At what point does a magazine limit violate the second amendment

[Catawba]

Are you aware that the Cuomo law is different than the Brady laws?

I was discussing the federal ban.

 

[Arbo]

I don't think applying the same restrictions to civilian gun owners as you would law enforcement officers and military personnel is an altogether unreasonable stance.

That being said, if the above should be the case, then civilian gun owners should have the obligation and responsibility to train to the same level of competence and preparedness as the latter. Whether that obligation should be mandated and/or funded by law is an altogether separate issue.

I started a petition for the government to fund both the purchase of firearms for citizens that could not afford them, and fund training courses. Amazingly (or not) the petition never showed in the system when you searched for it. Hmm...

 

[Catawba]

Amendments 5, 6, 7. Jury nullification is a b**** isn't it?

Let's see what you interpret to mean you have authority under the constitution as to what is legal and what is not legal under the constitution?

Put the text up that grants you judicial powers?

 

[TurtleDude]

Not as far as AW or high capacity magazines.

you are just speculating now. and given that 17 shot magazines are both common, in wide us and are not unusual or dangerous, the bans should fail the heller test that Jerry has posted dozens of times on this forum

You probably are not aware of this but a now private organization that was once a government department called the department of civilian marksmanship distributed hundreds of thousands of these to american civilians who were not in the organized militia

they came with 15 round magazines and most had bayonet lugs meaning that they would violate the Cuomo idiocy

 

[Lutherf]

I was discussing the federal ban.

Has Obama announced what that ban is yet? I was under the impression that we'd get the dope on that tomorrow.

 

[Catawba]

you are just speculating now. and given that 17 shot magazines are both common, in wide us and are not unusual or dangerous, the bans should fail the heller test that Jerry has posted dozens of times on this forum

You probably are not aware of this but a now private organization that was once a government department called the department of civilian marksmanship distributed hundreds of thousands of these to american civilians who were not in the organized militia

they came with 15 round magazines and most had bayonet lugs meaning that they would violate the Cuomo idiocy

View attachment 67140911

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the AWB and high capacity mag ban was never found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Catawba]

Has Obama announced what that ban is yet? I was under the impression that we'd get the dope on that tomorrow.

I've heard he will make the announcement this week.

 

[TurtleDude]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the AWB and high capacity mag ban was never found to be unconstitutional.

nor was the DC gun ban or the chicago gun ban until the last few years

ouch

 

[Kal'Stang]

Let's see what you interpret to mean you have authority under the constitution as to what is legal and what is not legal under the constitution?

Put the text up that grants you judicial powers?

Its called jury nullification. Which is a right of the people as SEVERAL SCOTUS judges have affirmed several times in our 200+ year history. And it happens because of the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment. Which all give the right to a jury trial.

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.

Each of the parts that I have bolded have led to what is called Jury Nullification. I'd suggest reading up on it.

 

[TurtleDude]

so far we have 10 citizens saying any limit is a violation and two subjects of a queen who disagree

that's a good number now

 

[Utility Man]

Magazines are never mentioned in the second amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

Magazines are never mentioned in the second amendment.

televisions are not mentioned in the first amendment. Nor is the catholic church

dumb argument rejected as incredibly stupid

 

[Kal'Stang]

Magazines are never mentioned in the second amendment.

Guns are, and magazines are a part of a gun. just like the trigger is a part of a gun. The barrel is a part of the gun. The stock is a part of the gun.

 

[Thrilla]

Magazines are never mentioned in the second amendment.

neither are triggers, barrels, stocks, firing pins,sears, bolts,chambers, or sights.

 

[Catawba]

nor was the DC gun ban or the chicago gun ban until the last few years

ouch

If you choose to be intentionally misinformed, there is nothing I can do to help you.

 

[Catawba]

Its called jury nullification. Which is a right of the people as SEVERAL SCOTUS judges have affirmed several times in our 200+ year history. And it happens because of the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment. Which all give the right to a jury trial.

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.

Each of the parts that I have bolded have led to what is called Jury Nullification. I'd suggest reading up on it.

If we had been discussing criminal prosecutions, that might be relevant.

 

[Pilot]

Magazines are never mentioned in the second amendment.

Internet forums are not mentioned in the first amendment, yet we still have the freedom of speech when posting here.

 

[Kal'Stang]

If we had been discussing criminal prosecutions, that might be relevant.

We're talking about laws banning guns or parts of guns as being unconstitutional. If there are laws banning guns or parts of guns then there will be criminal prosecutions due to it. Which means Jury Nullification comes into play and our right to determine the constitutionality of those laws comes into play.

You asked a question. I answered it. Sorry that you can't simply accept it and move on without sticking your foot farther in your mouth.

 

[TurtleDude]

Guns are, and magazines are a part of a gun. just like the trigger is a part of a gun. The barrel is a part of the gun. The stock is a part of the gun.

well that is a captain obvious point but sometimes CO is needed when someone posts something so silly as the post you responded to

 

[Fisher]

I have no opinion on drawing a line just so long as it is above 5 since that seems pretty common in hunting rifles. I really think this is a red-herring. It will make zero difference to criminals, won't stop a single mass killing, and be a pain in the but for sport shooters who go through a lot of rounds. The left is just desperate to save face at this point in limiting something since they know they will get nowhere with a this House and the issue will be in a box in the basement before they would ever have a chance to retake the House.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Internet forums are not mentioned in the first amendment, yet we still have the freedom of speech when posting here.

Not quite. We have freedom of speech as far as the government is concerned...we don't have freedom of speech as far as the owner of this site is concerned. And his rules to this site will be upheld in a court of law before your right to free speech will.

 

[American]

find another line catawba-that one is stupid, irrational and is worn out. Lets see if you can actually fashion a rational argument rather than your constant slurpage of the dead and buried clinton gun ban that was proven to be a complete waste of time when it came to public safety

Safety isn't the goal of gun bans. Catawba knows that cause he's a proponent of totalitarianism like most extreme leftwingers.

 

[TurtleDude]

Safety isn't the goal of gun bans. Catawba knows that cause he's a proponent of totalitarianism like most extreme leftwingers.

without a doubt-its all about sticking it to people who oppose far left wing welfare socialism and collectivist authoritarianism

Good night all

 

[Pilot]

Not quite. We have freedom of speech as far as the government is concerned...we don't have freedom of speech as far as the owner of this site is concerned. And his rules to this site will be upheld in a court of law before your right to free speech will.

Not the best example, and proof that sleep deprived posting is a bad idea. Thanks for pointing that out. A better example would be the freedom to create a blog and post whatever you want. To some extent a web host might be able to get involved, but in both examples the government can't regulate what you post under the premise that it is not protected by the first amendment.

 

[Catawba]

We're talking about laws banning guns or parts of guns as being unconstitutional. If there are laws banning guns or parts of guns then there will be criminal prosecutions due to it. Which means Jury Nullification comes into play and our right to determine the constitutionality of those laws comes into play.

You asked a question. I answered it. Sorry that you can't simply accept it and move on without sticking your foot farther in your mouth.

My point is they never came into play during the decade of the 1994 ban, nor did a single legal challenge.