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

[Jeff H]

@bds , it is hump day and nothing so far this week in the national news. Anything lurking around in the news out on the west coast? Just saw a big add on armslist where they have companies shipping 30 round mags to Calif. Curious if the AG is going to push for an injunction or some other such nonsense.

 

[LiveLife]

We are waiting on judge Benitez response to application for stay by CA AG (Done Monday) and opposition by NRA/CRPA (Done Tuesday) - http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

In the meantime, floodgate has opened as multitude of vendors nationwide are shipping "arms"/magazines to CA - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LP1NCp0MjBoeDp6tc6ddb2dKKIAdqxU0qubnEANW4dc/edit#gid=0

Reason.com did a good analysis of why judge Benitez ended the CA "arms"/magazine ban - https://reason.com/blog/2019/04/01/here-is-why-a-federal-judge-nixed-califo

Buzz is "CA Approved Roster of Handguns" maybe next ... let's hope.

I am getting ready to retire and this is like the best retirement present!

 

[GEM]

Would that the national GOP leadership in Congress and the WH might praise this decision.

 

[LiveLife]

Probably not too loud to piss off the anti-gun crowd even more.

We are still quietly waiting on judge Benitez response on application for stay and opposition by NRA/CRPA.

BTW to all, if you have been ticked off by NRA in the past, please take this moment to celebrate and make a donation to NRA/CRPA as a "thank you" - https://californiariflepistol.z2sys...liforniariflepistol/donation.jsp?campaign=61&

I am hoping CA Handgun Roster to be reversed next.

 

[Gridley]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've had some training from lawyers in what discrimination looks like.

The explanation that seems to work for laymen is this: it isn't discrimination if you get different *results* for the group in question (women, minorities, etc.), it is discrimination if you do something in order to get different results.

If I say "to get this job you must be able to lift 100 pounds multiple times a day" I will probably wind up with a workforce that has very few women. I may reject more female job applicants than male applicants. Neither one of those outcomes shows discrimination. Now if someone shows that I only actually asked the male applicants to lift 80 pounds, or if I didn't ask them to lift anything at all but *did* ask the female applicants to do so, then there'd be grounds for a suit (they might or might not win, but plenty of lawyers would charge gleefully into it). In some cases you can prove that, essentially, the results were SO skewed that someone MUST have done something even if you can't show who or what, but that's tough. Even then, you're saying that someone *was* taking action even if you don't know exactly who or what.

 

[LiveLife]

As I stipulated in the OP, I am a layman.

Maybe "overly affect" be better than "discriminate"?

If I find better fitting word(s), I could ask moderator to replace the OP title.

 

[labnoti]

No, because the law applies to everyone equally. If it discriminates, it discriminates against everyone.....About the only time you would see the ADA involved is ...[when you] fail to provide reasonable accommodations for the disabled (ie wheelchair ramps, etc)

Why aren't higher capacity magazines in lower-recoiling guns a reasonable accommodation?

Accommodations for disabled people are not simply a matter of avoiding acts of doing something that discriminates against them, but under current law it also involves providing special accommodations for them such as ramps, lower drinking fountains, special parking spaces and bathroom stalls. We don't just say, "these steps on the bus discriminate against all people equally." Instead, we install a special lift just for people in wheelchairs.

I'm not asserting that magazine capacity limits are discriminatory or that they're not. But I am saying that higher magazine capacity could be a reasonable accommodation for some disabilities and that restrictions bar disabled people from access to the devices that could mitigate their disability or limitations in the defense of their lives and care for themselves which is a "major life activity" per 42 U.S. Code § 12102.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I keep thinking about one of my neighbors from years ago. He had multiple birth defects, including poorly developed hands with almost no thumbs and a weak grip. Should he have special accommodations?
How about an old cowboy I knew that lost his right thumb to a roping accident?
Or my father, who chopped off half of his left hand?
What would be the limits of the need foe an accommodation?

 

[LiveLife]

Hmmmm .... could someone argue that these "groups" of people with disabilities perhaps could benefit from "full auto" exemption if they can demonstrate they have harder time actuating triggers?

How about an old cowboy I knew that lost his right thumb to a roping accident?

I thought they came up with ambi control pistols for left handed people and people who needed to actuate pistol controls with both hands.

When my wife's friend who was left handed wanted a pistol, I suggested M&P because of ambi controls.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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)

What, are you saying the 10 year old little girl who is short of stature and with tiny hands is super human strong somehow???? She isn't an adult woman that you are talking about being short and so weak handed as not to be able to shoot a real caliber.

So what you are saying is that typical women can't shoot 9mm, .40 cal, or .45 acp??? They are too weak they need years of training? NO NO NO and NO!

 

[dogtown tom]

Why aren't higher capacity magazines in lower-recoiling guns a reasonable accommodation?

Again, because the Americans with Disabilities Act has absolutely nothing to do with firearms.
"Accommodations" are not required because firearm usage by those with disabilities is not covered under the ADA.

Accommodations for disabled people are not simply a matter of avoiding acts of doing something that discriminates against them, but under current law it also involves providing special accommodations for them such as ramps, lower drinking fountains, special parking spaces and bathroom stalls. We don't just say, "these steps on the bus discriminate against all people equally." Instead, we install a special lift just for people in wheelchairs.

Go back and reread what you wrote here, then think about why ramps, lower water fountains, etc ARE required under the ADA. Hint: read this first---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

I'm not asserting that magazine capacity limits are discriminatory or that they're not. But I am saying that higher magazine capacity could be a reasonable accommodation for some disabilities and that restrictions bar disabled people from access to the devices that could mitigate their disability or limitations in the defense of their lives and care for themselves which is a "major life activity" per 42 U.S. Code § 12102.

Again, FIREARMS USAGE is not covered under the ADA. What you consider as a "reasonable accommodation" is immaterial because NO accommodations for firearm usage exist under the ADA. It's like trying to claim that a person with a disability is allowed to drive faster than the speed limit because they have a weak bladder.

<------Adapted Physical Education Specialist
I teach students with gross motor delays and disabilities. so I'm pretty familiar with accomodations required under the ADA.

 

[LiveLife]

What, are you saying the 10 year old little girl who is short of stature and with tiny hands is super human strong somehow?

She is a match shooter with a lot of practice.

And yes, there are many women who have difficulty even with racking the slide of semi-auto pistols. I had many women who chose a particular pistol just because they were able to rack the slide better. This is the kind of "accommodation" I am talking about. (Yes, I am aware of different slide racking techniques)

I teach students with gross motor delays and disabilities. so I'm pretty familiar with accomodations required under the ADA.

So how would you "accommodate" someone with physical disability who wanted to shoot effectively for self defense?

 

[LiveLife]

As I stipulated in the OP, I am a layman.

Maybe "overly affect" be better than "discriminate"?

If I find better fitting word(s), I could ask moderator to replace the OP title.

OK, PM sent to moderator to request thread title change.

 

[Gridley]

I thought they came up with ambi control pistols for left handed people and people who needed to actuate pistol controls with both hands.

When my wife's friend who was left handed wanted a pistol, I suggested M&P because of ambi controls.

There are a very small number of handguns out there that are truly ambidextrous. For example most of the S&W M&P line has an ambi slide stop, but the magazine release is *reversible*, not ambi (I own two, heavily because at the time I bought my first there were even fewer options for a southpaw).

Note that some firearm manufacturers talk about a firearm being ambi or left-handed if it has *any* of the controls either ambi or reversible.

Being left-handed is also not protected under the ADA, BTW (nor, IMO, should it be).

Sorry, personal pet peeve - I'm a leftie, but my wife is right-handed, so I've spent a lot of time looking for firearms we can both use easily without needing to field-strip them.

 

[GEM]

Changed the title on OP request to accommodate the picky-picky posters.

 

[LiveLife]

Thank you.

In other states where "arms"/magazine restriction still exists to 10 and 7 rounds, I am quite certain there are those who feel like they are being "discriminated" against due to factors that prevent them from shooting firearms as fast as they want/need to defend/protect their lives.

For them, restriction of ammunition capacity "negatively impacts" their ability to exercise their Second Amendment right.

Our government should be working to protect the lives of victims and future victims of robbery, physical assault, emotional trauma, rape and murder instead of imposing on their right to self defense and self protection.

To help them, please vote pro-2A law makers in and vote anti-2A law makers out.

 

[dogtown tom]

Thank you.

In other states where "arms"/magazine restriction still exists to 10 and 7 rounds, I am quite certain there are those who feel like they are being "discriminated" against due to factors that prevent them from shooting firearms as fast as they want/need to defend/protect their lives.

First, what is your understanding of the term "discrimination"?
Second, EVERYONE is negatively impacted by restrictive gun laws. It's not the gun, not the magazine, it the person holding the gun our legislators need to worry about.

Just because you disagree with something or something doesn't go as you envisioned, it does not mean you were "discriminated against" or that the other parties action was discriminatory.
For example, using beef tallow to fry French Fries doesn't mean the restaurant "discriminates" against Hindis or vegetarians. Neither does putting cheese on a cheeseburger discriminates against those who keep strict Kosher. Now, if your restaurant refuses to serve someone based on based on race, religion, sex, national origin or a disability......then you have a claim to discrimination.
Do those restaurants actions negatively impact your fine dining experience? Probably, but it doesn't violate any law.

A state law that prohibits a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds by anyone, wouldn't be discriminatory under any Federal law because it applies to everyone in that state. (Second Amendment not withstanding) If that state law singled out blondes, old ladies or Mormons specifically...ya got a case.

For them, restriction of ammunition capacity "negatively impacts" their ability to exercise their Second Amendment right.

Well, doesn't it "negatively impact..." EVERYONE in that state?

Our government should be working to protect the lives of victims and future victims of robbery, physical assault, emotional trauma, rape and murder instead of imposing on their right to self defense and self protection.

To help them, please vote pro-2A law makers in and vote anti-2A law makers out.

I think pretty much everyone on this forum gets that idea.

 

[Jim Watson]

A state law that prohibits a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds by anyone, wouldn't be discriminatory under any Federal law because it applies to everyone in that state. (Second Amendment not withstanding) If that state law singled out blondes, old ladies or Mormons specifically...ya got a case.

Ah, but they don't apply to everyone. They carve out exemptions for the civilian police and the bodyguards of the politicians and the influential.

 

[LiveLife]

Please note thread title has been changed to "negatively impact" from "discriminate".

As I expressed in my OP, I am not a lawyer, just a layman and perhaps use of "discriminate" was not a good fit for what I had in mind. I believe "negatively impact" is closer to what I had in mind.

So if we could tailor our discussion around "negatively impact", I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

 

[LiveLife]

For them, restriction of ammunition capacity "negatively impacts" their ability to exercise their Second Amendment right.

Well, doesn't it "negatively impact..." EVERYONE in that state?

That is true.

But the level of impact would be greater.

Requirement to report to courthouse for jury duty negatively impacts everyone but the impact is greater for jurors with disability requiring accommodation not necessary for jurors without disability - https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/Other/Juror with Disabilities Final Report.ashx

In similar manner, restriction on ammunition capacity negatively impacts all gun owners but the impact is greater for smaller stature female, elderly and physically disabled gun owners with weaker upper body/hand strength. Being female alone may not be a significant factor but since there are differing physical endurance/performance requirements to the point where sporting activities like Olympics have separate gender categories may express disadvantage for female gun owners against male attackers.

As there are accommodations (some mandated by the government) for people with disability to perform activities of daily living, there may be a need for accommodation for people with upper body/hand weakness to perform self defense/self protection activity of operating firearms. We have already discussed such accommodations as AR pistol stabilizing brace and ambidextrous controls. And ammunition limit to 7/10 rounds, IMHO, has greater negative impact and consideration should be given to producing firearms with smaller grip, lighter trigger, better recoil control/management systems, etc. to include binary trigger.

Anyone who has fired a firearm without hearing protection, especially in confined space can tell you it is not a pleasant experience. Yet, gun owners are likely to fire their firearm without hearing protection in self defense situations which will likely affect their ability to hear, see and focus not to mention experiencing pain. Accommodation for this is needed for every gun owner and detachable or integrated noise suppression is the answer to allow gun owners to fire their firearms without being negatively impacted or injuring their hearing temporarily and permanently.

Just as government protects people with disabilities to perform activities of daily living, shouldn't protection be afforded to allow smaller stature female, elderly and physically disabled gun owners with weaker upper body/hand strength to fulfill their need and desire to protect themselves? I believe reversing 7/10 round magazine restriction should be expedited followed by hearing protection for gun owners along with technology to allow easier/enhanced operation of firearms to include binary trigger.

 

[Basura Blanca]

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.

A small note here: I'm fairly certain those anecdotes were included in the opinion not so much to make the point that higher-than-legally-prescribed magazine capacities would've benefited the victims, but instead to counter the state's contention that more than 2.2 rounds (or whatever the absurd figure) was sufficient in self-defense shootings.

As for the discrimination/handicapped angle, that was explored in one of those failed roster lawsuits iirc.

 

[Jeff H]

There are a very small number of handguns out there that are truly ambidextrous. For example most of the S&W M&P line has an ambi slide stop, but the magazine release is *reversible*, not ambi (I own two, heavily because at the time I bought my first there were even fewer options for a southpaw).

Note that some firearm manufacturers talk about a firearm being ambi or left-handed if it has *any* of the controls either ambi or reversible.

Being left-handed is also not protected under the ADA, BTW (nor, IMO, should it be).

Sorry, personal pet peeve - I'm a leftie, but my wife is right-handed, so I've spent a lot of time looking for firearms we can both use easily without needing to field-strip them.

Being a leftie myself, standard mag releases and slide releases don't bother me at all. I just learned to manipulate them with my index or middle finger. no issues. Safeties on the other hand are a pain in the butt if they aren't ambi.

Back on topic, my wife doesn't have the arm strength to pull the slide back on anything stronger than her Sig 238. If she needed to grab a gun for self defense, say the Sig 320, she would be at a real disadvantage with 7/10 rounds.

 

[TJ AK-74]

BDS said " 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"

2 things...

1. Reduced recoil ammo and muzzle compensators/brakes already exists. Also, if a caliber recoil too much for an individual, that person can choose a smaller caliber.

2. Why on earth should anyone ask the government for permission to seek out a solution to a problem? Especially a firearms related problem? We have a right to pursue free-market solutions to that problem. Leave government out of it. The government is not prohibiting anyone from making lower recoiling firearms and ammo.

 

[LiveLife]

1. Reduced recoil ammo and muzzle compensators/brakes already exists. Also, if a caliber recoil too much for an individual, that person can choose a smaller caliber.

2. Why on earth should anyone ask the government for permission to seek out a solution to a problem? Especially a firearms related problem? We have a right to pursue free-market solutions to that problem. Leave government out of it. The government is not prohibiting anyone from making lower recoiling firearms and ammo.

Yes the government is prohibiting because many of these free-market solutions are illegal in many states.

 

[TJ AK-74]

They prohibit a few of the solutions in some states. I agree with you that the .gov should not prohibit weapons development for the disabled. The problem is that they prohibit everyone, not just weak and/or disabled people. I don't know that anyone that is anti-gun is going to be swayed by the idea that the regulations are unfair to disabled people and should therefore be removed. If anything, they'd probably just use that as a reason to further restrict everyone else to smaller calibers etc to "protect" the disabled, from the "unfair" force disparity of able-bodied people.