Alan Gura on the 7 round magazine limit
12 Responses to “Alan Gura on the 7 round magazine limit”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 31st, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Can the 18-inch shotgun and 16-inch rifle be far behind?
January 31st, 2013 at 9:21 pm
His comments about the “appropriateness” of a magazine’s capacity is troubling. Who determines what is “appropriate” and how is determined?
TS
January 31st, 2013 at 9:56 pm
So how about the ten round limit as well?
Where’s the line, if there is one?
January 31st, 2013 at 11:07 pm
Someone needs to tell NYPD it is not appropriate to bear AR’s with 30rnd magazine clips [sic]
February 1st, 2013 at 8:02 am
I can see the logic that flows from saying, “If you see a guy walking down the street with a rifle with a thirty round magazine, it’s going to cause concern.” So, I get it. But who are the people that are going to be concerned? The ones who aren’t comfortable with guns at all. They’re going to be just as freaked out whether the gun has a 10-, 20-, or 30-round magazine. What freaks them out is the gun itself, not the magazine capacity. I can’t imagine someone seeing an AR strapped to someone’s back with a 10-round mag and saying, “Oh, that’s fine,” but freaking out if they see a 30-round mag sticking out of it.
I get the logic, but it’s the logic of crazy people. Of which there are plenty in the world. Gura is great on most things, but I think that logic is a bit broken. The people who are freaked out by guns are going to be freaked out by guns. Period. There are no restrictions you can put in place that will ever change that.
February 1st, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Ern, it’s a logic that courts can swallow without ending up in a “ban them all” situation. If we can get the possession of them constitutionally protected, we can chip away at the “time, place, and manner” restrictions. Heck, we’ve already got an example of those restrictions in game laws that forbid more than X rounds in a semi-auto hunting rifle, for example, so it’s something we can hang our hat on, and courts won’t be forced into a binary “protect/ban” decision.
February 1st, 2013 at 1:18 pm
There should be no magazine capacity limits, since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements. Sending someone to prison for having a 25 instead of a 20 is tragically silly.
Magazine capacity is self-limiting, in that the more rounds it holds, the heavier it becomes, which makes the gun more unwieldy. If you want a hundred-round belt in a box to feed your firearm that makes it several pounds heavier and much slower to maneuver, it is properly YOUR decision to make because it’s YOUR life. It is not properly the decision of some legislator or bureaucrat, who are prohibited by the Second Amendment from infringing YOUR right to decide for yourself how to exercise YOUR right to bear arms.
RKBA decisions should be made by US as individuals, because it’s our lives on the line. Such decisions should NOT be made by some politician who wants to appeal to that particular constituency that makes the biggest campaign donations.
February 1st, 2013 at 3:18 pm
If the Feds want to limit our ammo mags, let “the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) apply and limit these Secret Service guns with 50 rd mags to the same…maybe to the STANDARD CAPACITY where I have at least what my EMPLOYEES have:
http://olegvolk.net/blog/2013/01/11/are-presidents-the-new-royalty/
February 1st, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“Heck, we’ve already got an example of those restrictions in game laws that forbid more than X rounds in a semi-auto hunting rifle, for example…”
Mag limits on semi-autos for hunting? How about the blanket ban on semi-autos for hunting here in Pennsylvania? I wish we only had a mag limit.
But yeah, I can see it as logic that a court can swallow. Which says quite a bit about the quality of our courts these days.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Game law magazine restrictions for the purpose of conservation, and restrictions on magazine size when one’s life is on the line are very different things. Hunting is a privilege that is restricted to conserve game animals, while being armed is a Constitutional right and a grave necessity.
February 1st, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Magazine limits for hunting are part of “Fair Chase” which is fundamental to hunting, rather than harvesting, game animals in the wild. The animal should have a chance to live versus hunters, and magazine limits are one way that is enforced.
Similarly, even on game ranches, you don’t walk up to a caged animal and shoot it. It should have a chance to detect you coming, and to get out of your sights.
The 2nd Amendment has even less to do with hunting than gun-right supporters argue. Hunting is a sport, with rules of fair play. Self defense is not a sport, and legality, not fair play, is the operative controlling system.
February 1st, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Mag limits. How about we punish people who misuse the gun, regardless of its “capacity”? Thing is, even if you’re limited to 7 rounds, and that’s actually all you can get, if you’re on the initiative, eg attacking, you can set yourself up beforehand with some sort of rig that can carry as many of these crippled mags as you want. Changing mags doesn’t significantly effect rate of fire. On the defensive, how many mags are you willing to carry all day every day? Significant disadvantage. Mag limits just make the problem worse.