Does the state have the right to limit magazine capacity?

[mergatroid]

What say you? (With reasoned answers from the Hoosier point of view, Please.)

 

[actaeon277]

I would say "NO", simply because we are supposed to counterbalance the power of the government.

Also, bad guys won't limit themselves. Why should we.
The attacker picks the field of battle.
The defender goes with what he has.
Most people go with what's in the gun, or one extra mag. (Not everyone, but most).
So, person defending may have one 10 round mag in the gun.
Attacker wants to shoot up a school, with 10 round mags, just brings a backpack with 20 magazines.


There are millions of magazines already out there.
But, if they dry up, it's not like they're hard to fabricate.

 

[Trigger Time]

No. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms Shall not be infringed"
The founding fathers didnt intend on people carrying around unloaded firearms or unsharpened swords of only a certain length. They are weapons for self defense and the right of the people to use and operate them if needed however they were designed and meant to function as weapons, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
To restrict a person to how many rounds he can carry in his or her firearm or on their person would be instantly laughed at and shouted down by our founding fathers as against the law. Unconstitutional.
Our courts and our politicians have failed (i think intentionaly) to properly interpret the constitution and to defend the basic inalienable right of the people as stated in the 2nd amendment. Man cannot grant nor restrict nor abolish these rights.

And people who say the founding fathers didnt intend on us having weapons of the military. POPPYCOCK!
They were very clear in their writings as to why they wanted to ensure the people would always match the government in firepower.
That's like saying we should be able to restrict computer screen sizes for journalist because the constitution only mentions papers.

 

[KellyinAvon]

No. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms Shall not be infringed"
The founding fathers didnt intend on people carrying around unloaded firearms or unsharpened swords of only a certain length. They are weapons for self defense and the right of the people to use and operate them if needed however they were designed and meant to function as weapons, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
To restrict a person to how many rounds he can carry in his or her firearm or on their person would be instantly laughed at and shouted down by our founding fathers as against the law. Unconstitutional.
Our courts and our politicians have failed (i think intentionaly) to properly interpret the constitution and to defend the basic inalienable right of the people as stated in the 2nd amendment. Man cannot grant nor restrict nor abolish these rights.

And people who say the founding fathers didnt intend on us having weapons of the military. POPPYCOCK!
They were very clear in their writings as to why they wanted to ensure the people would always match the government in firepower.
That's like saying we should be able to restrict computer screen sizes for journalist because the constitution only mentions papers.

The civilian world had superior firearms to the military in the days of the Founders. From the Kentucky Long Rifle until (arguably) 1903. "In common use" seems self-explanatory to me, those aren't big words.

 

[Libertarian01]

As far as I am concerned the State (ie. Govt at any level) does not have any "rights." Rights are reserved for self aware individual creatures.

The State has lawful authority. The State may exercise its lawful authority to balance in individuals rights with the collective good. In theory, rights are infinite. However, since we all need to get along in the sandbox the State may impose certain restrictions upon our rights to the minimal degree possible in order to achieve a greater positive for the community as a whole. For example, we all have the right to express ourselves (1st amendment). However, the State may say you cannot get on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3:00AM screaming about the end of the world. The right to free expression stops at the greater good of a full nights rest.

In the case you are asking, IF there were some great benefit to come from limiting a firearms magazine capacity, THEN the State would fall within reasonable use of its lawful authority. However, since the primary goal of limiting magazine capacity would be to save lives and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols proved in Oklahoma City that magazine capacity is irrelevant then I would say they would be exceeding their lawful authority.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Mark 1911]

Maybe not as eloquent as Actaeon, Kelly, Triggertime, and Libertarian but... no.

Oh, I'm supposed to provide a reason. Seems to me the Second Amendment was not written with the intent of putting Americans at a disadvantage compared to criminals and the government. It was written with the intention of preventing that scenario.

 

[mergatroid]

In the case you are asking, IF there were some great benefit to come from limiting a firearms magazine capacity, THEN the State would fall within reasonable use of its lawful authority. However, since the primary goal of limiting magazine capacity would be to save lives and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols proved in Oklahoma City that magazine capacity is irrelevant then I would say they would be exceeding their lawful authority.

Well put. I believe the state bares the obligation to prove the need to limit magazine capacity, from a 2nd A point of view. Of course with the runaway judiciary we have today, the 2nd Amendment means little.

 

[mergatroid]

Seems to me the Second Amendment was not written with the intent of putting Americans at a disadvantage compared to criminals and the government. It was written with the intention of preventing that scenario.

Good points! I like this, people are thinking and reasoning!

 

[KLB]

Hopefully the USSC will take this question in the near future.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As far as I am concerned the State (ie. Govt at any level) does not have any "rights." Rights are reserved for self aware individual creatures.

The State has lawful authority. The State may exercise its lawful authority to balance in individuals rights with the collective good. In theory, rights are infinite. However, since we all need to get along in the sandbox the State may impose certain restrictions upon our rights to the minimal degree possible in order to achieve a greater positive for the community as a whole. For example, we all have the right to express ourselves (1st amendment). However, the State may say you cannot get on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3:00AM screaming about the end of the world. The right to free expression stops at the greater good of a full nights rest.

In the case you are asking, IF there were some great benefit to come from limiting a firearms magazine capacity, THEN the State would fall within reasonable use of its lawful authority. However, since the primary goal of limiting magazine capacity would be to save lives and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols proved in Oklahoma City that magazine capacity is irrelevant then I would say they would be exceeding their lawful authority.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Floivanus]

Attacker wants to shoot up a school, with 10 round mags, just brings a backpack with 20 magazines.


There are millions of magazines already out there.
But, if they dry up, it's not like they're hard to fabricate.

April of 1999 proves your first point.

John dillinger had a 1911 with a 20 or 30 round magazine too IIRC, and 3d printing files for standard capacity magazines are a thing as well

 

[snowwalker]

It pains me to see people get caught up in political correctness, even in the gun community. A Glock 17 has a 'standard capacity' magazine of 17 rounds, this is not a high capacity round magazine, but a 'standard capacity' magazine for that platform. Same is true for the AR-15 with a 'standard capacity' round of 30, again not a high capacity, just a 'standard capacity' of 30 rounds. This same common sense logic can be applied to many firearms and should be.

 

[Trigger Time]

Maybe not as eloquent as Actaeon, Kelly, Triggertime, and Libertarian but... no.

Oh, I'm supposed to provide a reason. Seems to me the Second Amendment was not written with the intent of putting Americans at a disadvantage compared to criminals and the government. It was written with the intention of preventing that scenario.

Someone called one of my posts eloquent.
I'm framing this post

And I agree with you Mark1911

 

[Lex Concord]

What say you? (With reasoned answers from the Hoosier point of view, Please.)

No. Individuals have rights; states have powers.

I do not see limiting mag capacity (or any other limitation on the 2A, for that matter) as being in the scope of legitimate power of a state; that said, states exercise illegitimate powers all the time.

 

[churchmouse]

Someone called one of my posts eloquent.
I'm framing this post

And I agree with you Mark1911

I marked this on my special events calendar.......

 

[churchmouse]

Answer....."NO"

Reason.....refer to post #5 please.

 

[actaeon277]

Someone called one of my posts eloquent.
I'm framing this post

And I agree with you Mark1911

I know. I get called "eloquent" and my head swells so big, I can barely fit through a door.

 

[edporch]

IF the 2nd Amendment was followed as originally passed, ALL federal arms laws would be unconstitutional and ONLY each individual state could pass laws regulating arms for that state.
And yes, an individual state could pass a law limiting magazine capacity.

BUT SINCE the federal government decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment as originally passed and pass federal level arms laws, and it has now been "incorporated", then "shall not be infringed" applies to the state governments.
So NO, an individual state CANNOT pass a law limiting magazine capacity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[Trigger Time]

I marked this on my special events calendar.......

I know. I get called "eloquent" and my head swells so big, I can barely fit through a door.

I'm still outside

 

[mergatroid]

IF the 2nd Amendment was followed as originally passed, ALL federal arms laws would be unconstitutional and ONLY each individual state could pass laws regulating arms for that state.
And yes, an individual state could pass a law limiting magazine capacity.

BUT SINCE the federal government decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment as originally passed and pass federal level arms laws, and it has now been "incorporated", then "shall not be infringed" applies to the state governments.
So NO, an individual state CANNOT pass a law limiting magazine capacity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Might need to dumb it down for me or simplify at least. (And I took a hack at the wiki article)

So only the Fed can pass firearms law because??? They pushed the "right" down stream? They usurped the 2nd and pretended it only applies to the states? Help please.