Should very large handgun magazines be heavily regulated

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry - Blackstone was enormously influential on Jefferson and the Declaration as well as the later Constitution and its even later Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson reflected Black-stone's view when he used the phrase "law of nature and of nature's God" in the Declaration. This phrase indicates that Jefferson understood the difference between Blackstone's theory and that of Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature refers to the will of God observable in creation while the law of nature's God refers to the divine law which is revealed through the Scriptures.

While Jefferson affirmed Blackstone's view of natural law, he abhorred the influence of Blackstone in the adoption of the English common law in the Colonies. Because of Jefferson's significant role in the founding of America, it is necessary to discern precisely where he agreed with Blackstone as well as where he disagreed.


And...

II. the influence of Blackstone on the Constitution

A. No Taxation Without Representation

In a sense, the Declaration was a document listing grievances against a government which the Signers believed had failed to operate in accordance with the laws of nature. Chief among the grievances listed in the Declaration was the fact that King George violated the "laws of nature and of nature's God" by "imposing taxes on us without our consent."

Colonies were taxed but denied representation in Parliament. In contrast, the Constitution documents how the Founding Fathers believed that an ideal government, in submission to the law of nature, should operate. Accordingly, the Constitution sought to remedy the taxation problem by requiring in Article I, Section 7, that bills for revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the body of government closest to the American people.16

B. The Unalienable Right to Property

An understanding of Blackstone's beliefs on property rights is impossible apart from an understanding of his beliefs on happiness, for he believed that the latter depended on the former. Blackstone stated that a right to property "tends to man's real happiness, and therefore justly concluding that...it is a part of the law of nature." 17 Likewise, according to Blackstone, the converse is true-denial of property rights is "destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore the law of nature forbids it." 18

Richard A. Huenefeld has noted the following concerning Blackstone's influence on the Founding Fathers' view of property rights:

The influential Blackstone said that the right of private property "consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all [personal] acquisitions." While he spoke of the "sacred and inviolable rights of private property," he equivocated concerning the origin and nature of property rights.

He indicated that the "origin of private property is probably found in nature," but that much of this natural liberty was sacrificed in order to enjoy society's protection of it. Apparently he was uncertain whether to adopt a law of nature position or a social compact theory.

Blackstone turned to the revealed law of God for "the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion over external things." He referred to Genesis chapter one wherein the Creator gave man "dominion over all the earth." From this, Blackstone considered this common ownership sufficient for only a short time as the growth of population led to conflicts over the subject of dominion.

He adopted a social compact theory, asserting that "necessity begat property," meaning that civil laws recognizing the institution of property were needed for beneficial resolution of conflicts. He modified his social compact theory by holding that "bodily labor, bestowed upon any subject which before lay in common to all men, is universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to an exclusive property therein."19

When the Framers engrafted the right to property into the Constitution-with all of its complexities and exceptions-the theories of Blackstone were, without a doubt, of paramount influence.

C. The Unalienable Right of Self-Defense

Blackstone's view of the right to bear arms is stated in the following quote:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense . . . which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2, C. 2, and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation. 20

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 21 The question of the source of this principle is difficult because of the extensive history of debate in England and virtually every other society which has attempted to maintain a balance between anarchy and oppressive government.

However, it is safe to say that the American belief in the right to bear arms has its roots in "civil jurists of the period who had specifically dealt with the question of self-defense as a natural right." 22

It has been noted that their doctrine stemmed essentially from the traditional view of suicide as a sin and perhaps as the ultimate sin. To them a failure to defend yourself against an unlawful aggression amounted to suicide by inaction. If a person's life is a gift of the Creator and he cannot destroy it by action, he cannot destroy it by inaction or negligence.

If life is not the private property of the person living, then it is not his to destroy or allow to be destroyed: you may voluntarily acquiesce to robbery; you may not voluntarily acquiesce to murder.23

III. conclusion
It is not coincidental that the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were espoused less than a decade after Blackstone's Commentaries first appeared in print in England. The correlation between the philosophy of America's founding documents and the Commentaries is worthy of careful exploration.


The OP is about extra-capacity magazines.
Excuse me but your little diatribe here reminds me of Roseanna Roseanna Danna's rants. I'm not sure whether you aren't able to remember who you quoted, or whether you think I'm not able to remember it, but this is another attempt at what I call the "yeah but..." deflection technique.

To be clear: the "natural rights is nonsense on stilts" quote that YOU referenced was stated by Jeremy Bentham - not Blackstone.

All of the above is about Blackstone - whose ideas SUPPORTED natural rights and who was an influence on Jefferson, and no doubt many of our other founding fathers.

Jeremy Bentham on the other hand is the non-believer in "natural rights". His beliefs were NOT influential on the founding fathers.

So this is where you say "OH! NEVERMIIIIND!"

Unless you are going to once again just gloss over this refutation of the drivel you've posted and move on to your next "yeah but..." deflection.
 
Last edited:
And from Heritage Foundation...

Like our own charter of individual liberties, the English Bill of Rights protected the right to keep and bear arms.[12] William Blackstone (1723–1780), the leading authority on English law for Americans of the Founding generation, called it one of the indispensable auxiliary rights "which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."[13] This right, he said, is rooted in "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[14] Blackstone made no distinction between the violence of oppression that results from government's failure to control common criminals and the oppression that government itself may undertake.

The Constitution proposed by the Philadelphia Convention contained no express protection of the right to arms or of many other fundamental rights. The new government was to be one of limited and enumerated powers, and most of the Framers thought there was no need to expressly protect rights that the federal government would not be empowered to infringe.


Again, the thread is about extra-capacity mags.
 
Looks like we're now halfway to a Constitutional Convention...

I don't even want to think about the consequences of that. Just off the top of my head...

* Goodbye to the Second Amendment...period. There is no way that 2A would survive a rewrite of the Constitution.

* Ditto for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...they'll be history.

* Adios to the Electoral College...a few large cities will decide the outcome of every election.

* Look for changes to the 1st Amendment...especially bans on certain types of offensive speech.

* Requirements for certain proportionate representation in the House and Senate, on juries, and in the various branches of government.

* The abolition of capital punishment.

* A guaranteed minimum income for all.

* Changes to our citizenship laws.

* The enshrinement of certain "rights" in the Constitution that the Founders never conceived of.

* Free this-or-that will be written into the new Constitution...

And that's just for starters. Think about every crazy, half-baked idea you've heard somebody propose, and you've thought to yourself "that's unconstitutional"...well, now it won't be.

I carry a copy of our Constitution with me much of the time, and one sits prominently in my home. I think it's an absolutely brilliant document, written by brilliant men, who created an almost-perfect blueprint for how to organize and govern a large, diverse group of people.

Rewriting our Constitution means nothing less than remaking our system of government. How one can claim to support gun rights, and not understand the pitfalls inherent in a constitutional convention, is positively astonishing.
 
And from Heritage Foundation...

Like our own charter of individual liberties, the English Bill of Rights protected the right to keep and bear arms.[12] William Blackstone (1723–1780), the leading authority on English law for Americans of the Founding generation, called it one of the indispensable auxiliary rights "which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."[13] This right, he said, is rooted in "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[14] Blackstone made no distinction between the violence of oppression that results from government's failure to control common criminals and the oppression that government itself may undertake.

The Constitution proposed by the Philadelphia Convention contained no express protection of the right to arms or of many other fundamental rights. The new government was to be one of limited and enumerated powers, and most of the Framers thought there was no need to expressly protect rights that the federal government would not be empowered to infringe.


Again, the thread is about extra-capacity mags.

Yes, as I mentioned a couple of posts back, YOU obviously don't view extra capacity mags as falling under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, and most of the rest of us do.

So all this talk about rights is appropriate and germane to the original topic. And having opened that "can of worms" you don't get to shut down this aspect of the discussion just because others have good points you can't refute.

You are right about one thing, as originally written the Constitution did not specifically reference the natural rights that we are given by our Creator. That is why the authors couldn't get it passed with out the addition of the first 10 Amendments - which specifically DID enumerate our basic human rights that the government CANNOT Infringe or take away from us.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly.

I believe possession of all firearms is subject to the Second Amendment, but that those rights are not unlimited. If firearms types/capacities/power are to be restricted, it must be done by state legislatures or Congress, with SCOTUS (as the final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional) to determine if states or the Congress exceeded their legitmate authority.

I'm less concerned about SCOTUS generally than legislatures or Congress - that's (to me) wherein the most risk exists to reduction of firearms/firearms parts and ammo.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly.

I believe possession of all firearms is subject to the Second Amendment, but that those rights are not unlimited. If firearms types/capacities/power are to be restricted, it must be done by state legislatures or Congress, with SCOTUS to determine if states or the Congress exceeded their legitmate authority.

OK, so then what is your definition of "shall not be infringed" in regards to laws that restrict the gun rights of law abiding citizens. And don't fall back on SCOTUS - give us YOUR definition, and be sure to include your extensive knowledge of the historical framework and conditions under which those words were written and the conditions they were intended to address.

SCOTUS is not infallible. There have also been numerous reversals and we are potentially looking at some more in the near future.
 
Last edited:
That is the sort of thinking that got us to where we are today. Maybe someday things will get bad enough the majority of us will decide to do something about it.

Do you think the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in the Heller case if the plaintiffs had argued that all gun laws are unconstitutional? Do you think the states that have passed concealed-carry laws would have passed them if the proponents had argued that they weren't obligated to honor any restrictions on their right to carry? When appellate courts have ruled in our favor, in various cases, did they respond to rational, reasoned arguments...or to claims that we have the right under 2A to do whatever we want?

Yeah, we can come on here and preach to the converted about the Second Amendment and natural law and what our human rights ought to be. But it's in the real world of legislatures and town council meetings and sitdowns with elected officials and their chiefs of staff that we need to make good arguments in order to be effective. That's the way the legislative process works, every time, on every issue.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. The constitution is not up for negotiation.

Either get enough support to amend it, or shut the hell up and follow it.

if you keep trying to circumvent it, eventually the people are going to stop you permanently.

This isn't an either-or proposition. No Constitutional right is absolute, as the courts have ruled repeatedly over the years. (The best example I can think of right now is that the 1st Amendment doesn't sanction yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.)

There are shades of gray in all of this. That's why it's vitally important to persuade the people who make and interpret the law that you are reasonable, rational, and logical...and not some nutjob claiming that the law doesn't apply to you.
 
...The same is true of magazine bans. If we compromise and agree to allow bans of 'extra large' capacity magazines, we will have forfeited the principle and lost...

If we "agree" to allow it? In my state, and, I suspect, many others as well, we don't have the popular support or the votes to control what happens to us...we are not in the position to "allow" anything. That's why we have to present logical, well-reasoned arguments, and persuade legislators to see our point of view...it's the only way we can prevail.

There have been many social causes throughout American history -- women's suffrage, for example -- where folks who had no power, no authority, to compel elected officials to respect their rights were able to achieve their goals nonetheless. They did it through reason, logic, and appeals to common sense and justice...and we ought to emulate them and their methods, in my opinion.
 
The biggest mass killing in US history, 60 dead and hundreds wounded, at Las Vegas, was accomplished with 3 AR-15s that had 60-100 mags. The Giffords mass killing, 6 dead and 12 wounded, was with a Glock and 30+ round mags. I'm quite surprised this hasn't already caused a legislative backlash. If it never does, it never does.

If we -- gun enthusiasts and the gun industry -- don't police ourselves, we are going to have a legislative solution imposed on us. It nearly happened nationally after Sandy Hook (and it did happen here in Maryland, where our governor and legislature used that crime as the pretext to pass a panoply of new laws), and sooner or later our luck will run out.

Cause-and-effect...cause-and-effect...

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: Last summer, Homeland Security Investigations and the Baltimore Police Department arrested three men in connection with a drug and gun crime ring. They recovered parts to make 40 so-called "ghost guns", along with 15 other weapons and a load of narcotics.

As we know, federal law allows you to buy an unfinished receiver and make a gun for your own personal use. But these guys had 40 gun kits...do you think the businesses that sold those kits didn't suspect what was going on? But they sold them anyway...because they could.

So that's the cause, and here's the effect: The Maryland General Assembly is debating a bill to outlaw -- you guessed it -- "ghost guns" in our state.

What's one of the earliest lessons most of us learn? That's right: That one person screws it up for everybody else.

BPD, Homeland Security make arrest in drug trade, ghost guns manufacturing
 
That's pretty dramatic for a discussion on extra-capacity mags.

The amount of over-dramatizing here has been astonishing. And it's been interesting to me that only one side has resorted to those sorts of ad hominem comments and invective.

It's also been very obvious who here has actually had real-world experience participating in the legislative process, and who hasn't. More citizens need to get involved at that level, on all sorts of issues...it really does give one perspective.

Strong opinions aside, folks have been generally civil. I credit The Rules for that, and the patience of the moderators. Thanks.
 
Just got back from church and a fellowship meal - I wasn't avoiding you.

And yet I have never, ever seen a 30-40 round pistol mag or 40, 50+ round AR/AK/SKS mag anywhere except in one gun store in Albuquerque and in the possession of many, many gangbangers arrested in cars, their homes, or other places when making arrests and serving warrants. Maybe I just shoot at the wrong ranges.

The first of the above mags I ever encountered was with an Aguirre cartel member on our border with Mexico.

Did I mention I've never seen one being used or even the possession of a law-abiding gunowner? And I've been to a couple county and state fairs...

Years ago, Baltimore's criminals -- a truly violent, sociopathic breed -- were very enamored of the Intratec TEC-9. I never knew a single serious gun enthusiast who bought or owned one of those things -- a dealer I knew laughingly called them "Jamomatics" -- but they were all the rage in the 'hood, presumably because of their appearance. They led, of course, to a gun ban bill, and were prohibited from being sold here.

Fashion is so important to some folks...remember the craze of holding pistols sideways?
 
If we "agree" to allow it? In my state, and, I suspect, many others as well, we don't have the popular support or the votes to control what happens to us...we are not in the position to "allow" anything. That's why we have to present logical, well-reasoned arguments, and persuade legislators to see our point of view...it's the only way we can prevail.

There have been many social causes throughout American history -- women's suffrage, for example -- where folks who had no power, no authority, to compel elected officials to respect their rights were able to achieve their goals nonetheless. They did it through reason, logic, and appeals to common sense and justice...and we ought to emulate them and their methods, in my opinion.

Except you ARE demanding that we 'allow' it.
 
I carry a copy of our Constitution with me much of the time, and one sits prominently in my home. I think it's an absolutely brilliant document, written by brilliant men, who created an almost-perfect blueprint for how to organize and govern a large, diverse group of people.

And yet it took less-than- brilliant men to figure out a way to ignore and work around it.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist."
― Lysander Spooner
 
Just got back from church and a fellowship meal - I wasn't avoiding you.

And yet I have never, ever seen a 30-40 round pistol mag or 40, 50+ round AR/AK/SKS mag anywhere except in one gun store in Albuquerque and in the possession of many, many gangbangers arrested in cars, their homes, or other places when making arrests and serving warrants. Maybe I just shoot at the wrong ranges.

The first of the above mags I ever encountered was with an Aguirre cartel member on our border with Mexico.

Did I mention I've never seen one being used or even the possession of a law-abiding gunowner? And I've been to a couple county and state fairs...

I own 33 round Glock mags for my Ruger PC Carbine. Am I a criminal? MANY people use them for PCC competitions too.

According to your "logic," an AR with 30 round mags is fine, but my 9mm PC Carbine is not "okay" with 33 round Glock mags.

This is what you're saying? We can't shoot our 33 round mags in PCC competition because some maniac used one to shoot people one time?
 
I got that from here "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..."

There are a variety of versions out there.

Exactly, but mine was direct from the man's mouth.

My point is that once we give up on any one gun or gun style or part or accessory, the anti gunners will never stop or be satisfied.

And the version direct from the man's mouth give the message MUCH greater emphasis.
 
This isn't an either-or proposition. No Constitutional right is absolute, as the courts have ruled repeatedly over the years. (The best example I can think of right now is that the 1st Amendment doesn't sanction yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.)

There are shades of gray in all of this. That's why it's vitally important to persuade the people who make and interpret the law that you are reasonable, rational, and logical...and not some nutjob claiming that the law doesn't apply to you.

I have always been very curious about this. I do not know how many times when talking about gun rights, I have been told that I can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. If I was in a crowded theater and there was a fire, what would I yell? What if I was in an uncrowded theater? How do we define crowded? Is it a fixed number? Maybe a certain percentage of occupancy?
Should the theater be posted with the number of people that constitute a crowd? If there was a fire, would I have to count how many people were in the theater, determine if that was a crowd or not, and then take the appropriate action? Would the size or source of the fire be a factor? I think instead of risking the chance of facing the mighty wrath of the people that tell me it would be illegal to yell fire, I would just yell "CHOCOLATE"
I think the above helps me to understand how misguided attempts to say "This gun or magazine is bad, but this gun or magazine is good." are.
I think the thing we need to remember is that there is no where in the United States that a gun law, once passed has caused the anti gunners to stop and say we have enough gun laws.
 
If we "agree" to allow it? In my state, and, I suspect, many others as well, we don't have the popular support or the votes to control what happens to us...we are not in the position to "allow" anything. That's why we have to present logical, well-reasoned arguments, and persuade legislators to see our point of view...it's the only way we can prevail.

There have been many social causes throughout American history -- women's suffrage, for example -- where folks who had no power, no authority, to compel elected officials to respect their rights were able to achieve their goals nonetheless. They did it through reason, logic, and appeals to common sense and justice...and we ought to emulate them and their methods, in my opinion.

Except banning magazines with arbitrary capacities is ILLOGICAL, and UNREASONABLE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top