Judge: Magazine Ban Upheld. Here's What You Need to Know!

[bwframe]

 

[Sigblitz]

There's already been a rush to buy mags. I don't think they're going to get a lot of turn ins.

 

[KLB]

I would hope they are appealing

 

[COOPADUP]

Frankly if I lived in Rhode Island, I would just ignore the ridiculous law.
It's an insignificant tiny state with a liberal judge.

 

[Creedmoor]

Frankly if I lived in Rhode Island, I would just ignore the ridiculous law.
It's an insignificant tiny state with a liberal judge.

Md, NJ and California have 10 rd mag laws.
Thats about 55 million people, would you abide the laws then?

 

[COOPADUP]

Md, NJ and California have 10 rd mag laws.
Thats about 55 million people, would you abide the laws then?

Hard to say. But this was about RI.
I suppose if I was ever in those states and enforcement was strict, then yes.

 

[Creedmoor]

Hard to say. But this was about RI.
I suppose if I was ever in those states and enforcement was strict, then yes.

Sorry, here I thought this was a discussion forum.

 

[COOPADUP]

Sorry, here I thought this was a discussion forum.

It sure is Creedmoor and apologies if I came across too harshly.

 

[BE Mike]

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.

 

[KLB]

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.

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.

 

[indykid]

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.

 

[Creedmoor]

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.

 

[Leadeye]

I wonder how that ban affects NFA, 10 round belts?

 

[cosermann]

Long opinions often have to be long to engage in the legal sophistry necessary to explain away whatever they want.

The truth is usually simpler. . . and shorter.

 

[BE Mike]

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.

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.

 

[manifest destiny]

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.

 

[Robert Richardson]

I wonder if those that come to get them, really want them as bad as I want to keep them. Every politician that introduces these kind of laws should need to learn to keep their eyes open for things that lurk in the dark. There should be grave penalties for trying to restrict a Constitutional right.

 

[Ballstater98]

Stack 'em deep!

 

[grillak]

 

[Quiet Observer]

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.

The law uses the term "feeding device" instead of magazine. They must be permanently modified or turned with 180 days.

http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText22/SenateText22/S2653.pdf