Should Civilians Sue States That Limit Magazine Capacities?

Should Civilians Sue States That Limit Magazine Capacities?

This is a discussion on Should Civilians Sue States That Limit Magazine Capacities? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I ran across some interesting reading that may be worth passing on to others directly related to states limiting magazine capacities! To quote from Sydney ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Should Civilians Sue States That Limit Magazine Capacities?

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array Two Bears's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California
    Posts
    210

    Exclamation Should Civilians Sue States That Limit Magazine Capacities?

    I ran across some interesting reading that may be worth passing on to others directly related to states limiting magazine capacities!

    To quote from Sydney Vail, MD in his article: Stopping Power: Myths, Legends, and Realities - https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities

    "Stopping power is a marketing tool and should be dropped from our discussions of ballistic performance until such time as ammunition effectiveness is measured by more means than just the results of gelatin and barrier tests. When ammunition companies or regulatory agencies begin to use computer simulations, simulant tests, animal models, autopsy results, and trauma surgeon operation reports with hospital summaries to determine the effectiveness of their products, then we will know which ammunition can be labeled as having the "best stopping power." And this claim will be based on scientific data rather than incomplete ballistic testing.

    Until then, shot placement with any commercially available ammunition will offer you the best chance of maximizing your duty ammunition's stopping power."

    An excerpt from https://skyaboveus.com/hunting-shoot...-Facts-vs-Hype : "FBI research, as well as accounts from such legendary gunfighters as William Fairbairn and Jim Cirillo, indicate even trained personnel hit their target two or three times for every ten rounds fired in a shootout. This suggests high magazine capacity is vital (Vail, FBI). Once the shooting starts, people fire as many times as they can as fast as they can, and people involved move in every conceivable direction. There is often little, if any, time to reload, so youíre stuck with however many rounds are in your gun at the moment.

    Modern law enforcement firearms training recognizes this fact. Most agencies teach officers to shoot until a target is neutralized; not to rely on just one or two rounds.

    FBI vs. Bank Robbers, Miami, 1986
    This shootout has become legendary. People often draw conclusions from it based on their own biases. Still, the tragedy sheds light on actual defensive handgun effectiveness.

    One suspect had a high capacity rifle while the FBI had 9mm's, .357's, and shotguns. Platt's suppressive fire prevented many agents from returning effective fire and overwhelmed those caught in the open. Fire superiority is a bedrock tactical principle.

    Most pistol cartridges would not have fared better at the time with a cross-torso shot on a man as large as Platt. Since then, handgun ammunition has made great leaps forward, but it is no substitute for sustained fire from rifles."

    This is a very interesting article with many more conclusions found in the rest of the article that concludes that there is no distinct advantage based on a particular handgun cartridge but that the deciding factors are magazine capacity and lower recoil which allows a shooter to put more rounds on target in a shorter time period. Food for thought?

    With more and more states increasingly restricting magazine capacity for civilian self-defense handguns how is this going to affect this section of the population if the above is true? Does the above study show that states that limiting magazine capacity for civilians are putting said civilians safety at risk? Is such legislation a violation of the "equal protection clause"? Interesting?


    Should gun rights organizations consider legal action on the basis of the above?
    Rock and Glock likes this.

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    32,551
    Yes.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,095
    There is already a case going up the appeals chain regarding the magazine ban in CA, Duncan v. Becerra, that so far, the pro-gun side is ahead on, but now it faces the 9th Circuit. Other circuits and state courts have ruled the magazine bans in place in some states are constitutional. All those arguments are based on the Heller decision, which is based on 2A and 14A. The Duncan case is probably the best hope right now, but I think its future is uncertain.

    I am against mag capacity limits, of course, but I don't think the Miami shootout is any proof that we need bigger magazines. I think it makes a case for having better tactics and better accuracy. Saying that mag capacity makes up for bad shooting is the "spray and pray" theory. The truth is, you can miss with an infinite number of bullets. If there had been a like number of FBI HRT members in Miami instead of those field agents, my guess it would have been resolved with about three shots per bad guy. Also, how many civilian defensive shooters are going to be in a situation like that? It might happen, but it would be extremely rare.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    4,015
    Of course. All of the various restrictions should be vigorously and unrelentingly challenged.

    The equal protection angle might have an application to the special dispensations accorded to LE but no one else. Any limitations should apply to all, or none.
    Psycho41, NECCdude and msgt/ret like this.
    ďPropaganda will never die out. Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos.Ē
    -- Edward Bernays

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,834
    I think we should sue for every single time our rights are infringed.
    Perhaps our contributions would be better spent with legal organizations that take these issues on.
    Rather than fighting them in the legislatures.
    Politicians donít listen, but Trump has put a lot of conservatives on the federal courts.
    So make it up to the federal level and may have a better chance to win there

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    32,551
    How many documented cases where a limited capacity magazine prevented or reduced the numbers of people shot can the antis produce? Time for a strict scrutiny application.
    DownInTheDark likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Array Talldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    537
    It didn't work in Connecticut. Shew v. Malloy. The law was upheld in federal appeals court and SCOTUS refused to hear it.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array Novarider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,727
    If you have the money, most don't however.
    NECCdude likes this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,095
    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    I think we should sue for every single time our rights are infringed.
    Perhaps our contributions would be better spent with legal organizations that take these issues on.
    Rather than fighting them in the legislatures.
    Politicians donít listen, but Trump has put a lot of conservatives on the federal courts.
    So make it up to the federal level and may have a better chance to win there
    That would be the SAF. The have done more in the court system for gun rights than any other organization.
    Rock and Glock and Hoganbeg like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,324
    Yes
    We get the government we deserve.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,730
    The thing to remember about lawsuits is that they create precedent. If you let the wrong lawyer argue the case and lose, it can snowball.
    Imagine if Heller went 5-4 the other way. There would be no "individual right" to incorporate in McDonald.

    Magazine limits have been upheld in multiple state courts and federal circuits. Don't think that just because a judge or justice is "conservative" they will automatically give the opinion we want. Scalia spoke of reasonable restrictions. Many conservatives believe in states rights. Some might immediately strike down a federal limit but have no problem at all with one imposed by an individual state.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array 5lima30ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Alabama
    Posts
    5,688
    The lawyers from both sides will be the winners!
    msgt/ret, Hoganbeg and OD* like this.
    Retired Police Lieutenant, Former UH-1N Huey & MH-53 Pave Low Gunner, Retired USAF Reserve, Glock Armorer, AL Retired LEO CPP, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, LEOSA Qualified, Active FOP Executive Board Member

    "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" Phil 4:13

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    Of course. All of the various restrictions should be vigorously and unrelentingly challenged.

    The equal protection angle might have an application to the special dispensations accorded to LE but no one else. Any limitations should apply to all, or none.
    More to the point; if 10-round (or some arbitrary limit) magazines are sufficient for citizens to defend themselves, then it should be sufficient for LEO as well. Yes, policing is a dangerous job. However, I don't know of too many (any) incidents of a group of criminals storming a police department. And, in many instances where police are facing armed suspects they have many others as backup. Conversely, there are numerous instances of citizens being assaulted by multiple armed assailants (e.g. home invasions) with little to no time to get police response in time.

    In addition, as someone else pointed out, police are trained to fire until the threat is stopped. This leads to dozens of rounds being fired in many police shootings. Police firearms, by and large, are there for defensive purposes. I see no reason why they are allowed a greater right to defend themselves than other law abiding citizens.
    Hoganbeg and sdprof like this.

  15. #14
    Member Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    140
    I don't think SCOTUS wants to hear or rule against limitation laws on ammo or guns because if they rule one way, basically it sets the country up to allow anyone to purchase any weapon at any time to include automatic.

    It sets up a precedent to get rid of the 1934 NFA, the 1938 FFA, and the 1968 GCA. I have no problems if they were to do so. In fact, I would laud it. But I do not think any SCOTUS judge wants to go that route.
    Havok, Hoganbeg and Psycho41 like this.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
    I don't think SCOTUS wants to hear or rule against limitation laws on ammo or guns because if they rule one way, basically it sets the country up to allow anyone to purchase any weapon at any time to include automatic.

    It sets up a precedent to get rid of the 1934 NFA, the 1938 FFA, and the 1968 GCA. I have no problems if they were to do so. In fact, I would laud it. But I do not think any SCOTUS judge wants to go that route.
    This is a good example of why I donít view a SCOTUS ruling as anything more than the opinion of 5-9 people, and donít let it decide whether I think something is or is not constitutional.
    Osprey and BBMike like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •