Large Capacity Magazine Ban -- thoughts from Eugene Volokh

[asmo]

http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/08/lar...ity-magazines/



The Colorado shooting has led to renewed calls to ban or otherwise restrict access to large-capacity magazines (see, for instance, Elliot Spitzer’s proposal, though that one is likely to be ineffectual). I think such bans might well be constitutional, for reasons given in my Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms paper (p. 1489):

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns), but in practice nearly all shootings, including criminal ones, use many fewer rounds than that. And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size.

Still, these same reasons probably mean that the magazine size cap would not materially interfere with self-defense, if the cap is set at 10 or so rather than materially lower. First, recall that until recently even police officers would routinely carry revolvers, which tended to hold only six rounds. Those revolvers were generally seen as adequate for officers’ defensive needs, though of course there were times when more rounds are needed. Second, the ability to switch magazines in seconds, which nearly all semiautomatic weapons possess, should suffice for the extremely rare instances when more rounds were needed (though to take advantage of this, the defender would have to make a habit of carrying both the gun and a spare magazine).

And indeed this analysis is similar to what we see in other areas of the law, though subject to the qualifier that all analogies across different constitutional rights are necessarily limited (they are, after all, analogies and not identities). For instance, though 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.

But, as the block quote above notes, the restrictions are also unlikely to help prevent crime, given how quick and easy it is to change magazines, and given the likelihood that mass shooters will have a backup gun that they could use to protect themselves while they are changing the magazine. It is conceivable that a magazine size ban will help limit the deadliness of some mass attacks, if the murderers comply with the law and don’t get a black-market magazine; the Jared Loughner killings, according to press accounts, were stopped when Loughner stopped to reload and was tackled by several people.

But given that only a tiny fraction of gun homicides involve more than 10 shots fired (see Kleck, Point Blank, p. 79, and Kleck, Targeting guns, p. 123), that mass shooters who really want large-capacity magazines will likely be able to get them even if they are outlawed, that mass shooters can and generally do carry multiple guns, and that only very rarely will people be able to tackle someone during the second or two that he needs to reload, I suspect that large-capacity magazine bans will have extremely little effect. So while a large-capacity magazine ban would impose only a very small burden on law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves — which is why I think it would be constitutional — it would also provide, at best, only a very small extra amount of public safety (and might be a net zero or a negative if it interferes with law-abiding people’s self-defense in the very rare situations when more than 10 rounds are needed and the defender doesn’t have an extra magazine).

[Wiggity]

It seems to me as though he defeated his own argument by saying:


"Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size."

[Irving]

Not all self defense is against one person at a distance. I don't want to have to defend my business from a mob of people with several mags of only 10 rounds at a time.

[Byte Stryke]

How about this instead

http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/08/lar...ity-magazines/



The Colorado shooting has led to renewed calls to ban or otherwise restrict access to large-capacity magazines (see, for instance, Elliot Spitzer’s proposal, though that one is likely to be ineffectual). I think such bans might well be constitutional, for reasons given in my Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms paper (p. 1489):

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns), but in practice nearly all shootings, including criminal ones, use many fewer rounds than that. And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size.

Still, these same reasons probably mean that the magazine size cap would not materially interfere with self-defense, if the cap is set at 10 or so rather than materially lower. First, recall that until recently even

because I believe that's enough words... you don't need to use more words than that to get your point across

[CO Hugh]

The problem is that the people making laws, of both parties, are not swayed by logic, facts and evidence, but oprah emotions to save the children.

The Volokh blog is a great one to read.

[.40isthenew.45]

http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/08/lar...ity-magazines/



The Colorado shooting has led to renewed calls to ban or otherwise restrict access to large-capacity magazines

snip

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns),

snip

When did 10 round magazines become a common size for most semiautomatic handguns? The answer of course is when there were regulations imposed to limit them to that capacity. I usually refrain from political comment, but it seems we are drinking the 10 round kook-aid without considering how it came about in the first place. Arguing the limit without also arguing that a normal capacity magazine may indeed hold more than 10 rounds seems to set a dangerous precedent.

[spencerhenry]

where in the 2nd amendment does it say ANYTHING about self defense?
the premise is wrong, we as gun owners do not need to prove any NEED or suitability for any purpose. the 2nd amendment does not say "for the purposes of hunting and self defense".

[cstone]

where in the 2nd amendment does it say ANYTHING about self defense?
the premise is wrong, we as gun owners do not need to prove any NEED or suitability for any purpose. the 2nd amendment does not say "for the purposes of hunting and self defense".

The Second Amendment does not directly address the point of why we are keeping and bearing arms, it implies that arms are necessary for defense as in maintaining a well regulated militia.

The Second Amendment makes no statement about automatic or select fire weapons. It makes no statement about short barrels or suppressors either. The point behind the blog post seems to address what a future court could decide was Constitutionally acceptable limitation on weapon features.

As a group, I would assume no one here reading this is in favor of any type of magazine ban. I personally see no purpose for me in purchasing or training with 100 round magazines, but I will defend anyone who is legal in owning a weapon's right to possess magazines that operate with a million round capacity.

Future courts, legislatures, and politicians may not agree with us and that is why we, as a group of citizens should be concerned when ever anyone proposes that one of our rights be restricted in any way without direct proof that it is for the greater good of the nation.

Be safe.

[battle_sight_zero]

The 2nd in my thoughts is to allow Americans to have weapons to stop a government that over reaches and that is out of control. Not saying our government is out of control now to where we are should be fighting it. However what if the government started draging people from their houses for no reason. Taking our liberties away without reperssentation. I believe the founders had in mind that the armed and capable American was the best deterrent to a tyranny of a government. Not saying were like the other countries that have or are fighting their Governments. Most of them don't have the rights we have and as a result a deterrent to tyranantcal government. Our founders were pretty darn smart.

[Mazin]

Um how recent was police using revolvers? 20 years ago?