|
|
|
11-11-2020, 06:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,364
Likes: 9,381
Liked 17,297 Times in 6,648 Posts
|
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313
Thanks
Yes a typo. I meant to say Supreme Court could make intermediate scrutiny the law. A very bad result
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
11-11-2020, 07:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,890
Likes: 6,992
Liked 28,122 Times in 8,914 Posts
|
|
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 . . .
Quote:
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.
|
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Last edited by Muss Muggins; 11-12-2020 at 08:16 AM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
11-14-2020, 06:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA Central Coast
Posts: 4,647
Likes: 920
Liked 6,615 Times in 2,198 Posts
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer
|
11-15-2020, 09:58 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,770
Likes: 19,523
Liked 11,869 Times in 5,391 Posts
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA
|
11-15-2020, 07:15 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 19,249
Likes: 11,917
Liked 20,594 Times in 8,582 Posts
|
|
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.
__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819
|
11-15-2020, 08:36 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,890
Likes: 6,992
Liked 28,122 Times in 8,914 Posts
|
|
Call your first witness, counselor . . .
Quote:
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.
|
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|