amendment and discriminates against law abiding citizens regardless of sex, age or ability.

 

[LiveLife]

Yes, I agree.

I asked because 10 and 7 rounds were "arbitrarily" picked to restrict defenders/victims' ability to defend/protect themselves against attackers.

Judge Benitez cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and women would have been more effective if they had higher-capacity gun magazines. Since women of smaller stature and elderly/physically disabled persons with weaker upper body strength may likely choose smaller caliber pistols, need for higher-capacity magazine is greater.

We have government provide many accommodations such as modified curves/ramps to help those in wheelchair, cross-walks with audible sound generators for visually impaired, etc.

Why can't we better "accommodate" women of smaller stature and elderly/physically disabled persons defend/protect themselves. Wasn't AR pistol stabilizing brace meant to support and help steady the pistol to accommodate the same group of people so they could be more effective in defending/protecting themselves? If AR brace was permitted to accommodate them, what about compensators/muzzle brakes and other muzzle devices that help steady the pistol so they can better hit the target? And since bullets hitting the target is what ultimately defends/protects people, why not more bullets in the way of higher capacity magazines?

Advocates of these people should be asking the government if special lower recoil firearm/ammunition can be manufactured to compensate for weaker upper body strength.

I mean, wasn't one of many firearm's purpose to "equalize" and protect a weaker person from a stronger person? To give a weaker/non-skilled person a means to protect against others stronger and skilled in the use of swords/combat techniques? So why aren't we helping the weak defend/protect their lives?

 

[Pat Riot]

Gun control of any type is the result of people that aren’t smart enough or willing to see the real solution to the problem.

 

[kidneyboy]

"should be an issue for women's rights organizations, AARP " These are left wing political groups. Good luck getting them to support the 1st or 2nd amendment.

 

[LiveLife]

Pro-2A organizations like NRA represents ALL gun owners.

And more and more Baby Boomers and Generation Xers are reaching retirement age (They not only have money, political clout but many served in the military/fought wars and are gun owners).

I have helped many arthritic Baby Boomers with defensive shooting/point shooting and I can tell you one thing, higher capacity magazines will definitely help them when their shooting hand is shaky. Having extra rounds in the magazine could be the difference whether they hit their attacker or not.

 

[GEM]

To actually answer the question , I know folks in the NRA who have told me that when ADA challenges have been attempted, the judges have said that there is no right to have a gun and discrimination rules and the ADA are not applicable. Could it be tried again in a post Heller scenario - that’s a thought if you found the right court.
Hope this is more useful than the usual screeds.

 

[ATLDave]

It's facially-neutral (everyone is equally constrained), but is perhaps disparate in its impact/effects.

 

[LRDGCO]

Further infringement on the right to keep and bear arms discriminates against the rights of all citizens. Period.

 

[LiveLife]

Could it be tried again in a post Heller scenario - that’s a thought if you found the right court.

To be honest, I really did not expect the level of thorough and definitive ruling by judge Benitez so maybe tide is turning with more pro-2A judges being confirmed to 9th Circuit and other Circuit courts.

Who knows, perhaps judge Benitez sensed this and tailored his 86 page opinion "for" the 9th Circuit judges? FWIW, I actually sent Chuck Michel an email regarding this but I am sure they probably already reviewed the issue.

It's facially-neutral (everyone is equally constrained), but is perhaps disparate in its impact/effects.

Yes, and precisely my point. Our society and government have accommodated many "needs" and when I worked as a Compliance Coordinator, I had to measure everything from force required to open doors (and adjust door closer setting) to even the amount of force/pressure required to actuate toilet flushing levers and how far they were from the wall.

To me, accommodation that can save one's life or prevent rape carries much higher priority than accommodation that merely prevents injury or discomfort.

 

[dogtown tom]

In Friday's ruling, judge Benitez cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and women would have been more effective if they had higher-capacity gun magazines. If a woman, elderly or physically disabled person with weaker upper body strength has to select smaller caliber 9mm over 40S&W/45ACP, does 10/7 round restriction discriminate against them?.....

No, because the law applies to everyone equally. If it discriminates, it discriminates against everyone.

To actually answer the question , I know folks in the NRA who have told me that when ADA challenges have been attempted, the judges have said that there is no right to have a gun and discrimination rules and the ADA are not applicable. Could it be tried again in a post Heller scenario - that’s a thought if you found the right court.
Hope this is more useful than the usual screeds.

Those folks in the NRA are talking out their rear end and I doubt the judges response was anything remotely close to that. The ADA has absolutely nothing to do with firearms, but prohibits discrimination based on disability. It's a law about accessibility and accommodations for those with disabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
About the only time you would see the ADA involved is if you build a public gun range and fail to provide reasonable accommodations for the disabled (ie wheelchair ramps, etc)

 

[LiveLife]

So why is the state government of California so eager to mandate costly drop testing, loaded chamber indicator, magazine safety and micro stamping, etc. to the point where manufacturers have left one by one and we have shrinking roster of handguns on the Approved List?

They are trying to reduce our access to firearms (and now ammunition) which is essential tool to defend and protect our lives. When our lives are in danger, firearms are a necessity.

The state government is imposing on the rights of the gun owners.

The state government is singling out gun owners and treating them differently, the very definition of discrimination - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/discrimination

The state government is discriminating against one groups of citizens because we hold a different First Amendment view.

The state government is bullying when they should be protecting the rights of the minority, the gun owners.

The government should work to protect the weak when the weak cannot "effectively" protect themselves. That's where I started this thread, the small statured women, elderly and physically disabled persons who have weaker upper body strength to use larger caliber pistols which may be more effective but due to their weakness, they may have to use smaller caliber pistols, which may be less effective. And made even less effective by state restricting capacity to 10 or 7 as expressed by judge Benitez that women would have been more effective if they had higher-capacity gun magazines.

 

[Telekinesis]

The state government is singling out gun owners and treating them differently, the very definition of discrimination - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/discrimination

Yes, and you are technically discriminating when you choose to eat at McDonalds instead of BurgerKing.

That doesn't mean there is a legal prohibition against that discrimination. There are very narrow definitions of what constitutes illegal discrimination, and being a gun owner is not a protected class.

I don't think anyone here actually likes the mag capacity regulations, but if this was a reasonable legal argument it would have been litigated by now.

 

[LiveLife]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layman.

Well, I and the rest of layman of the land are glad that state's magazine ban got reversed by the federal judge.

I understand now that stay/appeal will be done but us layman can hang unto hope that whether judge grants stay or not/9th Circuit rule for or against, it will be a win for 9th Circuit states and possibly for the country.

And yes, my morning coffee for some strange reason tasted better than usual ...

 

[Deanimator]

It's facially-neutral (everyone is equally constrained), but is perhaps disparate in its impact/effects.

The impact is GUARANTEED to be disparate.

They're not going to kick down doors in Beverly Hills or Brentwood. They're going to kick them down in East LA and Oakland.

That's how it ALWAYS works.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Governments - ALL governments - hate it when the common people can tell the government "No".
The Second Amendment is all about preserving the ability of the common people to say "No".
If the government is willing to suppress the Second Amendment in their attempt to frustrate the common people then it is certainly willing to suppress ADA regulations.

 

[Jim Watson]

I am pessimistic. A stay on the verdict, a reversal by the 9th, no hearing by the supreme.
And California will ignore even if it doesn't. Drag everybody at the USPSA match through the courts and it will be a "chilling effect."

 

[40-82]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layman.





If this is the case, restricting magazine capacity to 10/7 rounds should be an issue for women's rights organizations, AARP and disabled people's organizations as these persons may need more rounds to achieve same level of damage for self defense.

I suspect you're reaching with this one. If you have the right to pull the trigger in the situation you face, you have the right to kill. Imagine this scenario, exploring the opposite end of the spectrum: an MMA fighter wants to attack me. He's gonna clean my clock. Yet, if I can get to a tiny North American Arms .22 and can put the full cylinder into his gut, my chances of whipping him in the upcoming fight suddenly increase. Or better, if he's all fired up with adrenalin and doesn't notice I've hit him I might say, "Sir"--no point in using hurtful language that could leave me open to civil liabilities. I've already expressed my feelings--"you've been shot to hell. Perhaps you could consider breaking off this altercation and seeking medical help."

He looks down, sees the mess I've made of him and answers, "Duh, I think you're right."

That scenario could work.

If it could work, and we're going to grade acceptable level of force on a such a narrow continuum, and instead I roll out a 1911 .45, which is much faster to present than reaching for something out of my pocket.

Covered by the big bore, he merely steps back and announces, "I have your description, license number on your vehicle. You're going down, Sucker."

And I do go down because I threatened excessive force.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If this is the case, restricting magazine capacity to 10/7 rounds should be an issue for women's rights organizations, AARP and disabled people's organizations as these persons may need more rounds to achieve same level of damage for self defense.

First, remove the sexist bent of the statement. Women have no problems shooting the same calibers as police officers, many of whom are police officers. After that, I can't recall "ability to do comparable damage" ever being an issue for discrimination, but let's say somebody buys the idea. Why aren't you pitching this to NOW, NWA, and AARP instead of spinning your wheels here? If YOU think this should be an issue for those organizations, that is who YOU should be talking to.

 

[LiveLife]

Why aren't you pitching this to NOW, NWA, and AARP instead of spinning your wheels here?

I pitched the idea to Chuck Michel, attorney for NRA/CRPA. And I probably will pitch the idea to other rights organizations as when their lives are on the line, right to self defense/self protection probably will rise above pursuit of other rights.

First, remove the sexist bent of the statement. Women have no problems shooting the same calibers as police officers, many of whom are police officers.

But not all women as many are of short stature with weaker hand strength, like elderly and physically disabled with weaker upper body strength.

And if you look at the crime statistics, chances are victimization of women, elderly and physically disabled may be quite significant.

When selecting defensive pistols, we often recommend people handle and shoot various pistols to find the one that is comfortable for us to handle and comfortable with recoil. The smaller stature women, elderly and physically disabled may require greater level of accommodation so they too can shoot with "comfort" to accurately hit their threats.

AR pistol stabilization brace is one such accommodation but let's not stop there. Ambidextrous controls is another accommodation for lefties and for people with injured right hand or missing right hand. I believe we can do much more in terms of firearm construction and ammunition. Heck, they even have low recoil "tactical" pistol and shotgun shells for police and civilians ... Everyone has the right to self defense and self protection. Let's not leave anyone behind.

That was my focus.

You ask any short stature women, elderly and physically disabled person if they want ammunition capacity restricted to 7/10 rounds or want larger capacity, I have a feeling they will all say, they want larger capacity magazines.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But not all women as many are of short stature with weaker hand strength, like elderly and physically disabled with weaker upper body strength.

Gimme a break. A woman's height has nothing to do with her ability to shoot. Weaker hand strength? My 83 year old mother shoots a Glock 26.

Tell me again about the shortcomings of women, being so short and with weaker hand strength. This gal is just 10...

 

[LiveLife]

Gimme a break. This gal is just 10

No, you give me a break. She's not a typical 10 year old like Max Michel is not a typical 37 year old. Here is Max breaking world record (I wonder if he's related to Chuck Michel, attorney for NRA/CRPA)



My sister is 5'3" with small hands but competes with M&P40 (with small grip insert) and will outshoot most guys in her club. But she is not your typical 52 year old, she's had years of training. When I share defensive training techniques with coworkers/their families/neighbors, I will demonstrate blindfolded double tap head shots on multiple targets. But I am not your typical 53 year old. I have "a little" trigger time with my pistols.

For this thread, I am talking about "typical" people with "weaker upper body strength" (As indicated in the OP) who may be disadvantaged by different factors and limiting magazine capacity to 7/10 rounds doesn't benefit them and puts them at greater risk.