Skip to comments.Need help finding old court ruling
Posted on 01/22/2013 8:54:36 AM PST by jstaff
I seem to remember an older federal court ruling that addressed the number of rounds a weapon's detachable magazine could hold. IIRC it said something to the effect that a 12-round magazine was not materially different from an 8 or 10 round magazine, and therefore the capacity of a detachable magazine could not be regulated. Does anyone else recall this, or am I finally losing it? Any help will be appreciated, my hair is gray enough.
Never heard that one.
The same argument would apply to 18” vs 16” vs 15” barrels.
Can you tell I pretty much know zip about clips etc??
We hold the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines (>10) and some of the registration requirements. ...
Heller suggests "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned because they are "dangerous and unusual," see 554 U.S. at 627. The Court had previously described the "AR-15" as "the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle." Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603 (1994). Although semi- automatic firearms, unlike automatic M-16s, fire "only one shot with each pull of the trigger," id. at 602 n.1, semi-automatics still fire almost as rapidly as automatics.
If you are looking to find the federal courts consistent when it comes to the RKBA, the only consistency you will find is that they are intellectually dishonest, and they do not abide by precedent that does not suit their predetermined agenda.
There is plenty to "not like" in the DC Circuit opinion. I haven't heard of a petition to SCOTUS hearing the case, but assume one was filed, and the petition was denied. IOW, what the DC ciruit said in 2011 is the law.
Not that I have any resepect for the law, but it is what it is.
A clip or magazine is only a storage device, and should not be regulated at all, in my opinion. At least not by the federal government.
I can “feed” cartridges into my firearm by hand — so am I only allowed to hold 7 rounds in my hand at one time?
Right!!! Those pesky unintended consequences!!!
That would have been difficult as he was dead.
Understood. So the NFA stands.
Or, how different if the federal courts followed the precedent set by Miller, that military and common defense weapons were covered by the 2nd amendment.
Or, how different if the federal courts had followed the Presser precedent, and found that states could NOT infringe on the RKBA.
But, the federal courts are corrupt as can be, on RKBA jurisprudence.
Thanks, I appreciate your insight.
152 F.3d 522 PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Nos. 96-3468, 96-3495. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued June 3, 1997. Decided July 15, 1998.