9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Aug 24, 2020

44man said:
Ok

Can someone explain to a non lawyer

Are standard mags ok now or what

If not, what needs to happen for them to be do?

And if they are legal nationally because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be infringed upon how long before frp she’s head explodes and can we watch that on PPV?

The Ninth Circuit decision only applies to those states within its jurisdiction...western states plus Hawaii and American protectorates in the Pacific such as American Samoa. Even then it's not clear when or if the decision will be effective as the CA Attorney General is said to file an appeal and have a stay of the order issued.

Basically...nothing has changed for the time being.

Occam · Aug 24, 2020

44man said:
Ok

Can someone explain to a non lawyer

Are standard mags ok now or what

If not, what needs to happen for them to be do?

And if they are legal nationally because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be infringed upon how long before frp she’s head explodes and can we watch that on PPV?

This matter is playing out in the 9th circuit. We aren't in the 9th circuit. The issue may or may not chug along to yet another review by a larger version of that court, or even on up the food chain to the Supreme Court. But that's a long way away if it happens. In the meantime, here under the influence of the 4th circuit (which includes Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia), nothing has changed. Still can't buy or transfer standard mags in this state.

If the recent ruling in the 9th holds, it may prove to be fuel for our fight. But again, the time line on that is years. In the meantime, just drive up the road to PA, or over the river to VA and buy what you need. The MD General Assembly will surely come along as usual and think about killing your ability to bring them into the state in your own possession. So get 'em while you can.

wabbit · Aug 24, 2020

Doesn't this establish case law that can be applied elsewhere in the US? Any lawyers here?

teratos · Aug 24, 2020

wabbit said:
Doesn't this establish case law that can be applied elsewhere in the US? Any lawyers here?

It can be applied to cases in other circuits, but is only binding in the 9th.

jcutonilli · Aug 24, 2020

wabbit said:
Doesn't this establish case law that can be applied elsewhere in the US? Any lawyers here?

It depends on what happens. If CA elects to do nothing then yes it will become part of case law. If the case goes en banc, then the decision of the en banc panel will supercede the decision. If it gets appealed to SCOTUS then their decision will form the basis of case law.

jcutonilli · Aug 24, 2020

pcfixer said:
okay. You have been repetative with the statement.
The Supreme Court has protected many rights not listed explicitly in the Bill of Rights, although it has not used the Ninth Amendment, which protects, “other rights not listed”, very often.

Sir, would you like to expound on a 2A that falls within the right and one that does not? Sir, Please at least one in each that does and one that does not?

Would this be a right under 2A not listed?

I believe an understanding of why CCW was historically prohibited helps clarify the types of things that would be included and excluded in the right. Heller really only announced that it was prohibited and did not really examine why.

There was a historical prohibition on CCW because there was no legitimate reason to do it.

Things that fall within the right are legitimate, while those that fall outside the right are not legitimate.

I believe anything that the police can do represent legitimate reasons and demonstrate common use and represent things that should fall within the right.

Breyer's dissent in Heller describe a number of things that are not protected by the right. NICS checks would likely fall outside the right because it mainly addresses illegitimate reasons.

While I think CCW could be prohibited if everyone still believed there was no legitimate reason, I think laws like LESOSA demonstrate that this is no longer the case and demonstrate that CCW is now part of the right.

press1280 · Aug 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
Things that fall within the right are legitimate, while those that fall outside the right are not legitimate.I believe an understanding of why CCW was historically prohibited helps clarify the types of things that would be included and excluded in the right. Heller really only announced that it was prohibited and did not really examine why.

There was a historical prohibition on CCW because there was no legitimate reason to do it.

I believe anything that the police can do represent legitimate reasons and demonstrate common use and represent things that should fall within the right.

Breyer's dissent in Heller describe a number of things that are not protected by the right. NICS checks would likely fall outside the right because it mainly addresses illegitimate reasons.

While I think CCW could be prohibited if everyone still believed there was no legitimate reason, I think laws like LESOSA demonstrate that this is no longer the case and demonstrate that CCW is now part of the right.

I don't believe you'll really get much detail as to WHY other than it was believed to be sneaky and open carry was normal and accepted, so why would you want to conceal carry?
One other aspect which may be part of it is that the expensive, non-gang banger type pistols were much more difficult to conceal. So perhaps a way to disarm poor or undesirable citizens.

bigmancrisler · Aug 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I believe an understanding of why CCW was historically prohibited helps clarify the types of things that would be included and excluded in the right. Heller really only announced that it was prohibited and did not really examine why.

There was a historical prohibition on CCW because there was no legitimate reason to do it.

Things that fall within the right are legitimate, while those that fall outside the right are not legitimate.

I believe anything that the police can do represent legitimate reasons and demonstrate common use and represent things that should fall within the right.

Breyer's dissent in Heller describe a number of things that are not protected by the right. NICS checks would likely fall outside the right because it mainly addresses illegitimate reasons.

While I think CCW could be prohibited if everyone still believed there was no legitimate reason, I think laws like LESOSA demonstrate that this is no longer the case and demonstrate that CCW is now part of the right.

The thing that I can’t wrap my head around is this:
Why are people especially on here arguing whether or not something is a right or a privilege as the person above stated, no one really brings up the 9th amendment that and I quote “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” As a free man I want as many rights as I can. I do not want anyone telling me something is a privilege. In addition, in my interpretation any law that inhibits the use, capacity, carry, etc of a firearm is unconstitutional because of this: the second amendment guarantees us the right to maintain and bear arms, then the 9th amendment covers every other aspect of firearms.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allen65 · Aug 26, 2020

bigmancrisler said:
The thing that I can’t wrap my head around is this:
Why are people especially on here arguing whether or not something is a right or a privilege as the person above stated, no one really brings up the 9th amendment that and I quote “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” As a free man I want as many rights as I can. I do not want anyone telling me something is a privilege. In addition, in my interpretation any law that inhibits the use, capacity, carry, etc of a firearm is unconstitutional because of this: the second amendment guarantees us the right to maintain and bear arms, then the 9th amendment covers every other aspect of firearms.

Most of us have internalized the idea embodied in the 9th Amendment. But it's more of a philosophical concept than a specific enumerated set of defendable rights, not a particularly useful amendment for court actions against bad legislation, so it's not debated much on MDS.

jcutonilli · Aug 26, 2020

press1280 said:
I don't believe you'll really get much detail as to WHY other than it was believed to be sneaky and open carry was normal and accepted, so why would you want to conceal carry?
One other aspect which may be part of it is that the expensive, non-gang banger type pistols were much more difficult to conceal. So perhaps a way to disarm poor or undesirable citizens.

I believe it is pretty clear and am not sure why you need a lot of details to understand why.

If we really don't know why CCW was prohibited, why should it be allowed today?

babalou · Aug 26, 2020

sneaky

press1280 said:
I don't believe you'll really get much detail as to WHY other than it was believed to be sneaky and open carry was normal and accepted, so why would you want to conceal carry?
One other aspect which may be part of it is that the expensive, non-gang banger type pistols were much more difficult to conceal. So perhaps a way to disarm poor or undesirable citizens.

I believe I read somewhere that you are correct about that...was not proper or something like Marquess of Queensberry rules for carrying arms lol

pcfixer · Aug 26, 2020

Allen65 said:
Most of us have internalized the idea embodied in the 9th Amendment. But it's more of a philosophical concept than a specific enumerated set of defendable rights, not a particularly useful amendment for court actions against bad legislation, so it's not debated much on MDS.

yep. I agree too.

Pursuant to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Wrenn v. District of Columbia and Grace v. District of Columbia, applicants for a license to carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia no longer need to provide a good reason for carrying a handgun.

Seems to me, DC court case can be used to pursue Maryland CCW laws that would eliminate the "good & substantial cause" requirements imposed by Maryland law.

rbird7282 · Aug 26, 2020

randomuser said:
Lawyers and judges like court games. It keeps them paid and in power. Why would they change that?

The second they use their higher education to read something and take it at face value is the second they loose the ability to make money off of us and continue the infringements.

Someday they are going to make us like canada and austrailia.

You don’t need higher education to read and understand The Constitution although the Left would have you believe differently

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 · Aug 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
The 2A addresses issues with respect to infringements of the right. The state is free to allow things that fall outside the right. It can allow limited CCW even if CCW is not part of the right.

The court's jurisdiction is limited to the right. All it can do is strike down laws that infringe on the right. If CCW is outside the right, it has no power to strike down that law. If CCW is outside the right the only option for the court would be to strike down the laws banning OC, because that is the only laws infringing on the right. Peruta never asked for the OC to be overturned.

If Peruta wanted the CCW provisions to be overturned you need to make an argument why CCW is now part of the right. Given my understanding as to why CCW was historically prohibited, I don't think it would be difficult to make that case, but you do need to make the case given the historical precedents.

EVERY gun law infringes on the right. This isn’t rocket science. Courts and government have been restricting this right for over 200 years

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Occam · Aug 26, 2020

pcfixer said:
Seems to me, DC court case can be used to pursue Maryland CCW laws that would eliminate the "good & substantial cause" requirements imposed by Maryland law.

Not really. That case was about DC itself, directly and only. DC lost, now they're Shall Issue. Obviously DC considered appealing that loss, but people like our beloved Frosh begged them NOT to appeal it, because if they lost - which they likely would on appeal for the same reason DC lost previously - then that higher court's ruling would impact MD's May Issue stance. So DC got talked into taking the loss as-is, and here in MD we're still without a win. So far. Send money to MSI before you buy a single new pizza or six-pack!

jcutonilli · Aug 26, 2020

bigmancrisler said:
The thing that I can’t wrap my head around is this:
Why are people especially on here arguing whether or not something is a right or a privilege as the person above stated, no one really brings up the 9th amendment that and I quote “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” As a free man I want as many rights as I can. I do not want anyone telling me something is a privilege. In addition, in my interpretation any law that inhibits the use, capacity, carry, etc of a firearm is unconstitutional because of this: the second amendment guarantees us the right to maintain and bear arms, then the 9th amendment covers every other aspect of firearms.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are not arguing whether something is a right, we are trying to understand whether something is a part of the right to keep and bear arms or not.

Convicts are not allowed to keep arms in jail, but does that infringe on their right to keep arms? Does murder infringe on the right to bear arms?

Both of these examples certainly impact the ability to keep and bear arms, but do they actually infringe upon the right? I certainly do not believe criminal behavior is protected by the right. This indicates that the right is not absolute and the question then becomes where is the line between what is included in the right and what is excluded. That is what we are arguing over, how to figure out where the line is between what is included in the right and what is excluded.

jcutonilli · Aug 26, 2020

pcfixer said:
Seems to me, DC court case can be used to pursue Maryland CCW laws that would eliminate the "good & substantial cause" requirements imposed by Maryland law.

The case was Malposso v Pallozzi. It was one of the 10 cases that were denied cert back in June of this year.

jcutonilli · Aug 26, 2020

rbird7282 said:
EVERY gun law infringes on the right. This isn’t rocket science. Courts and government have been restricting this right for over 200 years

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every gun law infringes on the ability to keep and bear arms. The right is not the same thing as the ability.

press1280 · Aug 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I believe it is pretty clear and am not sure why you need a lot of details to understand why.

If we really don't know why CCW was prohibited, why should it be allowed today?

The reasoning was just what I alluded to in the quoted post. It was something just believed at the time; there were no statistics saying more murders occurred from concealed than open carry, exc. society isn’t in the same place as it was back then.

rbird7282 · Aug 26, 2020

jcutonilli said:
I understand what you are saying, but the term dangerous can be interpreted to include possible injuries. I would not argue that it is not dangerous.

I would certainly agree that it is a tool. What I would add is that it is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil. You sort of say it but not explicitly.

The problem is not the gun itself, but how it is used. It certainly seems that the government can impose certain restrictions that address these negative aspects, without impacting the positive uses.

I think we do a poor job of presenting the positive uses. Simply saying it is my right seems like a poor reason. Saying that we play a vital role in public safety seems like a much better reason.

Under that reasoning, ANYTHING can be dangerous. A piece of wood, metal, a pencil, a boot, etc.
There is almost nothing I can think of that is dangerous without human interaction, save perhaps radioactive material.
Why does it “certainly seem” that government can impose those restrictions? The Constitution does not afford them that power, no matter how many people twist it and say that it does.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

2A Preacher

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics