You're probably right - but my "simple" test is really intended to demonstrate how difficult interpreting such legislation in the light of a post-Heller/McDonald context will be. What is an essential part of a firearm and which is not? You don't necessarily need a magazine in a semi-auto for it to be operable, except in certain cases (which can usually be defeated). So is the magazine a firearm or is it merely an accessory? Or is it a restrictable firearm component (like a receiver) or not? Does any of this reflect/impinge upon 2A protections as defined under Heller/McDonald? I have no idea whatsoever. This would truly be an example of where the SCOTUS might be asked to write law on our behalf - and who knows where that might lead?
So Is There a Right to Bear Glocks?
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
I believe some need to return to school
Rule by MAJORITY is not what we live under,,We are protected by the constitution for our rights,A Majority system (Democracy) can do any thing they wish to the minority's life,,even taking it and anything else they wish,,Democracy and Democratic form of govt are not in the same thing,,a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected reps and governed by law.. In a Majority,,
they can remove the right to vote to anyone..For example,a Majority could lay excesesive taxes on a class of people or create a debtors prision,deni the right to own property,,anything !!!
Rule by MAJORITY is not what we live under,,We are protected by the constitution for our rights,A Majority system (Democracy) can do any thing they wish to the minority's life,,even taking it and anything else they wish,,Democracy and Democratic form of govt are not in the same thing,,a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected reps and governed by law.. In a Majority,,
they can remove the right to vote to anyone..For example,a Majority could lay excesesive taxes on a class of people or create a debtors prision,deni the right to own property,,anything !!!
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
csmsss said:
Well that makes two if us!
The whole idea seems like a Pandora's Box of epic proportions.
Many of the people mentioned in post #1 would still be here if within the group attending the Reps meeting there would have been eight or ten w/ guns.
Was the Safeway (the store where the meeting was being held) or the mall (i believe the store was part of a mall) a gun free zone. I thought I read/saw that in some early TV coverage. I could be wrong. Please advise, if so.
The first thing several persons did was call the police (GUNS). Too bad there werent guns already there.
Was the Safeway (the store where the meeting was being held) or the mall (i believe the store was part of a mall) a gun free zone. I thought I read/saw that in some early TV coverage. I could be wrong. Please advise, if so.
The first thing several persons did was call the police (GUNS). Too bad there werent guns already there.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
langenc said:
What happens when the 8 or 10 with guns don't know who's a good guy and who isn't?
What if they start shooting each other?
What if the cops see 8 or 10 people with guns and start shooting them?
What if 2 or 3 of the 8 or 10 with guns miss the target and kill or injure 4 or 6 other innocents?
Oh, if life were so simple.
I argued that an armed civilian would have made a difference at Westroads Mall. And at Luby's, and at Virginia Tech.
But here? I don't think it would have helped.
This guy was relatively inconspicuous, and he emptied the magazine fast. He was in the middle of a crowd. Heck, he probably knew that lots of Arizonans carry.
As such, it'd take a couple of seconds to identify the threat and acquire the target. Then, what's my backstop? A whole bunch of innocent people. It's a tactical nightmare.
I'll argue all day for an unfettered right-to-carry, but this isn't an example of where it would have helped.
ETA: Yoink! Peet beat me to it
Two points? Shame on you AZ... Utah got zero.
If the issue is lethal potential, and we are blaming Hi-cap mags, then we need to ban commercial air planes and fertilizer. Together they have been responsible for two of the largest murders (as far as victim count) this country has ever seen.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
pichon said:
They're ahead of you on that one.... it's harder to get Ammonium Nitrate (in quantity) than it is to get a gun in most places.
Bernie Lomax
New member
Well, we beat you (and everyone else) on this anti list:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427557&highlight=lcav
Still, I am disappointed that we didn't make it to the bottom of the Brady bunch's list as well.
The 2011 legislative session starts tomorrow. We'll work harder this year. In fact, I already have an email composed that I'm sending to my reps tomorrow, regarding some "changes" (hehehe) that I'd like to see made.
Mike Irwin
Staff
My friend easily got ammonium nitrate fertilizer mail order.
No muss, no fuss.
We used it to make Tannerite-type targets.
Ticked his Mom's neighbors off to no end.
No muss, no fuss.
We used it to make Tannerite-type targets.
Ticked his Mom's neighbors off to no end.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The AWB - guns, mags - was studied intensively - no effect on any crime indices were found.
It is amazing how politicians and the media are obviously to using things like Google Scholar - OH, no it isn't - politicians are immune to evidence.
This is true for every shade of the political spectrum.
It is amazing how politicians and the media are obviously to using things like Google Scholar - OH, no it isn't - politicians are immune to evidence.
This is true for every shade of the political spectrum.
OscarTurner
New member
I can see a Hi Cap magazine ban getting passed
A ban on magazines that extend below the grip of the firearm is what I think they will go after. They look menacing and are easily identifiable - just like bayonet lugs. Whether or not it turns out to be constitutional is a matter for the lawsuits that would certainly follow from the NRA. But, in the immediate I can see it going through as a 'matter of National Security" just based on who the targets were in this case. I don't think Columbine is an appropriate choice of president since no politicians were targeted. Also, I doubt 30 round magazines are much of a money maker, so I can't see the manufactures ponying up the money to fight the ban like they would a 10 Rd restriction or an additional safety mechanism. It does not involve altering any existing products.
A ban on magazines that extend below the grip of the firearm is what I think they will go after. They look menacing and are easily identifiable - just like bayonet lugs. Whether or not it turns out to be constitutional is a matter for the lawsuits that would certainly follow from the NRA. But, in the immediate I can see it going through as a 'matter of National Security" just based on who the targets were in this case. I don't think Columbine is an appropriate choice of president since no politicians were targeted. Also, I doubt 30 round magazines are much of a money maker, so I can't see the manufactures ponying up the money to fight the ban like they would a 10 Rd restriction or an additional safety mechanism. It does not involve altering any existing products.
76 years and still going strong....
A restriction (virtual ban) on an item that is not a firearm, by a firearm law. The NFA 34 restricts silencers (any device intended to reduce the sound of a gunshot), and has survived without any serious challenges to date.
The precedence is there, it does not have to be a firearm, only something that can be attached/used by a firearm to be covered under a firearm law. We have laws currently remaining at state level that cover folding stocks.
They can do whatever they want, assuming they have the votes to pass it, and it becomes law until/unless the High Court voids it. That's our system, and isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.
Various states have bans on "hi cap" magazines, and many other things. NJ even has a ban on hollowpoint ammo in public, so I am told.
The general attitude of the govt is that as long as you can have some kind of arms (and ammo) prohibition of specific items does not infringe on our rights.
We don't have a constitutional right to own a Glock. We have a right to keep and bear arms. Which arms those are is something decided by law, and court interpretations of law. As long as they allow us something, they aren't denying us our rights. At least, that is how they see it.
And that point of view has been law in this country for 76 years, and still going strong.
A restriction (virtual ban) on an item that is not a firearm, by a firearm law. The NFA 34 restricts silencers (any device intended to reduce the sound of a gunshot), and has survived without any serious challenges to date.
The precedence is there, it does not have to be a firearm, only something that can be attached/used by a firearm to be covered under a firearm law. We have laws currently remaining at state level that cover folding stocks.
They can do whatever they want, assuming they have the votes to pass it, and it becomes law until/unless the High Court voids it. That's our system, and isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.
Various states have bans on "hi cap" magazines, and many other things. NJ even has a ban on hollowpoint ammo in public, so I am told.
The general attitude of the govt is that as long as you can have some kind of arms (and ammo) prohibition of specific items does not infringe on our rights.
We don't have a constitutional right to own a Glock. We have a right to keep and bear arms. Which arms those are is something decided by law, and court interpretations of law. As long as they allow us something, they aren't denying us our rights. At least, that is how they see it.
And that point of view has been law in this country for 76 years, and still going strong.
carguychris
New member
+1; in light of the Heller decision, lack of a suppressor is not detrimental to effective defense of the home, but IMHO an excessively small magazine capacity restriction could be.
It all boils down to "common use". Although I personally dislike the idea of magazine capacity restrictions, in the interests of honesty, I would have to agree that 30rd pistol mags are not in common use.
I also have a tendency to believe that it may be hard to challenge state restrictions on >10rd pistol mags because (1) the restrictions have been in effect for almost 20 years in some states, yet people there are still buying automatic pistols, and (2) many popular automatics, including the vaunted 1911 platform, normally hold less than 10rds anyway, yet many people apparently believe that such guns are adequate for self-defense.
That too.
Wildalaska
Moderator
So is there a constitutional difference between a 30 round Glock mag and a 30 round AR mag?
WildsprayandprayAlaska ™©2002-2010
WildsprayandprayAlaska ™©2002-2010
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
boomboomthump
Inactive
Hello everyone, I'll get to the intro section in a bit but I wanted to put this out here for all to look at. Whether you like Ted Nugent or dislike him, in this opinion article he wrote for the Washington Times, is right on in my opinion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/11/be-prepared-for-evil/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/11/be-prepared-for-evil/
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It's clear that if a mag ban was promoted that we would go back 10's for handguns and forget the 30s for ARs.
Here's the rub - the past ban was seen as ineffective because of existing stocks of AW and high cap mags. So don't anti gunners know this and argue for a confiscation and turn in of such? It would immediately turn millions of gun owners into felons if you didn't comply.
If it passes it would because of the panic mode that brought about the last AWB. We see Peter King in full squawk now.
Hopefully legislative leadership will not go for such.
Here's the rub - the past ban was seen as ineffective because of existing stocks of AW and high cap mags. So don't anti gunners know this and argue for a confiscation and turn in of such? It would immediately turn millions of gun owners into felons if you didn't comply.
If it passes it would because of the panic mode that brought about the last AWB. We see Peter King in full squawk now.
Hopefully legislative leadership will not go for such.