Eugene Volokh on the constitutionality of RKBA restrictions post Heller

This is a discussion on Eugene Volokh on the constitutionality of RKBA restrictions post Heller within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SamRudolph Did we read the same article? Mr. Volokh specifically states that bans on high-capacity magazines are likely to have no effect. ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Eugene Volokh on the constitutionality of RKBA restrictions post Heller

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by SamRudolph View Post
    Did we read the same article?

    Mr. Volokh specifically states that bans on high-capacity magazines are likely to have no effect. He is giving his opinion on the validity of the legal argument to ban them, not on the wisdom of doing so.


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^YEAH^^^^^^^^^^^I read it^^^^^^^


    This Left Coastie is telling us, in no uncertain terms that essentially 10 round mags should suffice due to ones ability to remove and reinsert a mag, much faster than an officer of old could use his six shot revolver.
    I won't call him anti gun..........

    He is a Liberal not-to-keen-on-firearms insult to our intelligence

    From article;

    Still, these same reasons probably mean that the magazine size cap would not materially interfere with self-defense, if the cap is set at 10 or so rather than materially lower. First, recall that until recently even police officers would routinely carry revolvers, which tended to hold only six rounds. Those revolvers were generally seen as adequate for officers’ defensive needs, though of course there were times when more rounds are needed. Second, the ability to switch magazines in seconds, which nearly all semiautomatic weapons possess, should suffice for the extremely rare instances when more rounds were needed (though to take advantage of this, the defender would have to make a habit of carrying both the gun and a spare magazine).


    Basically he is saying to the Idiotic Political Policymakers to go ahead and limit the round count in mags to 10, and folks can just tote more mags around.

    I'm not taking him out for a round of drinks on me, thats for sure.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    When are these imbeciles going to get it?

    The 2A is primarily for defense against government tyranny, thus we need military style arms, etc.

    This ain't about self defense from mud slurping pick pockets and petty thieves.

    It is all about being able to defend ourselves from jack-booted thugs.


    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Crowman and CIBMike like this.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,980
    The danger I see here is the antis quoting this and claiming even the pros are in favor of mag limits.
    oneshot likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The danger I see here is the antis quoting this and claiming even the pros are in favor of mag limits.
    Vet, you might be surprised at how many pro 2nd amendment people(most likely some on this forum) that are in favor if magazine limits and other "reaction" anti 2nd amendment laws that are being advocated.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  6. #20
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,848
    Vet, you might be surprised at how many pro 2nd amendment people(most likely some on this forum) that are in favor if magazine limits and other "reaction" anti 2nd amendment laws that are being advocated.
    There are some, and most of them believe that appeasing the antis just to get them off of their backs is worth it. The people that think this aren't "getting it" yet, and hopefully at some point in time it will dawn on them that when an enemy wants something from you, he's never satisfied until he has it all.

    Some of them mistakenly believe in "common sense" restrictions. There are no common sense restrictions. Common sense to a man in say, Chicago, that has never been allowed by the rulers there to own a gun, will not be the same common sense to be man in Georgia that has been hunting since he could walk. Common sense to a politician that has never worked for a living is not the same to one that works from 7 to 5 and has a home and a normal family.

    What many do not realize is that there are people in this world that are absolutely mean,nasty,self centered and ugly minded that don't care a bit about you or how you live, but they do see you as an obstacle to be overcome and they know, that if you have the means to defend yourself that you have a breaking point, that you can respond to being oppressed with force if need be and that scares them. They would absolutely eliminate private gun ownership if they could and some have even publicly stated it.

    Just as dangerous are the good, well meaning people that think that some restrictions are OK, but they think that because they were never in a situation that proved it otherwise. They are numb in the brain and just go on living their lives without much thought about anything. We've got some of them here too. Maybe they can be educated, maybe not. Some of them are young. Some of them are old.

    All we can do is hope that some day, things will be as they were originally intended, restored to the way it was when every man took responsibility for his safety and the safety of his family.
    peckman28, oneshot and Crowman like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    To me, those who will compromise on this issue are more dangerous than those who are vocal about their opposition.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  8. #22
    Distinguished Member Array Madcap_Magician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    This Left Coastie is telling us, in no uncertain terms that essentially 10 round mags should suffice due to ones ability to remove and reinsert a mag, much faster than an officer of old could use his six shot revolver.
    No, he's not. He's saying that magazine capacity restrictions will probably have almost no effect on criminal shootings or defensive shootings, which is true.

    What's that stat everyone cites in more reasoned threads? The average defensive shooting involves three shots at three feet in three seconds? It certainly varies, but the legions of snubnose carriers all seem to agree that for 99% of all scenarios they can see themselves in, five shots and a speedloader or speed strip are enough.

    I think everyone here is of the opinion that just because a five-shot revolver is enough doesn't mean that should be the legal limit, but as a purely technical statement, there's nothing in what Volokh wrote that implies a moral or legal obligation to a 10-round magazine limit, only that he thinks one would probably be Constitutional based on current case law.

    You pigeonholing Volokh, who is A. Not here to defend himself against your baseless ad hominem charges of being a "Left Coast liberal," and B. Well-regarded as a conservative legal commentator and scholar is unjustified. He may well mean that he thinks there should be a 10-round magazine limit, but based on a plain text reading of his article, it's not fair to jump to that conclusion.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene Volokh
    Thanks for writing -- my post (reproduced below) suggested that (1) such a ban would likely be constitutional, but (2) it would be “unlikely to help prevent crime,” and would offer “only a very small extra amount of public safety (and might be a net zero or a negative ...).” So I think the ban would likely be ineffective and therefore unwise, though I’m not positive about that. Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional.
    Personal correspondence with the author just now, actually. To wit: Volokh thinks a magazine ban would be ineffective and hence unwise, but he is not 100% sure.
    bklynboy likes this.
    Hakkaa päälle!

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    Supreme Court "justices" notwithstanding, the 2A says what it says. A magazine capacity limit is unconstitutional, and by lending his voice to any other view this guy is not a friend of the 2A or freedom in general. When the 2A was written, the musket was the "assault rifle", and both soldiers and civilians had plenty. To say that a few, in positions of power over us, should have the modern equivalent (M4, M16 select-fire weapons) while the rest of us have inferior equipment, is utterly ridiculous and does not take much study or thinking to thoroughly refute. The idea that the government should be able to do things we aren't allowed to do is immoral and, frankly, stupid. I have no sympathy for the viewpoint of those who say that would pass constitutional muster or that it is acceptable in any way.

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by SamRudolph View Post
    No, he's not. He's saying that magazine capacity restrictions will probably have almost no effect on criminal shootings or defensive shootings, which is true.

    What's that stat everyone cites in more reasoned threads? The average defensive shooting involves three shots at three feet in three seconds? It certainly varies, but the legions of snubnose carriers all seem to agree that for 99% of all scenarios they can see themselves in, five shots and a speedloader or speed strip are enough.

    I think everyone here is of the opinion that just because a five-shot revolver is enough doesn't mean that should be the legal limit, but as a purely technical statement, there's nothing in what Volokh wrote that implies a moral or legal obligation to a 10-round magazine limit, only that he thinks one would probably be Constitutional based on current case law.

    You pigeonholing Volokh, who is A. Not here to defend himself against your baseless ad hominem charges of being a "Left Coast liberal," and B. Well-regarded as a conservative legal commentator and scholar is unjustified. He may well mean that he thinks there should be a 10-round magazine limit, but based on a plain text reading of his article, it's not fair to jump to that conclusion.

    EDIT:



    Personal correspondence with the author just now, actually. To wit: Volokh thinks a magazine ban would be ineffective and hence unwise, but he is not 100% sure.



    ^Well^^^^^^^^^^^^

    We're just going to have to agree to disagree that you're not sure what the "author" was implying.

    I read it and fully comprehend what he said, in the original text,


    Here it is again.


    From article;

    Still, these same reasons probably mean that the magazine size cap would not materially interfere with self-defense, if the cap is set at 10 or so rather than materially lower. First, recall that until recently even police officers would routinely carry revolvers, which tended to hold only six rounds. Those revolvers were generally seen as adequate for officers’ defensive needs, though of course there were times when more rounds are needed. Second, the ability to switch magazines in seconds, which nearly all semiautomatic weapons possess, should suffice for the extremely rare instances when more rounds were needed (though to take advantage of this, the defender would have to make a habit of carrying both the gun and a spare magazine).
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  11. #25
    Member Array Lindy1933's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    206
    I think Volokh has a M&P 40C and doesn't want to spring for the 15 round mags. Cost here last week was $106 for two. Now total carry capacity is 51 rounds counting the one in the chanber.

    I think SCOTUS just passed judgement that the feds can force you to buy health insurance from private companies even if you don't want it. I guess this falls into the realm of constitutional but unwise.

    I will vote for Obama when I see Jon Corzine in jail. Stealing 1.6 billion from farmers and others is not a record, but it is a high average. BTW: If the law is not enforced by DOJ, is it a law?

    There are many things to get really POed about and this mag thing is just one of them.

    We're not in Kansas any more and that guy behind the curtain is up to no good. Move on, move on, nothing to see here.
    Retired AF pilot, Vietnam FAC 1967-68

  12. #26
    Distinguished Member Array Madcap_Magician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    ^Well^^^^^^^^^^^^

    We're just going to have to agree to disagree that you're not sure what the "author" was implying.

    I read it and fully comprehend what he said, in the original text,


    Here it is again.
    I just quoted the author's clarified intent in that paragraph as stated by the author himself when I asked him less than 15 minutes after my post. I don't know how much more clear it can get. We can certainly agree to disagree on what we think the paragraph means, but I think what the author actually meant trumps us both, and Volokh said he thinks a magazine capacity limit would be unwise, but given case law and the current SCOTUS, would probably be upheld as Constitutional.
    Hakkaa päälle!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

constitutionality of new york gun magazine restrictions

,

heller ang magaine size

,

heller decision magazine size

,

heller magazine limit 10 rounds

,

heller volokh

,

muster post heller

,

unconstitutionality of magazine capacities

,

volkah keep

,

volokh and heller

,

volokh conspiracy mag limits

,

volokh heller ucla

Click on a term to search for related topics.