24 states urge Supreme Court to take case challenging NJ large-capacity magazine ban

[color of law]

24 states urge Supreme Court to take case challenging NJ large-capacity magazine ban

FIRST ON FOX: 24 states, led by Arizona and Louisiana, have filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take a case seeking to overturn New Jersey’s ban on high-capacity magazines -- arguing that such a ban criminalizes possession of commonly-used firearms and violates the Second Amendment

www.foxnews.com

Brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1507/180499/20210528133733399_20-1507%20Amici%20Brief%20States.pdf

Docket:

Search

 

[CJ4wd]

How many other states would this affect IF the Court overturns the NJ ban?
CA, NJ, NY, MA come to mind but I wonder how many would actually be changed.

 

[color of law]

How many other states would this affect IF the Court overturns the NJ ban?
CA, NJ, NY, MA come to mind but I wonder how many would actually be changed.

Irrelevant, if SC rules magazine capacity is constitutionally protected then no state could regulate magazine capacity and any state law regulating capacity would be null and void.

 

[JTHunter2]

Irrelevant, if SC rules magazine capacity is constitutionally protected then no state could regulate magazine capacity and any state law regulating capacity would be null and void.

BUT, what states actually have such restrictions in place at this time?
CA and NY probably lead the list but don't most of the New England states have magazine restrictions too? Didn't Colorado's governor ban large magazines several years ago, resulting in Mag-pul moving out of state?

 

[2a4all]

CoL's response would include states that already may have mag limits in place. In short, their laws would become void.

 

[Grim_Night]

Add Washington State to the list as of this month. The governor signed into law that magazines exceeding 10 rounds cannot be purchased/sold but may be owned.

 

[solus]

Add Washington State to the list as of this month. The governor signed into law that magazines exceeding 10 rounds cannot be purchased/sold but may be owned.

what i have heard from friends in WA that beginning 1 july evergreen citizens are mandated to the 10 rd mag limit and from my understanding there is significant confusion if citizens carry their SD handgun which has a previously owned larger round mag.

have to check with them to see if there is consensus on that point...

 

[Grim_Night]

Washington state's law specifically covers the sale and purchase of new magazines with 11+ round capacity, not currently owned magazines. Which immediately exposes a loophole in the fact that magazines, not being a restricted item, can be bought online and be shipped to your home without having to go through a local physical store. The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt, not on the citizen to prove innocents.

 

[solus]

Washington state's law specifically covers the sale and purchase of new magazines with 11+ round capacity, not currently owned magazines. Which immediately exposes a loophole in the fact that magazines, not being a restricted item, can be bought online and be shipped to your home without having to go through a local physical store. The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt, not on the citizen to prove innocents.

per the 23 June Olympian, quote:
...first and foremost the new ban on high-capacity magazines limits the maximum ammunition capacity to 10 rounds.

While Washingtonians can still travel out of state and return with the magazines they currently possess, the law prohibits gun owners from purchasing high-capacity magazines in other states and returning to Washington with them.

Gun owners with concealed carry permits can still keep their high-capacity magazines on them as well, which has been another major concern for some gun owners. The law does not regulate possession of the magazines.

Additionally, Washingtonians cannot sell high-capacity magazines to other people outside of the state. Selling high-capacity magazines online after July 1 is also prohibited and a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

https://www.theolympian.com/news/state/washington/article262348557.html#storylink=cpy

It is my understanding, numerous mail order firearm establishments, ceased sending mags greater than 10 into the Evergreen state early june.

of interest, Brownells announced their account with United Parcel Service was canceled by UPS!

 

[color of law]

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S, ____ S.Ct. (2022) at page 8 the Court reiterated “[T]he government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”’ In other words, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Where in history has magazine capacity ever been regulated? Never.

 

[solus]

well kinda tough to definitively regulate flintlock pistoles, er, uh, just saying...

 

[color of law]

Gatling guns have been around a long time.

Large capacity single fire mechanism.

 

[solus]

Gatling guns have been around a long time.

Large capacity single fire mechanism.

uh, 1862 gatling invented...bout 90 years after the founding fathers composed the guiding documents...

 

[color of law]

uh, 1862 gatling invented...bout 90 years after the founding fathers composed the guiding documents...

Heller quoted at length that our post-Civil War 19th-century history propositions that citizens who keep guns or pistols under judicious precautions, practice in safe places the use of them, and in due time teach their sons to do the same.

If you read Barrett's concurring opinion she raises the question as to where we start our historical review; from when Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868” or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

I think the Thomas opinion makes it clear, both. They are not referring to modern history, meaning the 20th. century and forward.

The Gatling gun was invented before the Fourteenth Amendment.