At what point does a magazine limit violate the second amendment

Viktyr Gehrig said:

A magazine limit violates the Constitution when the limit is smaller than the magazine that is standard issue for the infantry.

Click to expand...

.......according to your interpretation.

Catawba said:

.......according to your interpretation.

Click to expand...

well I noticed you failed to vote in the poll and you have run away from answering what sort of weapons are protected by the second amendment. let me know if you want to answer

Catawba said:

.......according to your interpretation.

Click to expand...

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller.

TurtleDude said:

well I noticed you failed to vote in the poll and you have run away from answering what sort of weapons are protected by the second amendment. let me know if you want to answer

Click to expand...

As with the regulation of weapons in the past, it is up to we the people through the rule of law to determine what is a 2nd Amendment restriction, and what is not.

Its why we don't see a lot of the general public with tanks, surface to air missiles, machine guns, and sawed off shotguns (shorter than a certain limit).

Catawba said:

As with the regulation of weapons in the past, it is up to we the people through the rule of law to determine what is a 2nd Amendment restriction, and what is not.

Its why we don't see a lot of the general public with tanks, surface to air missiles, machine guns, and sawed off shotguns (shorter than a certain limit).

Click to expand...

YOur understanding of the constitution is as pathetic as your understanding of firearms

no, the public doesn't determine what the constitution means

Viktyr Gehrig said:

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller.

Click to expand...

Not hard to see why no one based a legal challenge on this case during the decade of the 1994 federal ban:

"Decision

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catawba said:

Not hard to see why no one based a legal challenge on this case during the decade of the 1994 federal ban:

"Decision

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

what can be possibly more useful to a well regulated militia and those who might join one than the standard issue US military rifle

TurtleDude said:

YOur understanding of the constitution is as pathetic as your understanding of firearms

no, the public doesn't determine what the constitution means

Click to expand...

Please post the pics of your tanks, surface to air missiles, machine guns, and sawed off shotguns!

Catawba said:

Please post the pics of your tanks, surface to air missiles, machine guns, and sawed off shotguns!

Click to expand...

I don't consider tanks and SAMS to be arms

and I don't have a use for a sawed off shotgun

I will buy a machine gun when the prices become more reasonable

Catawba said:

As with the regulation of weapons in the past, it is up to we the people through the rule of law to determine what is a 2nd Amendment restriction, and what is not.

Click to expand...

In other words, we can feel free to ignore it by simply redefining it to suit our agenda.

Catawba said:

Not hard to see why no one based a legal challenge on this case during the decade of the 1994 federal ban:

"Decision

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Which thus set the precedent that any weapon that does have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia-- which is to say any standard-issue infantry weapon-- is protected by the Second Amendment.

TurtleDude said:

I don't consider tanks and SAMS to be arms

and I don't have a use for a sawed off shotgun

I will buy a machine gun when the prices become more reasonable

Click to expand...

.................

Viktyr Gehrig said:

Which thus set the precedent that any weapon that does have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia-- which is to say any standard-issue infantry weapon-- is protected by the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Not a single person cited the Miller case in a legal challenge to the 1994 federal ban. It simply was not a factor.

Catawba said:

As with the regulation of weapons in the past, it is up to we the people through the rule of law to determine what is a 2nd Amendment restriction, and what is not.

Its why we don't see a lot of the general public with tanks, surface to air missiles, machine guns, and sawed off shotguns (shorter than a certain limit).

Click to expand...

The simple fact that you neglected 18" barrel length or 26" total length shows that you really aren't all that well informed on firearms. Anyone with an elementary understanding of restrictions would know that. Great, you don't like firearms, I get it. Don't use one. Don't own one. That doesn't mean you can just **** all over someone else because you don't like one. Same thing as abortion, really, Catawba.

zgoldsmith23 said:

The simple fact that you neglected 18" barrel length or 26" total length shows that you really aren't all that well informed on firearms. Anyone with an elementary understanding of restrictions would know that. Great, you don't like firearms, I get it. Don't use one. Don't own one. That doesn't mean you can just **** all over someone else because you don't like one. Same thing as abortion, really, Catawba.

Click to expand...

you make an excellent point-many anti abortionists are the same as anti gunners

both pretend saving innocent life is their goal and in some cases that is true

but for the leaders its mainly about screwing over people whose general political agendas they despise

TurtleDude said:

you make an excellent point-many anti abortionists are the same as anti gunners

both pretend saving innocent life is their goal and in some cases that is true

but for the leaders its mainly about screwing over people whose general political agendas they despise

Click to expand...

Limiting choices is not the solution.

zgoldsmith23 said:

The simple fact that you neglected 18" barrel length or 26" total length shows that you really aren't all that well informed on firearms. Anyone with an elementary understanding of restrictions would know that. Great, you don't like firearms, I get it. Don't use one. Don't own one. That doesn't mean you can just **** all over someone else because you don't like one. Same thing as abortion, really, Catawba.

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

Not a single person cited the Miller case in a legal challenge to the 1994 federal ban. It simply was not a factor.

Click to expand...

....................

Viktyr Gehrig said:

A magazine limit violates the Constitution when the limit is smaller than the magazine that is standard issue for the infantry.

Click to expand...

US vs. Miller says no such thing.

US vs. Miller dealt with the NFA, and the NFA doesn't once touch on magazine capacity.

TurtleDude said:

you make an excellent point-many anti abortionists are the same as anti gunners

both pretend saving innocent life is their goal and in some cases that is true

but for the leaders its mainly about screwing over people whose general political agendas they despise

Click to expand...

Not a valid analogy.

Abortion is a direct violation of human rights. It is the unjust killing of an innocent human being. Those of us who oppose abortion do so because we oppose the needless and unjust killing of innocent human beings.

Buying, selling, trading, possessing, or carrying any kind of firearm or other weapon does not violate anyone's rights. Nobody's rights are violated until someone actually uses a weapon to unjustly harm someone else, at which point, an act is being committed that would equally be a crime even if that weapon were not involved.

The anti-abortion movement really is about saving innocent lives. Thousands of innocent children are needlessly killed in this country every day; we wish to put an end to this killing; and objectively, if we got our way, this killing would, in fact, end, or at least be greatly reduced.

The anti-gun movement claims to be about saving lives, but objectively, there is no reason to suppose that if they got their way, that the result would be to save lives. Evidence seems to most strongly suggest that if the anti--gunners got their way, the net result would be more crime and more lives needlessly lost.

Spring99 said:

US vs. Miller says no such thing.

US vs. Miller dealt with the NFA, and the NFA doesn't once touch on magazine capacity.

Click to expand...

United States v. Miller established the Constitutional standard for infringement of the Second Amendment as whether or not the prohibited item serves a legitimate purpose in the militia.

Viktyr Gehrig said:

United States v. Miller established the Constitutional standard for infringement of the Second Amendment as whether or not the prohibited item serves a legitimate purpose in the militia.

Click to expand...

USA vs. Miller was about guns that are used by the military, not ammo clips.

Spring99 said:

US vs. Miller says no such thing.

US vs. Miller dealt with the NFA, and the NFA doesn't once touch on magazine capacity.

Click to expand...

I would argue when the 9 unelected judges can tinker with the meaning of infringed we all loose

Spring99 said:

US vs. Miller says no such thing.

US vs. Miller dealt with the NFA, and the NFA doesn't once touch on magazine capacity.

Click to expand...

you are confused. Miller dealt with congress trying to regulate a certain weapon. The only why this case was so badly decided was that Miller had no advocated before the Supremes and died before the case was remanded to the trial court.

Spring99 said:

USA vs. Miller was about guns that are used by the military, not ammo clips.

Click to expand...

ammo clips-that is irrelevant. magazines are part and parcel of firearms used by the military and the police

I was talking with some gun dealers in Texas over the phone. They all commented on the extreme increases in prices and the increasing outright unavailability of numerous types of firearms - and moreso of ammunition.

In their opinions, "gun control" beyond the topic of magazine sizes will be in terms of specifics of gun designs - a manner of regulations now only true gun enthusiasts of certain type firearms are even aware of - ie "the point system." One speculated that the government also might be backdoor pressuring ammunition makers to eliminate certain types of rounds and/or to escalate prices and reduce supplies - using the threat of lose of government contracts plus regulatory harassment.

Under the "buy low - sell high" it would seem I should be selling now. But I don't think prices are going to go down. Rather, I am going to have more "pre-ban" firearms, which escalate in value.

What actually has somewhat dropped in price are traditional hunting rifles - such as Weatherbys - which are bolt action. Their prices have somewhat fallen and I've just bought a few. Mostly, where I think "future" investment values lie is in speciality military ammunition in popular calibers - particular NATO .308. I expect NATO .308 tungston, moly, armor piercing and armor piercing-incendiaries to become rare and costly, if not outright banned (forever). Possibly the same for 30-06 (although basically the identical bullet - not cartridge - can be used for both.)

Accordingly, I'm "investing" rather heavily in such specialized ammunition. Since I have hordes of it in 30-06 cartridged, I'm putting it all into .308/NATO. There's not much of that left on the market, it's all "old stock" meaning the manufacturers either won't or can't offer new stock to civilians anymore, and I'm going rather high to gather up what is still out there.

People tend to totally fixate on the firearm - and forget about the cartridge/bullets available for it. There are .308/NATO speciality rounds that will cut through 1 inch steel armor plate. And there is .308 hunting rounds that can't punch thru 1/4th ordinary soft steel. The true speciality military ammunition is vanishing quickly. At the top end? $15 to $20 a cartridge isn't a rare price now - and climbing fast. So while other people are rounding up military-style rifles they fear will be banned, I'm rounding up speciality ammo that is no longer being made available as new product by anyone. Stored well, cartridges last almost forever - and can alway be repacked if not because bullets do last forever. 1000 years from now, an armor piercing .308 bullet will do exactly what it does now.

I also believe any belt feed firearm that works is a great investment as new versions of those available to civilians ceased years ago. It is a rare day that you will find even a dozen Browning 50 cals for sale at any price, or even a dozen still good 1919 Brownings. Curiously, they are becoming so rare it seems people have forgotten about them. But they are unforgettable in the long run. Some day, I think a belt fed Browning will be like an original gatlin gun - and those are 6 and 7 figure guns now if originals. I think that is the future of belt fed old Brownings.

Investing is never about rushing to buy what people are rushing to buy now. It is to figure out what will be desired by in short supply in the future.