Large Capacity Magazine Ban -- thoughts from Eugene Volokh

[battle_sight_zero]

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

Back in the TJ Hooker and Kojak days

[sabot_round]

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.

^^^^
THIS.
Banning any Hi-Cap magazines will only help the criminals have an unfair advantage over the law abiding citizen. Hence the word criminal, they do not follow the law. Limiting the amount of ammo that any gun can carry at any given time it's just the beginning of the erosion of our second amendments rights. Next thing you know we'll be restricted to carry flintlocks!!

[cstone]

Back in the TJ Hooker and Kojak days

Wow! Did you just call me old?

My first issued was a S&W Model 15. We carried two speed loaders for a grand total of 18 rounds after two reloads. Moved to semi-autos (SIG) in 1993. Carrying one extra mag, I could get off more than I used to carry, and with only one reload. I will say that the +P+ .38 Spl was almost as hot as the .357 we carried in our Model 19 snubbies.

Anyone who has ever had to use their weapon (police, military, etc...) will almost uniformly tell you that more is always better. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. That said, no one can carry everything, so choices need to be made.

It doesn't matter how many rounds of ammunition you possess, only the amount you have with you and available.

Oh, and "Who loves you baby."

Be safe.

[theGinsue]

Back in the TJ Hooker and Kojak days

Oh, and "Who loves you baby."

Be safe.

Funny thing. This morning @ work a coworker was good natured teasing me. I asked him if he remembered the Kojak series. When he said yes, I asked him "Who loves you baby?".

Synchronicity!

[cstone]

Funny thing. This morning @ work a coworker was good natured teasing me. I asked him if he remembered the Kojak series. When he said yes, I asked him "Who loves you baby?".

Synchronicity!

Was there a lollypop involved?

[Rooskibar03]

Who gets to decide what the magic number is that take a magazine to high cap magazine?

Why 10 and not 9 or 15 instead of 16?

[asmo]

For those that don't remember where the magic number of 10 came from: Mr. Ruger himself sent a letter to the ATF and Congress saying that no one needs more than ten rounds. Since then the gun grabbers have used that as a tacid admission from a 'prominent gun person' that no one needs high capacity magazines.

Also the reason I won't ever own a Ruger firearm.

[Aloha_Shooter]

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

Volokh is looking at the laws from a Constitutional perspective and 20-30 years ago IS recent in Constitutional law. Remember too that he is assessing whether the law in question makes Constitutional muster, not whether it makes sense or is good policy.

The point I get from that column is that the relatively short time required to change magazines means a magazine capacity limit doesn't pose undue burden on the average shooter and therefore the law could pass legal muster. The fact that it also means the proposed law doesn't do what its proponents claim is irrelevant to the question of whether the law is Constitutional -- judicial review is a one-way street, they only get to assess Constitutionality, not the viability or desirability of the law (which was sort of Chief Justice Roberts' point WRT Obamacare although I still think his reasoning was tortured and probably affected by political factors that shouldn't have been factors).