New York just made challenging magazine limits very much easier.
It was already going to be a job to convince a federal court that somehow New Jersey found a compelling reason to limit magazines to 15 rounds while Kalifornia found a compelling reason to limit magazines to 10 rounds.
Now New York is in the position of having to claim that they have a compelling reason to limit magazines to seven rounds. Not only that, but, if I understand the new law, New York will have to explain how they have a compelling reason to limit magazine capacity on the honor system; that is, New Yorkers will be allowed to keep 10 round magazines but they must only load 7 rounds.
Just like the cartoons that show a bad guy retreating because he sees a "gun free zone" sign, we will now have cartoons showing a bad guy faced with the moral and legal dilemma of whether to load 10 rounds or only 7 into his illegal gun.
I would not be surprised to see the Second Amendment Foundation filing a case soon challenging this ridiculous law.
This would only be a problem if one can imagine ANY Supreme Court Justice being able to justify a particular limit on magazine capacity.
The anti-gunners are here faced with a problem which is similar to those for which a mathematical proof by induction is used.
The first step is to recognize that our Founders most certainly were protecting firearms capable of firing ONE round and that they could certainly foresee that additional capability would be added in the future.
The second step is to recognize that the difference between a gun which can fire ONE round before reloading and a gun which can fire TWO rounds before reloading is only a SINGLE round.
Step three is recognizing that adding just a single round to the capacity of a gun can't possibly represent an increase in public danger sufficient to infringe the right to keep and bear such an arm.
In other words, if the Second Amendment protects having a gun which can fire TWO rounds before reloading, then no sensible argument can be made that the Second Amendment does NOT protect a firearm capable of firing THREE rounds.
The only counter-argument that I can think of would have to involve simply choosing an arbitrary number, much like New Jersey, Kalifornia, and now New York have done.
One might just as well ask how many words may be printed in a newspaper before the First Amendment no longer applies.
[[I would not be surprised to see the Second Amendment Foundation filing a case soon challenging this ridiculous law.]]
That’s a fouindation? I’ll have to look that up- I hope they do file, as thsi was such a blatant violation of he second amendment that cuomo should have impeachment proceedings started agaisnt him immediately- (can a gov be impeached?)
[[This would only be a problem if one can imagine ANY Supreme Court Justice being able to justify a particular limit on magazine capacity.]]
John Roberts ‘justified’ his treason by claiming that it ‘isn’t the supreme courts job to protect citizens agaisnt their own bad choices (EVEN THOUGH supreme court do so all the time- aparently when somethign as blatant as forcign citizens to purchase soemthign they don’t want or can’t afford under penalty of the law if they do not purchase, is not ‘serious enough a violation’ for roberts to concider protectign us from)
I woudl NOT put it past roberts to coem up with some cockamamey cock and bull story about why there should be a limit- He seems to love to legislate fro mthe bench and invent reasons for it after the fact-
[[New York just made challenging magazine limits very much easier. ]]
That’s only one aspect of the massive violation NY’ers just faced with kkkuomo’s bill he is mandating that gun owners be given mental health exams, and that they must now register their guns every 5 years for handguns and that background checks be doen hwen buying ammo-
Gettign a headache from all the frustration abotu htwe bills- will have to think more about htem after refreshing tomorrow-
I’ve been seeign a lot of violations of citizens constitutional rights by the left lately, the Health care act, george zimmerman being falsely arrested and falsely charged with charges that were not even appropriate to what went down, kkkuomo’s bill, the attempted executive order by piresident- attacks on religion- preventign religions from the their right to freely excersize hteir religion without itnerference by the government (the abortion mandates) on and on it goes- the left is gettign very brazen and infact gettign militant about shovign hteir ideology and unjust laws in our faces- and lawyers may win a case or two here, a case or two there- but I think it’;s going to coem down to the peopel either havign to protect their OWN rights, OR lose them- The supreme court sure as #%!#$$% isn’t going to be of any help to the people
I predict a second American civil war is coming and with it, the break up of the USA.
“I would not be surprised to see the Second Amendment Foundation filing a case soon challenging this ridiculous law.”
*DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner!
I am a member and support the SAF because SAF is the *real* proponent filing and winning lawsuits. Sure, the NRA makes libscum wet their panties but they usually end up riding on SAF’s coattails in the lawsuits...
The way I figure it is a scatter-gun approach: Member NRA, SAF, GOA, GOAL, JPFO. They all do something to help, and most are very cheap to join.