Md, NJ and California have 10 rd mag laws.Frankly if I lived in Rhode Island, I would just ignore the ridiculous law.
It's an insignificant tiny state with a liberal judge.
Hard to say. But this was about RI.Md, NJ and California have 10 rd mag laws.
Thats about 55 million people, would you abide the laws then?
Sorry, here I thought this was a discussion forum.Hard to say. But this was about RI.
I suppose if I was ever in those states and enforcement was strict, then yes.
It sure is Creedmoor and apologies if I came across too harshly.Sorry, here I thought this was a discussion forum.
This will have to get to the Supreme Court for clarification. I believe there have been other cases at lower levels that said they were.I'm not a legal authority, but I would think that magazines, being an essential part of guns, would have the same protection of the 2nd Amendment as the arms they are intended for. In my mind, that would also apply to ammunition.
One would think so, about 12 States have magazine capacity laws. Where im from "Md" started in 96 if I recall correctly.I'm not a legal authority, but I would think that magazines, being an essential part of guns, would have the same protection of the 2nd Amendment as the arms they are intended for. In my mind, that would also apply to ammunition.
I would venture a guess that along with the Second Amendment, the Fourth and Fifth also apply. I recon that this is the reason that so many government entities rely upon voluntary participation when laws are passed that make possessing certain items, previously lawful, contraband.So according to this judge it is ok to infringe on a constitutional right that shall not be infringed? Do existing 10 plus round mags have to be turned in and are the owners being paid the value of the mags? I believe there is another enumerated right that makes confiscation without remuneration also illegal.
The law uses the term "feeding device" instead of magazine. They must be permanently modified or turned with 180 days.I wonder how the law is written (I'm against restriction regardless). Such that one could have a
30 round mag but only load ten rounds, or must the mag be incapable of holding more than ten rounds. Also, curious about the +1 in the chamber. Unfortunately, even if 10 round mags become the accepted norm, the number will get smaller and smaller over time. If ten limit is ok, why not 3 limit? Eventually single-shot AR's would be all the rage.