Case on Magazine Restrictions

[RicInOR]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...1-or-more-rounds-amicus-brief-in-9th-circuit/

• BY DAVID KOPEL
  May 29 at 10:01 pm

" Currently before the Ninth Circuit is an appeal in the case of Fyock v. Sunnyvale, a case which challenges a California's city's ban on magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. While the State of California outlaws the sale, import, or transfer of such magazines, the Sunnyvale ban goes further, by prohibiting possession of these magazines, with no provision for grandfathering. The District Court upheld the ban; part of the Court's analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. Last Friday, amicus briefs in support of appellant were filed, including a brief which I co-authored on the history of magazines and of magazine prohibition. "


The 9th Circuit decision will impact those of us in the NW.

Read More

 

[John H]

Are there not Fed laws that state Laws can not be retro active?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Seriously, from my cold dead hands.
Banning them is bad enough.. Outlawing them without a grandfather clause is highly illegal and unconstitutional.

You come after me for that and yes, there will be blood. Mostly theirs.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Are there not Fed laws that state Laws can not be retro active?

I'm no legal scholar, but legal scholars have schooled me on this issue on other sites.

My understanding is that Expo Facto laws retroactively make something illegal. For instance, if the law made owning the magazines before the law was enacted illegal, then the law would be void under Expo Facto.

Making something currently owned illegal, after passage of the law, happens all the time, and people are not necessarily grandfathered in. We might have a case under the "takings" clause under the 5th Amendment, but if the state gives one of the options of merely removing the magazines from the state, then they are not technically "taking".

See Frank Ettin's Post #5 in the link below.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=742516&highlight=facto

 

[John H]

Well if that's the way they to play it, I will be standing with ZA

 

[Dain Bramage]

Well if that's the way they to play it, I will be standing with ZA

Yep. That's what happens when the law gets convoluted into an agenda, while ignoring simple words like "..shall not be infringed". Law abiding people become criminals and state power continues to grow.

 

[mkwerx]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...1-or-more-rounds-amicus-brief-in-9th-circuit/

• BY DAVID KOPEL
  May 29 at 10:01 pm

" Currently before the Ninth Circuit is an appeal in the case of Fyock v. Sunnyvale, a case which challenges a California's city's ban on magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. While the State of California outlaws the sale, import, or transfer of such magazines, the Sunnyvale ban goes further, by prohibiting possession of these magazines, with no provision for grandfathering. The District Court upheld the ban; part of the Court's analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. Last Friday, amicus briefs in support of appellant were filed, including a brief which I co-authored on the history of magazines and of magazine prohibition. "


The 9th Circuit decision will impact those of us in the NW.

And by 9th Circus logic - anything more modern than hand powered printing presses shall not be covered by 1st Amendment protection, and nothing that did not exist before 1787 is not protected. I can't see the Supremes upholding this decision regardless of the liberal slant the court has.

 

[RicInOR]

If I am not mistaken, Lewis and Clark's expedition had at least one weapon which could fire 20 or so rounds before reloading. 25 years after the Constitution was ratified.


If you have a lever gun, like an 1873, does the tube count as a magazine relative to the law?

 

[Dain Bramage]

If I am not mistaken, Lewis and Clark's expedition had at least one weapon which could fire 20 or so rounds before reloading. 25 years after the Constitution was ratified.

It was a repeating air gun, and first order of business when they met a new tribe was to offer a demonstration of its capabilities. The tribes didn't know how many of these guns the L&C expedition had (they had one), or its real effectiveness, but it was a strident reminder that attacking the expedition was not going to be profitable. There is strong scholarly opinion that this was a major factor in their safe passage through the wilderness.