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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

All government at all levels.

Otherwise, dig up Chief Justice Rehnquist and argue with him about it.

 

[Rogue AI]

All government at all levels.

Otherwise, dig up Chief Justice Rehnquist and argue with him about it.

Wrong, if that presumption were taken at face value there would be no challenges.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.



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.

There is no consensus among the lower courts as to the constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans.

For example, in 2017 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s magazine ban as Constitutional.

Absent consensus among the appellate courts – or absent a ruling by the Supreme Court – banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"A federal appeals court has agreed to put on hold a law that makes it illegal to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 bullets, to see if the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case."

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

Possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets won't be enforced for now despite the 9th Circuit upholding California law

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

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.

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.

 

[Rogue AI]

There is no consensus among the lower courts as to the constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans.

For example, in 2017 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s magazine ban as Constitutional.

Absent consensus among the appellate courts – or absent a ruling by the Supreme Court – banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

If the ban adds undue burden to the free exercise of the 2nd is most certainly is an infringement. States have not shown such bans not to be a burden or in fact even an effective measure to assauge their petty fears.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Machine guns manufactured after 1986 are banned which makes the ones available for purchase horrifyingly expensive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Machine guns manufactured after 1986 are banned which makes the ones available for purchase horrifyingly expensive.

But neither un-Constitutional nor an infringement.

As to the thread topic:

Do you believe the Court will hear the case?

And if so, will the ruling be narrow or expansive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 . .

“The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday to the advocates’ request to stay the possession part of the law for 150 days to allow time for the writ of certiorari to be filed. If the petition is filed during that period, the stay will be extended until the high court makes a determination on whether it will consider the case.” ibid

This is a relatively short period of time – a matter of months, not years.

Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

But neither un-Constitutional nor an infringement.

As to the thread topic:

Do you believe the Court will hear the case?

And if so, will the ruling be narrow or expansive.

A ban is an infringement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the ban adds undue burden

In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.

The Supreme Court may eventually address the ‘if’ – until that ruling, therefore, high-capacity magazine bans do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right, they are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, and do not violate the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A ban is an infringement.

See post #50.

 

[Rogue AI]

In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.

The Supreme Court may eventually address the ‘if’ – until that ruling, therefore, high-capacity magazine bans do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right, they are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, and do not violate the Second Amendment.

These bans cannot be proven they are capable of achieving what they intend, that creates the undue burden.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

See post #50.

See post #44. There is no reason to ban so called high-capacity magazines.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

See post #44. There is no reason to ban so called high-capacity magazines.

That's not an argument. Repeating a claim is not an argument for that claim. You would lose the court case in about 30 seconds.

 

[Rogue AI]

That's not an argument. Repeating a claim is not an argument for that claim. You would lose the court case in about 30 seconds.

Is there any evidence this ban would reduce gun violence? I have not seen any. How then could it not be an infringement on law abiding citizens? That's a dangerous path you folks want walk, limiting the rights of all based solely on what criminals might do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Is there any evidence this ban would reduce gun violence?

Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.

Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.

 

[Rogue AI]

Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.

Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.

That's not evidence, merely sad conjecture. Worse, it's based on the assumption that murderers are going to obey this particular law while ignoring murder laws. Seems pretty silly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See post #44. There is no reason to ban so called high-capacity magazines.

Non sequitur – no one said there was.

But that’s not what the thread is about.

The tread asks whether or not the Court will hear the case; and if it does, how narrow or expansive will the ruling be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These bans cannot be proven they are capable of achieving what they intend, that creates the undue burden.

In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Non sequitur – no one said there was.

But that’s not what the thread is about.

The tread asks whether or not the Court will hear the case; and if it does, how narrow or expansive will the ruling be.

The thread is about high-capasity magazines I posted a video showing there is no significant load and fire time between those with less than 10 rounds and more. Arguments to banning them is useless and unconstitutional.