Large-capacity gun magazine possession law on pause while Supreme Court petitioned

[M14 Shooter]

"The National Firearms Act of 1934" restricts a lot of things.

How is that relevant to what you said?

 

[Batcat]

You can swap 10 round magazines pretty quick.

Might even make you more careful with your aim.

True. It doesn’t take much time to swap a magazine.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

How is that relevant to what you said?

You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."

And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."

They can put magazines greater than 10 rounds under the NFA. They won't be banned, just like many fully auto weapons aren't banned. You'll just have to fill out paperwork.

So it's not an infringement if done that way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."

And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."

They can put magazines greater than 10 rounds under the NFA. They won't be banned, just like many fully auto weapons aren't banned. You'll just have to fill out paperwork.

So it's not an infringement if done that way.

Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.

 

[daveman]

Anyone who wants you disarmed intends to harm you. This is undeniable. But USMB leftists will idiotically deny it anyway.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.

I will say though, that banning large magazines isn't going to do much, if anything.

Banning rifles won't either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I will say though, that banning large magazines isn't going to do much, if anything.

Banning rifles won't either.

Correct.

Banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles and carbines is pointless – in no manner addressing the issue of gun crime and violence.

But however pointless and ineffective such bans are, they are not un-Constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."
And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."
They can put magazines greater than 10 rounds under the NFA.

And that - an necessary, ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - would be an infringement.
Just like a limit on the number of days per (timeframe) you can go to church.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

Just like Texas banning abortions after 6 weeks.
Glad you agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I will say though, that banning large magazines isn't going to do much, if anything.
Banning rifles won't either.

And thus, doing so is "ineffective".

 

[Rogue AI]

Wrong.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise; and until the Court rules, there is no ‘infringement.’

Bullshit. Any act not laid out within the confines of the Constitution would be unconstitutional until ruled otherwise.

 

[Abatis]

Those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures have been disappointed in the past when this conservative High Court refused to grant cert to challenges to such bans.

True but one shouldn't draw any predictions or conclusions about what the Court might or would decide if it were to hear a case. What's the status of Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban? SCOTUS denied cert on that appeal . . .

And even if the Court agreed to hear the case, will those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures be again disappointed when the justices determine to narrowly consider only the possession provision of the law, leaving in place the prohibition to sell, manufacture, or buy large-capacity magazines, similar to the narrow determination in the New York may issue carry permit provision now under review.

In the circuit court decisions upholding bans on either assault weapons or standard magazines or both, the various lower federal court's all used a determination process they invented.

That "two-step" approach is dead after the arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen; it's a forgone conclusion (by all parties), that SCOTUS will invalidate the "circuit judge two-step" and demand "text, informed by history and tradition" be the only acceptable standard to apply the 2ndA to a challenged gun control law.

When that mandate comes down, there will be dozens of appeals filed and rehearings granted rechallenging hundreds of gun control laws and that will impact thousands of other laws.

Christ, there are still entire state gun control schemes that rely on a single court decision that then rest on already invalid "collective right"reasoning (Burton v Sills in NJ and Hickman v Block in CA).

Your cute, dismissive little "those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures" is a laughable characterization formed by an uninformed mind. Actually, if it goes like it should, within a year or two over 75% of gun control laws on the books now, will be struck down by direct decision.

.

 

[Abatis]

This makes no sense and has nothing to do with the thread topic.

The topic is will the Supreme Court frustrate and disappoint conservatives once again by either refusing to hear the case or if they hear the case, rule only narrowly concerning the possession provision.

Given the oral arguments in NTSRPA v Bruen, the SCOTUS will enforce "text, informed by history and tradition" as the ONLY acceptable process to apply the 2nd Amendment to decide the constitutionality of a gun control law.

The SCOTUS will be able to take a vacation, there will be very few cases appealed to them in the first couple years after that mandate.

All the work will be done in the lower federal courts, addressing the appeals of hundreds of old decisions and setting them aside and then rehearing them using the true criteria and reversing those decisions, striking down laws that are often many decades old.

It will be an absolutely glorious time for those of us who are, hostile to unconstitutional firearm regulatory measures (which means most gun control laws).

 

[Abatis]

Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

The lower federal courts that have sustained the bans have, under the first step of their interpretive doctrine, determined that those laws constitute an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. The first step's inquiry is, does the law impact conduct that is protected by the 2nd Amendment?

When they move to the second step (which is only used if the first step is affirmed, yes the law does impact conduct that is protected by the RKBA) the court then decides if there is enough of a public interest to give the government a pass, permitting the court to hold that the law is an allowable constitutional violation (rational basis test).

Yes, it is bullshit which is why the "circuit judge two-step" will be negated and dismantled.

Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.

They have already been held to impact conduct protected by the 2nd Amendment.

All SCOTUS will be doing is invalidating the use of the second step which allows judges to subjectively make policy decisions divorced from the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True but one shouldn't draw any predictions or conclusions about what the Court might or would decide if it were to hear a case.

His "prediction" is bait.
He's trolling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bullshit. Any act not laid out within the confines of the Constitution would be unconstitutional until ruled otherwise.

At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

“Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.”

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just like Texas banning abortions after 6 weeks.
Glad you agree.

Thread topic:

Will the Supreme Court hear the case?

If so, will the Court rule on the possession provision only, leaving in place the ban on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines?

And will conservatives again be frustrated by a Supreme Court seemingly unwilling to hear challenges at the core of the Second Amendment?

What say you?

 

[Rogue AI]

At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

“Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.”

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

www.law.cornell.edu

That applies narrowly to Congressional acts, not to enumerated rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given the oral arguments in NTSRPA v Bruen, the SCOTUS will enforce "text, informed by history and tradition" as the ONLY acceptable process to apply the 2nd Amendment to decide the constitutionality of a gun control law.

The SCOTUS will be able to take a vacation, there will be very few cases appealed to them in the first couple years after that mandate.

All the work will be done in the lower federal courts, addressing the appeals of hundreds of old decisions and setting them aside and then rehearing them using the true criteria and reversing those decisions, striking down laws that are often many decades old.

We’ll take this as you believe the Court won’t hear the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It will be an absolutely glorious time for those of us who are, hostile to unconstitutional firearm regulatory measures (which means most gun control laws).

Wrong.

Again, the doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that acts of government are Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.

Consequently, as a fact of law, AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating – or infringing upon – the Second Amendment.

The wrongheaded notion that such measures are ‘un-Constitutional’ is an example of the aspirational/political second amendment, which was addressed in another thread, and not the topic of this discussion.

Last, conservatives will likely remain frustrated with the Court’s Second Amendment rulings – or the lack thereof – even if AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are eventually overturned, the justices allowing to stand certain firearm regulatory measures such as permit requirements, concealed carry permits, background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on firearms in sensitive locations such as police stations and schools.