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.

Illinois passed our AWB in 72 hours with no public input.

Illinois will absolutely not comply with any federal orders to allow the currently prohibited firearms to be sold again in Illinois.

If they don’t have to follow Federal immigration and drug laws (cannabis) they sure as hell aren’t going to do anything until a Republican governor comes in………lol

Don't wanna follow federal laws? Then they are effectively cutting themselves off from federal dollars.

It really is that simple.

I'm in CT and have been following with little hope. Over the past 2 years we have been getting much more favorable outcomes nation wide but they almost always get overturned as they go up the ladder in the courts.

I think this one will be the deciding factor and hope that it gives all these blue state gun owners the justice we have been looking for.

However, all the guntoobers I've been following, many of them really good and often correct in their assumptions, almost all of them, say this will not finalize the standard capacity fight, but will give us a huge footing towards protections for magazines and all other items used with guns like suppressors, aiming devices, stocks, grips, etc etc for future court rullings.

When I started my gun hobby we were afflicted by the 1994 federal assualt ban, when it sunset, I was afflicted by the 2004 ct awb which was even more restrictive with exception of magazine capacity. Then again in 2013, they added magazines, then again in 2023 they add everything including aow's.

I have been yearning for hkpsg1 and sig 550 (clones as they are way too expensive for me), watching all of you post these gun on forums over the years has raised my blood pressure, but now, with gods help, and that of 5 supreme court justices, I will finally blow my load come summer 2027.

Failing to follow Supreme Court decisions could result in federal action against the individuals. Denying rights is a federal offense, and also likely a civil offense. Individuals flouting the law would be subject to federal prosecution and civil lawsuits. Put a bunch of blue state officials in jail and give every penny of their assets to citizens they denied rights. Attitudes will change fast. Failing to do something like that is what the tyrants exprct.

quote:

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

I don’t recall in my reading of the constitution where it spelled out the right to drugs or any infringements upon them. All attempts to say otherwise is a massive reach which makes the above analogy quite silly. There is nothing to gain by speculating how SCOTUS will rule or how states will react to the ruling. These cases are very strong for our side.