Mag limits infringe on 2nd amendment right to be able to defend yourself

[davidmcbeth]

All these mag bans are premised that a lowering of rounds allowed would limit the amount of carnage one could do.

But would it not also correspond to a lowering of an ability to defend yourself as well?

And this is an infringement, yes?

 

[Aknazer]

As it is a "safety" issue and done "for the children" it no longer matters. After all, so long as "safety" and "for the children" are the reason, anything is oke!

 

[ATM]

All these mag bans are premised that a lowering of rounds allowed would limit the amount of carnage one could do.

Well, for those who would abide by such laws and are for some reason incapable of loading a fresh mag, I suppose that would be the case.

But would it not also correspond to a lowering of an ability to defend yourself as well?

Obviously, otherwise LEO wouldn't need to be excepted. Assuming, of course, that future laws could still be enforced without the need for them to maintain maximized potential carnage.

And this is an infringement, yes?

Clearly.

 

[beebobby]

I don't think it would interfere with my ability to defend myself. It just means I would have to reload more often.

 

[OC4me]

If a criminal is shooting back at you, then hell yes a limited magazine capacity diminishes your chance of successful self-defense.

If you are a nut-job shooting 6-year olds, with nobody around to shoot back, then swapping out mags is hardly an inconvenience.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

The magazine in my EDC holds twelve rounds. If a magazine restriction is forced upon us how would anyone know how many rounds were in it? Would LEOs stop everyone carrying a weapon to "check the load"? Sounds like california. Sounds like a great deal of unnecesary handling of firearms and a sure recipie for a negligent discharge. (sarcasm on)..."If we can save just one LEO from the shame of a negligent discharge this law should not go 'forward' " (sarcasm off).

I do not relish the idea of being stopped and frisked every time a bully with a badge sees me. I do not live in new york or california, I do not want to be treated as a second class citizen for exercising my Second Amendment Rights.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I don't think it would interfere with my ability to defend myself. It just means I would have to reload more often.

Let's break down this apologist sentence for fun.

First it is your opinion that it wouldn't interfere with your ability to defend yourself so it must not interfere with anyone else's, because you don't find it a hassle.

But then you state a hassle of having to reload more often? Like most progressive positivistic laws this treats people as machines that just have to put a little extra work in, and it's really no big deal.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I do not relish the idea of being stopped and frisked every time a bully with a badge sees me. I do not live in new york or california, I do not want to be treated as a second class citizen for exercising my Second Amendment Rights.

Well, what if they want to come to your house and ask to enter to see your guns? And you are not home but someone else answers the door? And the cops tell the person answering the door that they must allow them in?

Hence my previous suggestion to file a notice of trespass to the state and local governments to state that no government employees or contracted employees are allowed on your land. Then one could argue that such a contact would be in violation of your notice as once properly served to the governments then this would close off your land, including curtilage areas, to the unwanted and it becomes a question if they have probable cause or a warrant to enter the property to begin with ...

The round limits are clearly an infringement on your gun rights IMO and are unconstitutional. And the argument for the need for the limits is the same argument as to why they infringe.

The supporters of such bills have a catch 22 ... the only resolution for them is to just ignore the 2nd amendment.

 

[beebobby]

"Like most progressive positivistic laws this treats people as machines that just have to put a little extra work in, and it's really no big deal."

What? No. I'm treating a machine like a machine. People don't need reloading, firearms do.

 

[Freedom1Man]

All these mag bans are premised that a lowering of rounds allowed would limit the amount of carnage one could do.

But would it not also correspond to a lowering of an ability to defend yourself as well?

And this is an infringement, yes?

The effective ban on machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, etc is an infringement.

It's too late to complain about infringements piece meal. If you're going to complain about an infringement then complain about them ALL!

The debate should not be about magazine size it should be about the storage and launch controls for privately owned nukes.

 

[davidmcbeth]

The effective ban on machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, etc is an infringement.

It's too late to complain about infringements piece meal. If you're going to complain about an infringement then complain about them ALL!

The debate should not be about magazine size it should be about the storage and launch controls for privately owned nukes.

+1

The 2nd amendment says "ARMS" not "SMALL ARMS" (I think we can own nukes too, until the gov't gets rid of theirs)

But when presenting to a legislative committee, your time is limited .... so I try to focus

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

It has zero effect on my ability to defend my life, and/or limb.

 

[markand]

I would emphatically agree that magazine limits infringe on second amendment rights. But we'll have to find several courts to agree/disagree, then SCOTUS will have to agree. That will kill a couple of years, unfortunately. And of course, there's the chance that the courts won't agree and the mag limits will be permanent.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"Like most progressive positivistic laws this treats people as machines that just have to put a little extra work in, and it's really no big deal."

What? No. I'm treating a machine like a machine. People don't need reloading, firearms do.

You missed the point not sure if it's on purpose or not.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would emphatically agree that magazine limits infringe on second amendment rights. But we'll have to find several courts to agree/disagree, then SCOTUS will have to agree. .

The constitution itself isn't enough? I don't think that I need the decision of 9 people to say that our constitution allows us to defend ourselves .... its nice when they do, but I don't need their approval.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The constitution itself isn't enough? I don't think that I need the decision of 9 people to say that our constitution allows us to defend ourselves .... its nice when they do, but I don't need their approval.

Affirmation that magazine limits is Constitutional speaks nothing to whether or not you can defend yourself.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Affirmation that magazine limits is Constitutional speaks nothing to whether or not you can defend yourself.

I think that the opinion may that might be issued (if and if they want to examine the subject-they don't have to).

The question of if a larger magazine capacity does allow for one to defend him/herself has already been examined by the US Army/DoD/GAO ... surprise! An increase in capacity (even with same # of rounds available) increases the ability to survive.

These idiots in my state want to limit me to 1 round ... these folks who support this gotta be on some type of prescription drugs IMO. Hey, find your own doctor! lol

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I think that the opinion may that might be issued (if and if they want to examine the subject-they don't have to).

The question of if a larger magazine capacity does allow for one to defend him/herself has already been examined by the US Army/DoD/GAO ... surprise! An increase in capacity (even with same # of rounds available) increases the ability to survive.

These idiots in my state want to limit me to 1 round ... these folks who support this gotta be on some type of prescription drugs IMO. Hey, find your own doctor! lol

I only have anecdotal evidence to support a 1 round limit--it only took me one round to stop a perp.

Magazine limits will have no positive effect on murder perpetrated with a firearm. But I'm not going to act as if having a magazine limit of ten rounds is going to impact my ability to defend myself.--1 round limit will, though.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I only have anecdotal evidence to support a 1 round limit--it only took me one round to stop a perp.

Magazine limits will have no positive effect on murder perpetrated with a firearm. But I'm not going to act as if having a magazine limit of ten rounds is going to impact my ability to defend myself.--1 round limit will, though.

The second amendment has nothing to do with stopping a "perp".

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The second amendment has nothing to do with stopping a "perp".

I agree. I knew we would agree on something, eventually. It's all about the numbers.

For years now, I have been reading posts where individuals assert that the Second Amendment has something to do with self-defense against an attacker. The Second Amendment only refers to self-defense against the State. Basically, the Second Amendment is not affirmation to personal nor property defense.