The 9th Circuit rules in our favor!

[GaryS]

That would indeed be very bad. However, I think that the current makeup of the Supreme Court would be more inclined to make strict scrutiny the standard. It is the standard all other rights in the Bill of Rights are held too. There is no reason to make an exception for one right to say that it is less valuable.

Also when you use the term high-capacity magazines you are giving in to the other side's definition. These are standard capacity magazines which were designed to be used with the gun by the guns design. It's appropriate to call 10-round or other than standard capacity magazines crippled magazines because they are intended to make the guns less usable for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Thanks

Yes a typo. I meant to say Supreme Court could make intermediate scrutiny the law. A very bad result

[Muss Muggins]

You do understand that high capacity magazines have already been banned once, right? And that nationwide ban survived constitutional muster. The only reason we got them back was Bush 43 and Congress let the 1994 ban expire. A similar ban is easily possible (edit), which means we need to stay in touch with our congressional delegations about that potential legislation . . .

Originally Posted by GaryS

Also when you use the term high-capacity magazines you are giving in to the other side's definition. These are standard capacity magazines which were designed to be used with the gun by the guns design. It's appropriate to call 10-round or other than standard capacity magazines crippled magazines because they are intended to make the guns less usable for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

[Fastbolt]

Originally Posted by GaryS

...
Also when you use the term high-capacity magazines you are giving in to the other side's definition. These are standard capacity magazines which were designed to be used with the gun by the guns design. It's appropriate to call 10-round or other than standard capacity magazines crippled magazines because they are intended to make the guns less usable for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

Well, when you're talking about legal definitions, then if your state has a statute containing a legislated definition, it's the law of the land and the legal definition IS the relevant and binding definition.

That's why codes typically have definitions incorporated into their statutes, to offer a precise definition relevant to the code's statute. Interestingly enough, it's not uncommon for each chapter of various state codes to include "definitions" at the beginning of code chapters, and sometimes those definitions may only pertain to the statutes contained in that chapter of that code.

I had to adjust to that when dealing with multiple state codes during my career. Words mean things, but the codes might have to tell us what they specifically meant in different codes and statutes. (Like when one code had to contain a definition of how "days" were to be counted. )

Now, if you want to argue substance over form, or change the meaning of a particular definition relative to some specific statute, then there are ways to do that ... via the courts or legislatively.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

You do understand that high capacity magazines have already been banned once, right? And that nationwide ban survived constitutional muster. The only reason we got them back was Bush 43 and Congress let the 1994 ban expire. A similar ban is easily possible (edit), which means we need to stay in touch with our congressional delegations about that potential legislation . . .

Exactly. Sadly, my permanently reelected delegation has yet to see a tax or firearms restriction/ban that they didn't like and support.

[Hondo44]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
You do understand that high capacity magazines have already been banned once, right? And that nationwide ban survived constitutional muster. Quote

I don't believe the ban passed constitutional muster because it was not challenged due to the make-up of the Supreme Ct at the time, due to a wrong decision from them setting bad case precedence.

[Muss Muggins]

Call your first witness, counselor . . .

Originally Posted by Hondo44

I don't believe the ban passed constitutional muster because it was not challenged due to the make-up of the Supreme Ct at the time, due to a wrong decision from them setting bad case precedence.