I just searched for Grant v Connecticut; it does address magazine capacity. So if we win this, that crap will go away also.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
it does address magazine capacity.

Thanks. Good to know.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
I just searched for Grant v Connecticut; it does address magazine capacity. So if we win this, that crap will go away also.

William Kirk of Washington Gun law says otherwise in that the Connecticut AWB case is actually Grant vs Higgins. It is confusing to say the least. That said IMHO that does not mean that SCOTUS can not rule on magazines in these cases.

I have edited my original post to reflect Grant V. Higgins since seeing this video and confirming via SCOTUSblog.

I realize this is more snout AR’s but do you guys think it will also have an affect on pistols as well? I wanted to buy a Canik last year and they didn’t have a 10 round mag so my FFL wouldn’t even order it for me.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
I realize this is more snout AR’s but do you guys think it will also have an affect on pistols as well? I wanted to buy a Canik last year and they didn’t have a 10 round mag so my FFL wouldn’t even order it for me.

We won't know for sure until the case results are announced which probably won't be until mid 2027 but it could if the standard capacity magazine ban is part of the ruling.

Maybe you could find a seller that would pull the magazines from the case before sending pistol to the FFL but even then the FFL might not want to and I can't blame them.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
they didn’t have a 10 round mag so my FFL wouldn’t even order it for me.

You touch on a point that I haven’t seen raised in challenges.

If I were an attorney arguing against magazine capacity restrictions, I would point out that they are about more than simply how many rounds are available before reloading. If they make it impossible to acquire and own certain firearms because none of their available magazines meet some statutory limit, then that is a de facto ban of those guns. I am aware of any number of guns that Colorado residents would not be able to use for the same reason.

Even based on my limited knowledge of legal precedent, the principle involved seems the same as things like literacy tests and poll taxes that were used by Democrats to keep Blacks from being able to vote in the South. They often couldn’t afford the fees to vote, and for some ( ) reason, literacy tests that were graded on subjective bases couldn’t be passed even by Blacks who had good formal educations. “Yeah, you can vote, but only if you satisfy these other requirements (which we know you won’t be able to).” “Yes, you can own any guns you want, but you won’t be able to use them as designed (because of our other restrictions).”

William Kirk said a proper application of the common use test will encapsulate magazines into the ruling as well.

I’ll let someone else interpret that. I only think I understand what he means.

Drugs are in common use, but that doesn’t mean the state cannot regulate or even ban them.

Again, I can offer opinions only about the things I understand (or believe I do), but it seems to me that the arguments should be about the fundamental issues, and because we are evidently limited to the protections of the Second Amendment (unfortunately), the arguments should grow out of its obvious intent.

The SA’s intent isn’t just that we can have unloaded firearms of the 18th century in our home or even to carry them around, it’s to allow us to employ arms of the here and now as we wish as well. If we are going to be able to fire them as they are intended, then we must be able to load them as they’re designed with ammunition they are intended to use. A restriction on the ways we have of loading a gun is no more valid than a restriction that would say, “Well, the Second Amendment doesn’t mention ammunition, so you can’t have any of that stuff.”

The right to possess and use things like magazines flows naturally from the right to keep and bear arms (and other rights that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, but exist nevertheless). The arguments presented in support of that right should make that clear.

(But I will be happy to have our rights restored on any basis the Court deems appropriate even if I disagree. And if someone says, dripping with sarcasm, “It’s too bad the Court doesn’t have you to advise it,” I’ll reply, “Yes, it is.” )

The workaround that states did for Bruen (prohibited places etc.) is disgusting. I'm hoping 2027 will be the year we see states bend the knee. It's always interesting when a government (federal) tells another government (state) what to do. Here is Colorado, the permit to purchase through the Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) receives millions in federal funding. The co-mingling of permit revenue and federal funds will be inevitable. I hope the states lose funding big time for not complying with SCOTUS rulings that might apply nationally.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
William Kirk said a proper application of the common use test will encapsulate magazines into the ruling as well.

I’ll let someone else interpret that. I only think I understand what he means.

EXCELLENT!

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:

So, if outright bans are prohibited, will there be any relief from the other infringements?

Yes the progressive left will never give up. They will change to "common sense restrictions"....[/QUOTE]


THIS^ They won't give up. They will do anything they can to try to get rid of guns. They'll change the wording, the verbiage, anything they can to try and disarm us.

WHEN we win this one, yes, it's going to be a BIG WIN, but we still can't let our guard down.