Supreme Court just ruled! No more Magazine restrictions!

[Hoppy]

The anti-gun states will find a away to limit mags. .....like, "Since in 1791, most firearms were limited to 1 or 2 shots, we feel that can carry over to modern firearms, thus limiting the People's arms to 1 or 2 shots."

They should realize that there is in fact no limit on an individual since the constitution and it's bill of rights is a limitation of government not the individual.

[raxar]

All the *It just means it goes to a lower court for *retyping* and it*s back in place* or *means nothing* BS.

Take it as it means what it means, I guess. As I saw on telegram social media - Mag sizes gone. Carry bans lifted. AWB gone. Nationwide(?) looks that way to me. The 9th circuit court has to apply text, history and tradition to all *anti-gun* law(s).

That's how the system works, those laws are in place until they get thrown out by a court, which the state will appeal until a court rules in their favor or they make it to the supremes, and then the leftist states will figure out some way to write a ban bill that's worded in a way that "complies" with the ruling. Its a process that will take years.

[DavidH]

What the SCOTUS did was basically say: *hey lower lose-, we mean LIBERAL courts* you may want to rethink your position o these ridiculous ANTI 2A laws, or we*ll make the decision for you!*

This open the door for many more law suits. Eventually, they will get sick of paying people $25K, $50M, $150K. Cities HATE that! Anyone that does understand the importance of this is being obtuse. (Or FUDDS or *Closet Liberals* I know there are a few here unfortunately. That*s ok* you*ll be put down in the next Civil War to!)

[streaker69]

What the SCOTUS did was basically say: *hey lower lose-, we mean LIBERAL courts* you may want to rethink your position o these ridiculous ANTI 2A laws, or we*ll make the decision for you!*

This open the door for many more law suits. Eventually, they will get sick of paying people $25K, $50M, $150K. Cities HATE that! Anyone that does understand the importance of this is being obtuse. (Or FUDDS or *Closet Liberals* I know there are a few here unfortunately. That*s ok* you*ll be put down in the next Civil War to!)

No, they don't care because it's not their money. Any payments made by the government is paid for by you and I. Until those that are violating the laws and creating the need for these lawsuits are held personally responsible, nothing will ever change.

[esh21167]

That's how the system works, those laws are in place until they get thrown out by a court, which the state will appeal until a court rules in their favor or they make it to the supremes, and then the leftist states will figure out some way to write a ban bill that's worded in a way that "complies" with the ruling. Its a process that will take years.

I'm glad I'm not the only one not drinking the Kool-Aid...

[Bang]

...Since in 1791, most firearms were limited to 1 or 2 shots, we feel that can carry over to modern firearms, thus limiting the People's arms to 1 or 2 shots.

I have read that there is historic evidence that the concept of automatic firearms was not unknown to the founders. At their time, people were working at coming up with a way to do it. So, attempts to interpret the intent of the 2nd within those confines is without merit.

[wanneroo]

Repeating rifles go back to the 1600s and were well known at the time of the Revolution and including breech loading guns, did see some limited use in the war.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/ri...cond-amendment

[streaker69]

Repeating rifles go back to the 1600s and were well known at the time of the Revolution and including breech loading guns, did see some limited use in the war.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/ri...cond-amendment

It doesn't matter, none of the other enshrined rights are dependent upon the technology of the time they were written.

[buckengr]

One problem with requiring that courts examine the text and historical basis is regarding mag bans, because we did have a 10 year hi cap magazine restriction at the federal level once before. So will the lower courts use this as an historical justification to uphold the state ban in some shape or form?, this plus the fact that mags are not arms, and they are not banning all mags

1994 is not the relevant timeframe for "text, informed by history and tradition."

In NYSRPA v. Bruen, SCOTUS explained (in essence) that the relevant timeframe for "history and tradition" that illuminates the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment is during the time that the 2nd Amendment and/or 14th Amendment were adopted, (1791 and 1863, respectively) and shortly before and after. Anything outside of that timeframe, especially anything in the late 19th century or after), is not useful to understanding the original intent of the 2A and cannot therefore be used as a justification for deeming regulations constitutional.

If a modern regulation does not have an analogous regulation that was broadly implemented, accepted, and understood to be constitutional at the time that the 2nd Amendment (and/or 14th Amendment, in the case of state laws) were adopted, it is unconstitutional. It is the Government's burden to prove that there are analogous regulations in the relevant timeframe, and none exist.

No such regulations existed banning or limiting magazines or other firearm technologies at the time of adoption, ergo they are unconstitutional.

Now, getting the lower courts to follow along and do this correctly -- that's a separate issue.

[win67]

I have read that there is historic evidence that the concept of automatic firearms was not unknown to the founders. At their time, people were working at coming up with a way to do it. So, attempts to interpret the intent of the 2nd within those confines is without merit.

Additionally: Whether or not the Founders contemplated any particular advances in firearm technology, the idea that things can change was not alien to them. And they did not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms now in current use".