Does the state have the right to limit magazine capacity?

[Sylvain]

In practice states have the rights to ban magazines based on their capacity.

I still don't understand why some US states, like California and 7 other states, can legally ban some types of magazines without the whole thing being unconstitutional ... but they do and apparently the Supreme Court is fine with it.

Should they have that right is another question.
If you follow the Constitution to the letter then there should be no state or federal law to regulate firearms use and ownwership in the first place.
You should be able to carry a gun without a piece of paper from the state and own a machine gun without a piece of paper from the federal government.

I don't understand the logic behind the reduction of magazine capacity either.

If it reduced crime then California would have already passed a zero capacity magazine limit by now.

 

[mergatroid]

edporch introduced the idea that the 14th amendment applied the bill of rights to the states, so they could not circumvent the Bill of Rights. Needed, I guess after the Civil War. I'm still a little behind the discussion. But it appears that due to the 14th, any federal alteration or statue automatically applies to the states? What say you?

 

[KLB]

edporch introduced the idea that the 14th amendment applied the bill of rights to the states, so they could not circumvent the Bill of Rights. Needed, I guess after the Civil War. I'm still a little behind the discussion. But it appears that due to the 14th, any federal alteration or statue automatically applies to the states? What say you?

That isn't what he said. What he said was that the 14th said that the Bill of Rights restricted the states, just as it did the Fed.

As for fed statutes applying to the states, where do you think they apply? Only in DC or Fed land?

 

[mergatroid]

That isn't what he said. What he said was that the 14th said that the Bill of Rights restricted the states, just as it did the Fed.

As for fed statutes applying to the states, where do you think they apply? Only in DC or Fed land?

Guess I am still unclear on the "incorporation" idea. If the states must abide by the 2A then the question becomes does the 2A allow the banning of a cretin magazine?

 

[mergatroid]

That isn't what he said. What he said was that the 14th said that the Bill of Rights restricted the states, just as it did the Fed.

As for fed statutes applying to the states, where do you think they apply? Only in DC or Fed land?

So by the 14th the states are forced to abide by the 2A?

 

[KLB]

So by the 14th the states are forced to abide by the 2A?

As much as the Fed is. The issue is how the courts interpret it.

 

[Sling10mm]

I understand what you are saying, but it implies that you are ok with a ban on say a 40, 45, 60, 75, or 100 round magazine. I don't believe they should be able to limit magazine capacity because that will always be an arbitrary number with no basis in fact as to its determination, just a bunch of "feel-goodness."

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.

 

[mergatroid]

I understand what you are saying, but it implies that you are ok with a ban on say a 40, 45, 60, 75, or 100 round magazine. I don't believe they should be able to limit magazine capacity because that will always be an arbitrary number with no basis in fact as to its determination, just a bunch of "feel-goodness."

I think snowwalker has a point. The magazine that is designed for the gun, produced and sold together, is the "standard" capacity of that firearm. The courts have given some indication that modern firearms are covered under the 2A. And a modern firearm is sold with a 17 round magazine. (please don't nit pick this, you get the idea). Therefore, outlawing the standard capacity is well outside the scope of what has become the normal interpretation for the courts.

Maybe?

So......No the states can not limit a 17 round gun to a 4 or 5 round magazine. That would be a clear infringement.

Accessories, such at the 50 round mag and bump stocks. should be covered under the ATF rules which the states should be forced to uphold. Har Har.

 

[Libertarian01]

I believe the State would be justified in limiting a magazine capacity IF AND ONLY IF it could show that this limit would have a significant impact on community safety. For example, we set a legal limit on driving while there is alcohol in the system. It is NOT illegal to own or drink alcoholic beverages. It IS illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol. A specific number, depending upon the state, has been chosen as the line across which thou shalt not cross. Why? Because guided by science we have determined in general where the impairment becomes significant enough to say "no."

Want to find the limit for you? An easy test, when you have the time to stay at home or with friends, is to sign your name on a piece of paper. Then, drink one beer. You don't have to guzzle it, just drink it. Then, sign your name again. Repeat. Do this five (5) or six (6) times. The next day look at each signature. You will be amazed at how your signature degrades.

The problem is that the goal of saving lives will not be impacted by limiting magazine capacity. Therefore, the State cannot justify a limit because it will not move the needle of safety toward that goal. We limit the speed at which we can drive, we limit when and where speech can be done, we limit where one can legally fire a weapon, but the magazine capacity means nothing. Ergo, it should not be limited.

That said, IF it could be proved subjectively that the limit would save lives, then the discussion would be reasonable. The problem is that it cannot be proven.

The goal of saving lives is noble and just. The means must be reasonable and balanced with liberty. Magazine limits thusly do not pass the smell test.

Regards,

Doug

 

[bjlay2000]

Buy as many high cap mags as you can. You never know when the laws will change