Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 1,284
- Reactions
- 1,276
I'm only thinking about what courts have said in the past about firearms regulation and how that might impact the success of seeking an injunction in one scenario vs another. The Supremes declared that the Constitution has given them the authority to say what the law is, so even if you think the Second Amendment means one thing, if the Supremes say otherwise then what THEY say is the law.You're right. Bruen doesn't prohibit firearm regulation. The 2A does. Bruen simply states that any proposed firearm regulation must be consistent with the 2A and backed by historical precedent... not "feelngs".
You are free to disagree that the 2A should be a right of the people, but there is no ambiguity in it's interpretation. It's doesn't say, "may sometimes be infringed". Just like the 1A doesn't say "free speech... as long as the majority of people like what you have to say."
A mag ban/capacity ban... quite surely is a ban and not just a round count restriction. It bans the legal sale, aquisition and free ownership of existing standard capacity mags... which are protected under the 2A and which has been repeatedly backed up by the well established common use rule.
You can buy into their arugment that it's not a "ban", but that's just BS. The title of those types of legislation should make that pretty obvious since they all contain the word BAN plainly in the titles.
Anything that has a chilling affect on an inalienable right is an infringment. Pure and simple.
Trying to interpret it differently than how it is written is simply a game play to get what they want regardless of what the law says. Pure and simple.
My guessing is based on my understanding of laws they've upheld or struck down, in addition to dicta in their opinions that might suggest where they intend to go in the future. Magazine capacity limits are legal in at least 12 other states so the constitutionality of that is clearly up in the air, meaning it's not any more likely than not that WA Plaintiffs challenging that law have a heightened chance of success to support granting an injunction. In that case the "harm" to the plaintiff is less acute because WA firearms owners can still use their magazines and new purchasers can still use firearms with 10rd magazines. Banning practically all centerfire semiautomatic rifles seems like going a bit too far in comparison. Obv.just one non expert opinion.