Magazine Capacity Bans
BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 7 months ago
This decision by a federal district judge justifies a magazine capacity ban in D.C. In it he plays word games, kicks the can down the road, ignores the very real issue of multi-man home invasions, ignores the very real involvement of the second amendment in the militia and amelioration of tyranny, misapplies Heller, and uses historical analogues that are too late to be useful (from the 1800s).
This federal district judge in Illinois seems not to like magazine capacity bans very much and himself makes arguments against them in the very case he is presiding.
Prediction: there will be split in the district courts, and in the appeals courts. So-called “assault weapon” bans (which are simply bans against semiautomatic firearms) and magazine capacity bans will end up at the supreme court because of the splits.
UPDATE: Zelman Partisans observes the following.
Oddly, Contreras cites HELLER in making that point. I can’t find that argument in HELLER, which was largely about whether non- military weapons could be regulated, and how, but there is this.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
Rather the opposite of Contreras’ weasel-wording, eh?
Via Ken. Yes. As I said, the ruling plays word games. I suspect those word games will come to an abrupt end at the supreme court.
|
|
On April 21, 2023 at 3:43 am, Dan said:
Yes…these conflicting rulings will likely end up before the SCOTUS. Problem is by the time they are heard it’s a virtual guarantee that Justice Thomas and the other rational justices will have been replaced by complicit compliant communists who will then gut the Second Amendment. The Demonrat left will never relinquish the White House and thus an honest justice will never be nominated ever again. The left now OWNS the election machinery. Because of that they will eventually control EVERYTHING. That are well on their way to total control now.
On April 21, 2023 at 6:10 am, Joe Blow said:
Unconstitutional.
Illegal.
Ignored.
On April 21, 2023 at 10:01 am, Bill Buppert said:
Buy more standard capacity magazines, as many as you can and give them as gifts to family.
On April 22, 2023 at 11:42 am, Latigo Morgan said:
Apparently, a picture of a part is now a machine gun, according to the ATF. I don’t know if you followed Matt Hoover’s case and the Auto Keycard, but he and the creator of it were found guilty yesterday in Florida.
https://youtu.be/cYlaV-u8R0Q
On April 22, 2023 at 6:12 pm, X said:
Back in 1987 as an undergrad, I attended a guest lecture on the 200th anniversary of the Constitutional Convention. I can’t remember who the speaker was, but when he was asked something about how to interpret the language of the Constitution, he said something that always stuck with me: the Constitution would only remain effective if we had a “Constitutional frame of mind.”
In other words, the Constitution reflected the culture of the Founders. If you are not part of that culture, or of you disdain it, then the Constitution becomes meaningless. You can parse the language to try to either ignore what it says, or make it say something it doesn’t say.
The text and intent and history of the Second Amendment are quite clear.
The problems is that judges are politicians and ideologues, so they play word games with the Constitution and with precedents to get the outcome they prefer.
If the judges do not have a “Constitutional frame of mind,” do not expect them to guarantee your rights for you.