Magazine Limit Court Challenge

[Vandal]

Hello All-

I have been a member here a long time, but rarely check things out. Given recent events, I was wondering if there is someone here who knows what the status of this case is? I saw that it was presented before an appeals judge? What gives?
Thanks in advance!

[Will1776]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pydie4etn-8

[brutal]

Ouch. One judge refers to a magazine as "cartridges" when discussing removable base plates.

I see the points made, and perhaps the judges have grasped the fundamental flaw in the current law, but jeeze.

[Bailey Guns]

There should be a statement to the effect of "WARNING: Dudley Brown Video" on that link.

[OldFogey]

Just bought a pc carbine at my lgs (haven't been in in a long time). Had 30 round glock mags and 30 round pmags. Don't think the law means all that much unless your are ordering off of the web or going to one of the big box stores.

[Skip]

I don't know what Duds is going for here or if it will even help. Seems to be a peripheral challenge that can quickly be remedied by changing the law.

I am ready to donate for a challenge to the core of the mag ban problem; banning components of firearms in common use is the same as banning the firearm. Limiting the capacity from common use is arbitrary and violates 100 years of 2A precedent.

Banning features (CA, NY) of firearms in common use is the same thing.

If an American can't own a firearm in common use, and functioning at that level, there is no 2A.

If they want to keep a box drawn around dangerous and unusual, as Scalia noted in Heller, I'm not okay with it but can live with it.

I think such a challenge could get support from gun owners in multiple states although we only need one group of plaintiffs. If the NRA doesn't pick this up with Kavanaugh seated, I think they're going to have issues keeping members.

[Rucker61]

I don't know what Duds is going for here or if it will even help. Seems to be a peripheral challenge that can quickly be remedied by changing the law.

I am ready to donate for a challenge to the core of the mag ban problem; banning components of firearms in common use is the same as banning the firearm. Limiting the capacity from common use is arbitrary and violates 100 years of 2A precedent.

Banning features (CA, NY) of firearms in common use is the same thing.

If an American can't own a firearm in common use, and functioning at that level, there is no 2A.

If they want to keep a box drawn around dangerous and unusual, as Scalia noted in Heller, I'm not okay with it but can live with it.

According to Caetano, no firearm currently sold to US citizens outside of NFA 1934 is both dangerous and unusual.

[Skip]

According to Caetano, no firearm currently sold to US citizens outside of NFA 1934 is both dangerous and unusual.

Consistent with 2A and even better!!! One would even point that NFA was the previous "compromise" made that Libs refuse to recognize today.

They claim Caetano is narrow though.

I still don't know how you protect in common use if the common use components (magazines, pistol grips, shoulder things that go up) are banned. And I don't know why it is legal to ban them if they aren't defined as dangerous and unusual because, per Miller, that is the standard as specifically applied to NFA.

These bans exist on some fairly tortured logic and I don't know why 2A is incorporated against the states the way other amendments have been. We even have McDonald!

Yeah, I'm ready to donate! But not to Dud.

[Rucker61]

Consistent with 2A and even better!!! One would even point that NFA was the previous "compromise" made that Libs refuse to recognize today.

They claim Caetano is narrow though.

I still don't know how you protect in common use if the common use components (magazines, pistol grips, shoulder things that go up) are banned. And I don't know why it is legal to ban them if they aren't defined as dangerous and unusual because, per Miller, that is the standard as specifically applied to NFA.

These bans exist on some fairly tortured logic and I don't know why 2A is incorporated against the states the way other amendments have been. We even have McDonald!

Yeah, I'm ready to donate! But not to Dud.

Interesting reading here on the why's and how's of state/local bans:

http://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/59-3/59arizlrev773.pdf

[Skip]

Interesting reading here on the why's and how's of state/local bans:

http://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/59-3/59arizlrev773.pdf

Skimmed it.




This is like arguing what the definition of "is" is. Was the court supposed to present a percentage test in Heller? A number? How can we even analyze that when there is no registry. Let alone any tracking of magazines sales?

Miller gave us the test!!!!!

Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

States think that's a one-way line (restriction only). Needs to be revisited.




Anyone believe this? And why is the study limited to a state? These are Federally protected civil rights.

Had I shown that only 1% of the population in Colorado is gay, after banning gays and because I alone say so, would that uphold Amendment 2?