Ammo For Sale

« « So, they’re like senators? | Home | Peruta stuff » »

Constitutionality of magazine limits

Sebastian on Volokh’s rather unhelpful assertion that magazine limits pass constitutional muster.

I would imagine that regular capacity magazines would be considered “in common use”. Even when there was a ban on production of new ones, you still had millions and millions of GI mags out there.

Anyone involved in a defensive shooting says “Man, I wish I had fewer rounds”

9 Responses to “Constitutionality of magazine limits”

  1. Paul Kisling Says:

    I think the pivotal point will be, does the government have the right to tell you, what the maximum your life is worth in bullets.

    Not necessarily the outright ban of magazines based on capacity.

  2. jay Says:

    i think the best take away from this is, mere constitutionality is a poor way of determining what is or is not moral.

  3. Paul Says:

    If one has the right to own arms, arms that are similar to those used by the military, then one has the right to FUNCTIONALLY similar arms of that nature.

    And to be functionally similar it needs the same capacity as the ones in the military.

    Simple as that.

  4. Brad Says:

    If the anti-gunners really believed their own B.S. they would not exempt police from magazine limits. Or give people like David Gregory a pass for violating the very laws they impose on the rest of us!

  5. anon Says:

    Didn’t take Eugene long to start sucking up to his new masters at the Washington Post, did it? He also ignores ‘Miller’ which in a round-a-bout way basically held that anything useful to the militia is good to go – in that militia utility was the test on legality.
    It’s worth remembering that Miller hinged on ‘no evidence being presented’ that a SBS was useful to the militia, the implication being that if Millers lawyers had actually shown up, and shown how it was (eg clearing trenches/buildings), they would have won.

  6. The Jack Says:

    Anon: Volk was saying this line before he went over to the Washington Post.

    Now I don’t agree with his argument, and maybe that was why the WashPo hired him.

    But it’s not like he changed his tune when he was hired.

  7. Prepped for the Argument Says:

    There are a lot of very pro-libery, pro-gun people who have argued a mag-limit is constitutional for sometime.
    We must face up to the fact that this argument may carry the day at SCOTUS and prepare for the consequentialist debate.
    Here’s a good start:
    – Misses happen when bullets fly both ways and targets move
    – Body armor and drugs make difficult headshots a necessity
    – Multiple assailants require lots of ammo
    – Higher-capacity mags are a disarm-liability, making them less-suitable for offense
    – Higher-capacity mags tend to jam more, making them more-suitable for defense-behind-cover
    – Suppressive fire is a must-have option in certain situations
    – There are too many out there for an effective ban
    – Magazines arenít that hard to make, especially with 3D printing on the rise
    – Reloads can be VERY quick with some training

  8. Geodkyt Says:

    Drop the suppressive fire argument. There are DAMNED few civilian shooting situations where suppressive fire is appropriate, legal, or even smart.

  9. Lyle Says:

    “Common use” is not in the second amendment. That’s a fabricated term. “Shall not be infringed” is in there, and any discussion of magazine limits is worse than an infringement.

    The “fringe” of arms possession would be something like cleaning supplies or gunsmithing screwdriver sets, and those are therefore off-limits too.