Are bans on high capacity magazines constitutional?

posted at 8:31 am on March 8, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

A bit of disturbing news comes our way from the Left coast, where a second federal judge has declined to issue a temporary injunction against a Sunnyvale, California ban on weapons magazines holding more than ten rounds, essentially allowing the ban to go into effect while appeals run their course. Any such limits are dismaying to supporters of Second Amendment rights, given the obvious path from there to increasingly restrictive laws which eventually end with only single shot weapons being allowed. (It’s also worth noting that while Andrew Cuomo succeeded in getting one of the most odious gun grabbing laws in the nation upheld in New York, a seven round magazine limit in the law was later thrown out in court.)

But given recent rulings which support the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, are these magazine capacity restrictions actually constitutional? One of the heavy hitters in the constitutional law field, Eugene Volokh, has taken a long look at the question and come up with some potentially depressing conclusions.

A federal district court has refused to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Sunnyvale, California’s ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds. (Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014).) A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.

Volokh then spends a number of paragraphs making all the same arguments I would make from a common sense perspective. These include the facts that mass shootings involving multiple high capacity magazines are so rare as a subset of all gun crimes as to be insignificant, as well as noting that most mass shooters bring multiple weapons anyway, and magazines can be changed out by a skillful shooter so quickly that it really doesn’t matter. These facts – and more – all lead one to conclude that there is little to no useful purpose served by imposing a capacity restriction, so why would a judge support it?

For the answer, Volokh turns to the precedent of other well known rights where the courts have found some restrictions to be constitutional, provided they don’t impose an unreasonable burden on the citizen exercising those rights. These include examples ranging from restrictions on free speech through volume limits to restrictions on abortions.

For instance, the government may limit the volume of music or constrain sound amplification generally, even though that would necessarily diminish to some extent the potential audience for such music or political advocacy. Substantial restraints on the ability to reach the public would be unconstitutional, but more minor ones — when they don’t discriminate based on the content of the speech — are generally constitutional.

Similarly, while the Court has concluded that the Constitution protects abortion rights, it has said that restrictions on such rights are unconstitutional only when they create a “substantial burden” on women who seek abortions. While there’s the obvious risk that restrictions that aren’t very burdensome will be followed by broader and broader one, courts solve this by saying that they’ll step in when the music volume restrictions or abortion restrictions become too burdensome, not by saying that all such restrictions are categorically unconstitutional.

In a bit of irony, it seems that Volokh is arguing that precisely the same reasons which make magazine limits essentially useless are the ones which may see courts allowing them to sneak through the constitutionality barrier. That is to say, if the restriction really doesn’t do anything to impede the ability of the shooter to use the weapon, (very few self defense scenarios find the victim firing more than three rounds) then a magazine capacity limit doesn’t impose an undue restriction on their rights.

My gut reaction is to disagree with this, but that’s probably more emotional than reason based. As much as I don’t like it – and hope that the courts go the other way – I can see where Volokh is going with this argument, and I fear that some judges may see it that way as well. Your thoughts?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

as well as noting that most mass shooters bring multiple weapons anyway, and magazines can be changed out by a skillful shooter so quickly that it really doesn’t matter.

Clearly, what we need to do here is limit the number of weapons carried and force gun manufacturers to develop a “slow exchange” magazine. That will solve everything.

…maybe I shouldn’t encourage them.

tdarrington on March 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Ah yes, the new judicial interpretation of the 2nd amendment, following some revisions, and soon to be established as part of case law

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed regulated messed with recognized

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 8:40 AM

What part of “shall not be infringed” is so tough for the political class to understand, anyway?

gryphon202 on March 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM

That is to say, if the restriction really doesn’t do anything to impede the ability of the shooter to use the weapon, (very few self defense scenarios find the victim firing more than three rounds) then a magazine capacity limit doesn’t impose an undue restriction on their rights.

The counterargument is… If the law doesn’t do anything, why have the law. But we know the intent is not to limit magazine capacity, it is to take one progressive step to an outright ban. When the capacity limit fails to curb gun crime, it won’t be due to a failure of the law, it will be because the law was not restrictive enough. Time to take one more small step.

tdarrington on March 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM

I’d limit magazine capacity to the same as what the military uses for its standard issue firearms.

What, that’s more than ten? I’m fine with that.

rbj on March 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM

very few self defense scenarios find the victim firing more than three rounds

They why should you be able to own more than three rounds at any given time?

Rebar on March 8, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Your thoughts?

Its stupid. Just carry more 10 round mags. Its not like it takes long to switch em. Gun control in general makes for stupid arguments. Freaking full autos should be available to every law abiding citizen. Yet they aren’t. Why is that?

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Similarly, while the Court has concluded that the Constitution protects abortion rights, it has said that restrictions on such rights are unconstitutional only when they create a “substantial burden” on women who seek abortions.

Of course, the court recognized that while completely ignoring the 5th and 14th amendments that say no person can be denied life without due process. Instead they opted to believe that a right against unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th somehow equates to a right to privacy, and that this along with a “penumbra” of magically-implied, never actually mentioned rights, somehow equates to a right to dismember babies.

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM

I’d limit magazine capacity to the same as what the military uses for its standard issue firearms.

What, that’s more than ten? I’m fine with that.

rbj on March 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM

The problem is If you give a progressive and inch, he’ll take the inch, then later claim he was never given an inch, and you are a terrible misogynistic, racist, homophobic, child hating human being if you don’t give him an inch.

tdarrington on March 8, 2014 at 8:49 AM

That is to say, if the restriction really doesn’t do anything to impede the ability of the shooter to use the weapon, (very few self defense scenarios find the victim firing more than three rounds) then a magazine capacity limit doesn’t impose an undue restriction on their rights.

That works if you believe the second amendment was for self defense from crime or hunting.

It is actually there to protect citizens from the tyranny of their own government. Once you understand that, then you understand that there are already many restrictions on the right. Citizens are not allowed to own bombs, missiles, hand grenades, or tanks and it is very difficult to get a fully-automatic weapon and you must tell the government when you do.

Can we not at least have the same number of rounds in our magazines that the tyrants’ forces will have?

Grammar Nazi on March 8, 2014 at 8:49 AM

It may be constitutional to limit mag capacity, but the police need a warrant to check the number of bullets in a mag. The judge in this case near Buffalo, NY ruled the police conducted an illegal search after a traffic stop.

rcpjr on March 8, 2014 at 8:50 AM

They are “standard” capacity magazines in the case of the AR.

And there is nothing more comforting that to know you got your G19 with a few 30 rounders in your bag at all times.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 8:52 AM

One gun control law is just a stepping stone to another, more onerous one.

southsideironworks on March 8, 2014 at 8:53 AM

The beauty of the liscence scanning techon popo prowlers is that they can harass the crap out of legal ccw holders by doing checks on them just for driving by their spot.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 8:54 AM

constitutional

…the left is working to make ^ that word obsolete!

KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2014 at 8:57 AM

The Constitution was designed to make sure that the authority of the US Government was severely restricted. It was designed to give the states broad latitude, and until Amendment XIV, didn’t apply most of the BoR protections to the states.

Sadly, I have to side with Professor Volokh on this one…

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Can we not at least have the same number of rounds in our magazines that the tyrants’ forces will have?

Grammar Nazi on March 8, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Does that also mean we can have the same type of rounds they have…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Like these unconstitutional laws matter at this point anyway. It’s all window dressing. My “neighbor” has plenty of mags and their associatedhardware. Nothing is going to separate him from those items, short of overwhelming majorityphysical force.

Meat Fighter on March 8, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Just heard an ad on the radio that the push is on for MO Obamacare signups. Free food, bands, and giveaways at 40+ events statewide..

Unreal.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM

But given recent rulings which support the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, are these magazine capacity restrictions actually constitutional?

No, they aren’t. Then again, the Constitution is a dead letter in the American Socialist Superstate, so there’s that.

Similarly, while the Court has concluded that the Constitution protects abortion rights, it has said that restrictions on such rights are unconstitutional only when they create a “substantial burden” on women who seek abortions.

Poor comparison for Volokh to make. The Court created “abortion rights” out of thin air and used specious (laughable) Constitutional arguments to “find” them. The Constitution, on the other hand, is VERY EXPLICIT about the right to keep and bear arms and uses the phrase “shall not be infringed” to further emphasize its fundamental importance.

Restrictions on magazine capacity are clearly ridiculous, punitive, dangerous infringements on our right to bear arms, It is not unheard of to be attacked by more than one person or to have a group of people – like a gang, say – invade ones home. In such cases, the ability to shoot more than 10 rounds without having to reload is essential to our ability to defend ourselves. Further, there is no distinction made on these idiotic, un-Constitutional laws regarding caliber. The idea that 10 rounds of 22LR is the same “scary threat” that 10 rounds of 44 mag is, is, of course, as insane as it gets. 10 rounds of 45 ACP is about equivalent to 40 rounds of 22LR, but these un-Constitutional laws would have one believe that 10 rounds of any caliber is the same. That aspect shows how ridiculous these clearly un-Constitutional laws are. They are un-Constitutional as they stand, but the idea that there is no descrimination between caliber just emphasizes that point and shows that the thrust of the laws is nothing but punitive and in order to infringe on our right to bear arms as much as these anti-American leftists are able.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Just heard an ad on the radio that the push is on for MO Obamacare signups. Free food, bands, and giveaways at 40+ events statewide..

Unreal.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM

To quote Dylan: Son, this ain’t no dream, this time it’s the real thing.

Senor…

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 9:10 AM

It’s the gun banners who want to define what “reasonable limits” are.

southsideironworks on March 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM

“A prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment…”

Any burden, regardless of size or scope, constitutes an infringement; what part of “shall not be infringed” do these justices not understand?

ThePainfulTruth on March 8, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Its stupid. Just carry more 10 round mags. Its not like it takes long to switch em. Gun control in general makes for stupid arguments. Freaking full autos should be available to every law abiding citizen. Yet they aren’t. Why is that?

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM

You can own Class III weapon and such, but the background check is a little more detailed and you have to purchase a $200 transfer stamp with each transaction. Got a bunch myself.

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Whatever tools the tyrants can use against me I may use to defend against their tyanny.

bubba on March 8, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Because we know the bad guys will follow this law too.

Jamson64 on March 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Because we know the bad guys will follow this law too.

Jamson64 on March 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM

I was just signing in to post that.

Laws such as these only make criminals of law-abiding citizens.

Alien on March 8, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Any limits on ammo & magazines is an end around to limit how we use our arms. All liberals know this. This is an easy answer Jazz. Of course these bans are unConstitutional. Can’t get any clearer, “shall not be infringed”

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2014 at 9:25 AM

You can own Class III weapon and such, but the background check is a little more detailed and you have to purchase a $200 transfer stamp with each transaction. Got a bunch myself.

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Now there’s a scary thought — a liberal armed with machine guns.
.
(OT catch-up: I never understood why David+David put Miss Christina into a 944. That car wasn’t all that costly — likely they couldn’t find a rhyme for “Carrera,” and “9-1-1″ sounds too much like phoning for help.)

Alien on March 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

“For instance, the government may limit the volume of music or constrain sound amplification.”

My thoughts… The volume level of music only becomes an issue when the noise infringes upon the constitutional rights of others. A 30 round capacity magazine possessed by a law-abiding citizen imposes no risk to or infringement of any other person’s constitutional rights. I would think this would be obvious to all, even Volokh.

ThePainfulTruth on March 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

“a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,”

Until 15 IRS FBI/IRS/ATF agents illegally attack you.

Lance Corvette on March 8, 2014 at 9:29 AM

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear to all.

Amazingoly on March 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM

This will slow a law abiding criminal down 2 to 3 seconds. …smart power.

Jamson64 on March 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM

The volume level of music only becomes an issue when the noise infringes upon the constitutional rights of others.

ThePainfulTruth on March 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

What constitutional right does excessively loud music infringe upon…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Until 15 IRS FBI/IRS/ATF agents illegally attack you.

Lance Corvette on March 8, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Then it is your responsibility to take one with you.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 9:35 AM

very few self defense scenarios find the victim firing more than three rounds

They why should you be able to own more than three rounds at any given time?

Rebar on March 8, 2014 at 8:46 AM

This.

bofh on March 8, 2014 at 9:38 AM

The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders.

Da Judge…. another public criminal….Check

roflmmfao

donabernathy on March 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The phrase “high capacity” is akin to “low-fat.” It’s totally arbitrary. For example, the standard magazine for most AR rifles is 30 rounds.

Speaking of arbitrary, if a 10 round magazine is considered reasonable, then I guess that extra 1 or 2 rounds added to “high-capacity” mags turns us wantonly into crazed shooting maniacs!

The only thing unreasonable in the entire gun rights debate, are the wussified control freaks.

Gun control advocates don’t hate guns – they hate the people who own guns.

dugan on March 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 9:18 AM

True. You might want to get out the readers and really study the fine print on it though. Not a ringing endorsement for this concept however.

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear to all.

Amazingoly on March 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 9:45 AM

A bit of disturbing news comes our way from the Left coast, where a second federal judge has declined to issue a temporary injunction against a Sunnyvale, California ban on weapons magazines holding more than ten rounds, essentially allowing the ban to go into effect while appeals run their course.

Fine. Now we all have to go out and buy four more guns.

Idiots.

Axe on March 8, 2014 at 9:48 AM

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you people not understand?

All this talk about a “reasonable burden” on the Second Amendment has been concocted by judges in order to justify and uphold unconstitutional legislation. The Second Amendment does not allow for “reasonable burden(s)” to be placed upon it.

A burden placed upon one’s Second Amendment rights, however “reasonable” some judge might think it is, is nonetheless still an infringement. And the Second Amendment makes very clear that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

MPan on March 8, 2014 at 9:49 AM

We should be able to assemble in public spaces and drill with our weapons. We should be able to drill on tactics. We should be able to bear our arms. Too much ground has been ceded in the previous generations. We need to regain that ground.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Gun control advocates don’t hate guns – they hate the people who own guns.

dugan on March 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Interesting. Asking why seems to create a short trip: different permutations around “fighting back.”

They plan; are willing to; actually consider the possibility of; arrogantly presume they can and should if they think they should, as if they have the intelligence or right to make that decision for themselves; prepare to, practice . . .

fighting back.

Axe on March 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

All this talk about a “reasonable burden” on the Second Amendment has been concocted by judges in order to justify and uphold unconstitutional legislation. The Second Amendment does not allow for “reasonable burden(s)” to be placed upon it.

MPan on March 8, 2014 at 9:49 AM

So, the next time I need to go visit someone in jail, I should be allowed to pack heat inside…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM

*or “fight back,” in places. :) Botched the language a little. Meh — leavemealone.

Axe on March 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

I believe that past court decisions have found that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in current usage. That would be the 30 round, magazine fed, semi-automatic, military pattern rifle,( and pistol capable of using high capacity magazines). When the military an police, are limited to ten rounds, then there MIGHT be a basis for restricting civilian magazine capacity. Agree with a poster above, what part of “shall not be infringed” do the courts not understand.

kjatexas on March 8, 2014 at 9:59 AM

So, the next time I need to go visit someone in jail, I should be allowed to pack heat inside…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Why not? Not a good example. :) It might actually clarify things; where you can stand, distance — allowing you to bring a gun into a prison would probably make the prison safer.

. . . hey, “court house.”

Axe on March 8, 2014 at 9:59 AM

“a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.

“….the right to keep and bear arms…..shall not be infringed, unless its only a minor burden”

Everybody knows that.

BobMbx on March 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

If memory serves me, no other amendment in the constitution has the words “shall not be infringed” so the comparison to sound, abortion, or any of the other examples is a canard. I also don’t read where “minor infringements” are allowed either.

If the judge basically says if the restriction really doesn’t do anything to impede the ability of the shooter to use the weapon then why impose the restriction? Is the only reason to throw a bone to the gun control crowd?

One judge says 10 rounds is ok. Another says 7 rounds are too few. Are the courts now going to have an auction to see how many or how few a magazine can hold?

Too bad our Supreme Court is too feckless to tackle the burning issues of the day and are allowing the constitution to be trampled on while they wait around to help sweep the ashes up after it’s too late.

iamsaved on March 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Oh brother. The Second Amendment and abortion and loud music have nothing to do with each other. This is yet another red herring.

And there is nothing more comforting that to know you got your G19 with a few 30 rounders in your bag at all times.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Love my G19 33-rounder. It’s here on my desk right now.

Saving up for a KPOS G2 carbine conversion kit. Slap your G19 with a 33 rounder in there, and , there you go – Uzi. (Illegal though, without an NFA.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_XB16vwzfI#t=61

WhatSlushfund on March 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM

“not all unwise restrictions are unconstitutional”

Bakers, meet rabid gays… First Amendment? What 1st Amendment? We have ‘penumbras’ to explore don’t ‘ca know…

Now selling tickets for the Final Cage Match: Lawfare vs. The Constitution.

CPT. Charles on March 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

So, the next time I need to go visit someone in jail, I should be allowed to pack heat inside…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM

No guns, just dope and a condom for your conjugal visit with your bro.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Is this a rhetorical question or something?

Read the 2nd–there is NO such thing as a “minor burden” on your right.

It is, as written, unassailable.

Period.

Very poor column, not well thought out, and without further investigation I will posit that Volokh did not in fact write this.

irongrampa on March 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM

The PRC (People’s Republic of California) has had a 10 round mag limit since the Clinton AWB. If you owned larger than 10 before the ban, you were okay. Sunnyvale’s law changes it to anyone who possesses a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds is committing a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, six months in jail or both

Mike Morrissey on March 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM

No guns, just dope and a condom for your conjugal visit with your bro.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM

So, I’ll take that as “I really don’t have a defense of a statement that any burden on Amendment II is by its nature unreasonable, and instead will make homo jokes”.

‘Bout what I expect from the Neanderthal Right…

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM

“….the right to keep and bear arms…..shall not be infringed, unless its only a minor burden”

Everybody knows that.

BobMbx on March 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

So, the next time I go to visit someone in jail, I should be allowed to pack heat…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM

If they’re not useful for self defense, then why do all police departments use them?

SubjectVerb on March 8, 2014 at 10:17 AM

If they’re not useful for self defense, then why do all police departments use them?

SubjectVerb on March 8, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Because they’re great for guns ablazing, no-knock raids on the wrong house thanks to a secret tip from a criminal CI or anonymous complaint. But for self-defense … useless :)

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 8, 2014 at 10:19 AM

So, the next time I go to visit someone in jail, I should be allowed to pack heat…?

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Of course you can, most law enforcement folks have no problem with legal CC folks. You will have to check it at the door however. Which by the way is sensible.

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Of course you can, most law enforcement folks have no problem with legal CC folks. You will have to check it at the door however. Which by the way is sensible.

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Quite sensible.

And a burden, though hardly an unreasonable one…

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

You can own Class III weapon and such, but the background check is a little more detailed and you have to purchase a $200 transfer stamp with each transaction. Got a bunch myself.

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 9:18 AM

The big problem is private ownership is limited to pre May 86 manufacture, limiting the pool of available NFA weapons and greatly inflating costs. One of two things I dislike about Reagan.

Mini-14 on March 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Mini-14 on March 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Just curious, whats the other thing?

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

The second amendment is the only thing that’s kept us free this long. They will never stop trying to disarm us.

CaveBear on March 8, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Meh…doesn’t matter.
There are millions of standard cap mags out there and we won’t be giving them up or registering them.
See Connecticut and watch NY on 4/15; the “deadline” to get rid of banned black scary rifles.
We’ll just keep them full and in reserve until they’re needed….and it appears that won’t e far off.
III

Sgt Stryker on March 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

The premiss behind instituting laws limiting the capacity of firearms is that they might be used for illegal purposes. If that’s the case why not make trunks and glove compartments in cars illegal because they might be used for transporting illegal substances?

claudius on March 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

I don’t support magazine limits but there is a lot of evidence to support Volokh’s legal opinion. If you are trained in the use of your weapon magazine changes take no more than 2 seconds even under the pressure of combat. I can fire 60+ rounds from my 1911 within a minute if I want to. I may not hit many targets but I can lay down an impressive amount of firepower. My father could fire 40 aimed rounds a minute with an M-1 which only had a 8 round magazine capacity. I don’t want to see restriction on magazine capacity because they are just one step on the road to confiscation.

jerryofva on March 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Of course you can, most law enforcement folks have no problem with legal CC folks. You will have to check it at the door however. Which by the way is sensible.

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Quite sensible.

And a burden, though hardly an unreasonable one…

JohnGalt23 on March 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Most CO’s that are in the prison population also aren’t allowed to ‘pack heat’ for obvious reasons.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Is their anything in the new flexible constitution that disallows use from banning judge and…oh what the heck, politicians?

Don L on March 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

(OT catch-up: I never understood why David+David put Miss Christina into a 944. That car wasn’t all that costly — likely they couldn’t find a rhyme for “Carrera,” and “9-1-1″ sounds too much like phoning for help.)

Alien on March 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

If you were on a budget and had a trophy wife, you dumped her in a 944, or if funds were really tight a MR2. Yes, been there done that. Libs with Guns….sounds like an early ’90s band.

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 10:36 AM

It is un-Constitutional because the government troops have magazines of more than 10 capacity.

Citizens need the right to arm themselves sufficiently to fight against the federal government in the event they become too big and ignore the limits on their power that are in the Constitution.

Therefore, it unreasonably infringes on our rights.

Sunnyvale is the city I lived in for the first 30 years of my life and it is now VERY VERY VERY prog. They have put up so many road signs, speed bumps, etc. etc. etc. it is a city-wide gated community of high-tech workers (mostly foreign). It is the one-percenters or near one-percenters.

Their culture is way left compared to the rest of the country.

KirknBurker on March 8, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The Continental infantryman carried on his right side a leather or tin cartridge box that held twenty to thirty rounds of ammunition.

I’m sure the founders would have been perfectly fine with the British telling them that their cartridge boxes could only be big enough for 10 rounds of ammunition…while they carried ones big enough for 30.

dom89031 on March 8, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The premiss behind instituting laws limiting the capacity of firearms is that they might be used for illegal purposes. If that’s the case why not make trunks and glove compartments in cars illegal because they might be used for transporting illegal substances?

claudius on March 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Yes, By the same token why let people have houses that could be used for illegal activities? Why let people have phones and other communication devices since they could be used for illegal activities?

This list can go on and on..

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:37 AM

It doesn’t even stand up under the theory that “the Founding Fathers couldn’t conceive of” modern weapons.

Sorry. Revolver-type arms with ten or more shot cylinders date to the matchlock era. “Pepperbox” revolvers (with a cluster of rotating barrels) were fairly common from the 1720s on; at least one gunsmith in Boston manufactured them to the patent of a British craftsman, John Dogge. Most had six barrels around a seventh central one. The action was self-priming; some were even double-action. A touch-hole bored through from the sixth barrel to the seventh ensured that when you pulled the trigger for the last shot, those two barrels fired together.

The Kalthoff and Cookson repeating magazine rifles, with flintlock ignition, date to the time of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648). They were too expensive to be built in numbers for military issue, so most were made as purely sporting arms. They held from ten to twenty “rounds”, depending on variant.

There were even repeating high-power air rifles back then, using a compressed air held in a pressure tank that formed the buttstock, much like modern “paintball” guns. Except these monsters fired .50 caliber lead balls at over 1,500 feet-per-second. Most had ten or fifteen-shot magazines.

One such was used by the Company of Exploration under Lewis and Clark to take game silently; an early example of a “sound-suppressed” weapon in quasi-military use. The Indians the explorers tried to impress with it at first, weren’t; after all, their bows were just as quiet and had a slightly higher rate of fire.

Such rifles were used for sniping by the Austrian Army during the Napoleonic Wars. There is a story (probably apocryphal) that Nappy ordered any Austrian soldier captured with one to be executed on the spot. Actually, he tended to issue orders like that regarding snipers regardless of what they “sniped” with.

The Founding Fathers would have put restrictions on “high-capacity” weapons if they had wanted to, or felt it prudent. They certainly weren’t ignorant of such things.

clear ether

eon

eon on March 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

jerryofva on March 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Most gunfights with thugs really never get to the second mag.

Therefore, you need a mag with lots of bullets because the fight really won’t get to the second mag in most cases.

KirknBurker on March 8, 2014 at 10:39 AM

So what’s next up for defense against crazed flash mob home assaults, a titanium Gatling type gun, with only one round in each barrel?
Maybe if we paint daisies on the stock it will pass that terrible look-evil test?

Don L on March 8, 2014 at 10:40 AM

That works if you believe the second amendment was for self defense from crime or hunting.

It is actually there to protect citizens from the tyranny of their own government. Once you understand that, then you understand that there are already many restrictions on the right. Citizens are not allowed to own bombs, missiles, hand grenades, or tanks and it is very difficult to get a fully-automatic weapon and you must tell the government when you do.

Can we not at least have the same number of rounds in our magazines that the tyrants’ forces will have?

Grammar Nazi on March 8, 2014 at 8:49 AM

I agree with the first part, but it would be nice if we have no restrictions on small arms. By doing this, the government would be telling Americans that if we get too big..PLEASE fight against us so we can back off and revisit the Constitution.

The government’s growth is on auto-pilot, and cannot stop growing.

The government needs to recognize our right to help them reduce the government down to something constitutional and more reasonable over the next couple of generations.

Fedzilla is simply making a cry…for help. ;-)

KirknBurker on March 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM

eon on March 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

The Founding Fathers were learned men – they could and should have know of the ‘progress’ in weaponry up until their time and most certainly would have conceived that such development would continue.

They would have known from history that the common fighting man’s musket would evolve into today’s modern version of the AR-15.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM

For instance, the government may limit the volume of music or constrain sound amplification generally,

Did they start imposing a limit of 3 on all volume dials or something?

xblade on March 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM

The big problem is private ownership is limited to pre May 86 manufacture, limiting the pool of available NFA weapons and greatly inflating costs. One of two things I dislike about Reagan.

Mini-14 on March 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I remember that well as the amendment was a voice/floor vote that the NRA did not try to stop. I called the NRA and was told tough. In the ‘90s the FBI did a study on felonies conducted by legal owners of Class III with a NFA firearm. They could only find three and two were by LEOs. Us Class III owners have the best history of being law abiding citizens. Or maybe we just don’t get caught.

Asked a friend, JD Farmer, to manufacture for me a fully HK91 with built in suppressor, so I could avoid paying $200 for the rifle and $200 for the can in 1982. Seems it cost less than $1,000 with the tax/stamp.

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 10:54 AM

claudius on March 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

.
Yes, By the same token why let people have houses that could be used for illegal activities? Why let people have phones and other communication devices since they could be used for illegal activities?

This list can go on and on..

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:37 AM

.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Don’t give them any more id— ……. oh crap … they’re already way ahead of us.

Never mind … : (

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 10:56 AM

A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.

The whole emphasis is wrong. I don’t care how “minor” the infringement is, it’s still an infringement and there is no reason for it.

I can reluctantly accept that sometimes there are competing interests which conflict, and you can’t have an absolutely unfettered right to do x, y and z simultaneously. But in order to infringe x, you have to show that y and z are also explicitly granted equal status by the Constitution and some compromise is required to logically do both. That is not the case here.

Fenris on March 8, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Are bans on high capacity magazines constitutional?

No.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM

The second amendment is the only thing that’s kept us free this long. They will never stop trying to disarm us.

CaveBear on March 8, 2014 at 10:27 AM

.
Sums it up, perfectly … no more words needed.

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:02 AM

A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.

So a synonym for “shall not be infringed” is “only the most minor burden.”

Who knew!

Akzed on March 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM

They would have known from history that the common fighting man’s musket would evolve into today’s modern version of the AR-15.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Don’t know when folks started referring to an AR-15 as an assault rifle as AR originally stood for ArmaLite (the manufacturer). To me they are a sport rifle and should be called SR-556 or SR223. My SIG 556 is called a SIG 556. Oh well, words have meaning and for marketing reasons we are stuck with “assault rifle”.

Being a limp wristed Liberal….what would I know?

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 11:06 AM

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM

.
Did you save that unanswered question to ‘Brutus from the last “gun thread”?

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Don’t give them any more id— ……. oh crap … they’re already way ahead of us.

Never mind … : (

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Of course, that wouldn’t do anything to stop the government from committing crimes because they would still have such means to do so – but those on the national socialist left never seem to concern themselves on such matters.

Just as governmental gun grabbers never concern themselves with guns in their possession that could be stolen and could be used to kill millions as has happened throughout history.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 11:18 AM

As to the thinking of congress regarding the “minor burdens’ that may be placed upon the the 2nd Amendment’s, there were none.

Congress is authorized to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” (Art. I Sec. 8) empowering private citizens to fight as mercenaries.

Yes, private militia and warships can be sent by congress to engage in hostilities with foreign or private entities on land or sea.

But they can only take magazines that top out at seven rounds?

Any law or ruling that violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights is a nullity, and need not be respected or obeyed son long as one is prepared for the consequences: and our Fathers had no doubt that we would be.

Akzed on March 8, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Did you save that unanswered question to ‘Brutus from the last “gun thread”?

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Yes I did:
Commonsense Civil Right of Armed Self-Defense [CASD]

I don’t know what that is, so no, I cannot answer the question.

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Let me help you out.
Which words are you having trouble understanding:

Definition of common sense
noun[mass noun]
good sense and sound judgement in practical matters:it is all a matter of common sense [as modifier]:a common-sense approach
———————
Definition of civil
1 [attributive] relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters:
Origin late Middle English: via Old French from Latin civilis, from civis ‘citizen’.
————————–
Definition of right
noun
1 [mass noun] that which is morally correct, just, or honourable
2a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.
——————————–
Definition of armed
adjective
1 equipped with or carrying a firearm or firearms
1.1involving the use of firearms:
2 Heraldry having claws, a beak, etc. of a specified tincture
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/armed?
————————————
Definition of self-defence
noun
the defence of one’s person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime:he claimed self-defence in the attempted murder charge [as modifier]:self-defence classes

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-defence?q=Self-Defense

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM

A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,”

Oddly enough, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t distinguish between allowable levels of burden on the right, it simply says “shall not be infringed.”

Midas on March 8, 2014 at 11:32 AM

They would have known from history that the common fighting man’s musket would evolve into today’s modern version of the AR-15.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Those on the national socialist left like to rid themselves of the people’s liberties by renaming them as some thing else they can more readily demonize.

Thus in the case of the Commonsense Civil Right of Armed Self-Defense [CASD] they came up with the “Assault Weapon” scam.

In the case of free-speech they use the phase “hate-speech”.

But getting back to your point – The AR-15 should be called something else given that it’s so much ‘in common use’.

This modern day musket could easily be called that or just a Sport Utility Rifle.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 11:35 AM

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM

.
Looks good ! . . . . . I saved a copy of it as well, but you get “first dibs” . . . . . if … he shows up.

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Only 3:40 long. Open letter to Lt. Vance, now in charge of imposing “minor burdens” on the 2nd Amendment in CT.

Akzed on March 8, 2014 at 11:40 AM

.
Looks good ! . . . . . I saved a copy of it as well, but you get “first dibs” . . . . . if … he shows up.

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:36 AM

By all means, feel free to use that first.

I’ve discovered that for some odd reason, the gun grabbers don’t like our use of the words ‘Commonsense’ and ‘Civil Right’ in referring to the Commonsense Civil Right of Armed Self-Defense.

It’s almost like they think they and they alone are ‘entitled’ to use those words.

And they don’t like to be cast as fighting against civil rights – despite they’re doing that incessantly.

DinaRehn on March 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM

LOCKPORT – Lockport police violated Paul A. Wojdan’s constitutional rights by counting the bullets in his gun and charging him with violating New York’s SAFE Act, Lockport City Judge William J. Watson ruled Wednesday.

Akzed on March 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

My gut reaction is to disagree with this, but that’s probably more emotional than reason based. As much as I don’t like it – and hope that the courts go the other way – I can see where Volokh is going with this argument, and I fear that some judges may see it that way as well. Your thoughts?

When one of the paramount reasons for the right to bear arms being to defend against a tyrannical government which poses no restrictions on its own weapon uses, it seems that restricting magazine capacity limits specifically is intended to reduce the individual for the power of the government specifically. Self defense is ONE of many reasons the right to bear arms exists and is one of those unalienable rights, but certainly not the primary one.

astonerii on March 8, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Scalia argued in Heller that arms in common use cannot be banned. 90% of the handguns and rifles, the most popular being glocks and AR15′s come standard with 16 to 30 round magazines. So no. Banning standard capacity magazines is certainly NOT constitutional.

jawkneemusic on March 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Don’t know when folks started referring to an AR-15 as an assault rifle as AR originally stood for ArmaLite (the manufacturer).

HonestLib on March 8, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Good question – Assault rifle is essentially a political term utilized by the radical left-wing. Its original meaning is shadowed by its constant use by gun control advocates (and laws created using the term).

Simply put it’s a scarier term to the lay person. Kind of like the names of the left-wing zealots’ lobby group:

>>National Council to Control Handguns changes to Handgun Control, Inc. and combines with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns then changes to Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and later becomes the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Notice it’s supposedly all about “responsible” ownership and gun “safety” nowadays. Of course, if that were the case, then they would be working with the most effective firearm training & gun safety organization in the country…the NRA.

It’s all just part of the evolution in propaganda. Their goal has never changed, just their technique.

dugan on March 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM

If this seven-cartridge limit flies, the other effect will be to increase the calibers sold. If I’m limited to seven rounds in a handgun for self-defense, they are going to be the biggest cartridges I can comfortably carry and shoot.

slickwillie2001 on March 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3