CA's 10 round capacity limit.
Advertisement
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:21 am
by The Chuck » Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:11 am
Telconi wrote:Looks like the mag ban got sunk this morning. Finally some good news!
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:29 am
by Arengin Union » Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:47 pm
by Saiwania » Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:22 pm
Telconi wrote:Looks like the mag ban got sunk this morning. Finally some good news!
by Galloism » Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:24 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:52 pm
Saiwania wrote:Telconi wrote:Looks like the mag ban got sunk this morning. Finally some good news!
My interpretation is that this might not actually open the door to all magazine sizes being allowed, for those blue states that don't want high capacity magazines to be in circulation. In the old days, over 10 rounds has long been considered "high capacity" but this is perhaps no longer the case because a lot of more recent semi automatic handguns that're commonly sold to civilians hold more than 10 rounds but usually has less than 20 rounds. Most of the market has clearly moved to over 10 but under 20 for handguns that aren't revolvers.
Bans on magazines of over 20 rounds might still be considered valid. I can see 20 rounds as being the new standard if SCOTUS upheld states having magazine bans in general. 10 rounds is perhaps too strict as to impede the 2nd amendment but 30 rounds and up is much harder to defend as needed if a state government really wants to regulate it.
The main reason why 10 rounds is now seen as unreasonable is because more than half of magazines in the US now go over that limit.
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:23 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Saiwania wrote:
My interpretation is that this might not actually open the door to all magazine sizes being allowed, for those blue states that don't want high capacity magazines to be in circulation. In the old days, over 10 rounds has long been considered "high capacity" but this is perhaps no longer the case because a lot of more recent semi automatic handguns that're commonly sold to civilians hold more than 10 rounds but usually has less than 20 rounds. Most of the market has clearly moved to over 10 but under 20 for handguns that aren't revolvers.
Bans on magazines of over 20 rounds might still be considered valid. I can see 20 rounds as being the new standard if SCOTUS upheld states having magazine bans in general. 10 rounds is perhaps too strict as to impede the 2nd amendment but 30 rounds and up is much harder to defend as needed if a state government really wants to regulate it.
The main reason why 10 rounds is now seen as unreasonable is because more than half of magazines in the US now go over that limit.
by West Leas Oros 2 » Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:46 pm
Galloism wrote:The Chuck wrote:
Got a link Telconi?
https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/12 ... 0865161217
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by Galloism » Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:49 pm
by West Leas Oros 2 » Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:59 pm
Galloism wrote:West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Sounds like a victory to me.
Yes - but qualified.
Basically, the court heavily relied on the fact that over half of all magazines produced are greater than ten rounds, so it’s “common”. If California had done a ban over 40 rounds, or maybe even 30 rounds, it would have stood up.
Basically...
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:06 pm
Galloism wrote:West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Sounds like a victory to me.
Yes - but qualified.
Basically, the court heavily relied on the fact that over half of all magazines produced are greater than ten rounds, so it’s “common”. If California had done a ban over 40 rounds, or maybe even 30 rounds, it would have stood up.
Basically...
by Arengin Union » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:19 pm
by Germanic Templars » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:40 pm
Telconi wrote:Galloism wrote:Yes - but qualified.
Basically, the court heavily relied on the fact that over half of all magazines produced are greater than ten rounds, so it’s “common”. If California had done a ban over 40 rounds, or maybe even 30 rounds, it would have stood up.
Basically...
Something akin to Ohio's law perhaps?
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:43 pm
by Germanic Templars » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:44 pm
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:45 pm
by DragonFarm » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:46 pm
by Germanic Templars » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:48 pm
by Hurtful Thoughts » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:52 pm
DragonFarm wrote:What interests me is that 36 people voted for no limit on any weapons at all. Does that mean i can keep a nuclear missile in my backyard and launch it at someone? Im just kidding. I like my gun, why cant I keep it?
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:53 pm
Germanic Templars wrote:Telconi wrote:
Yes and no, functionally it's a 30 round capacity for semi-autos. But the Ohio law is oddball enough to have a lower impact.Explain this bit please.
Wait I see it now.
Ohio defines any firearm with a magazine that holds over 31 rounds, as an "automatic firearm".
https://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/oh ... strictions
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:54 pm
Telconi wrote:Germanic Templars wrote:Explain this bit please.
Wait I see it now.
Ohio defines any firearm with a magazine that holds over 31 rounds, as an "automatic firearm".
https://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/oh ... strictions
which "can fire more than 31 without reloading" which gives you a thirty round mag, plus one chambered round.
So functionally, you can purchase a detachable magazine with any capacity you want, but if you're caught with that magazine attached to a gun, you're technically in possession of what Ohio defines as an "automatic firearm"
by Germanic Templars » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:56 pm
Telconi wrote:Germanic Templars wrote:Explain this bit please.
Wait I see it now.
Ohio defines any firearm with a magazine that holds over 31 rounds, as an "automatic firearm".
https://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/oh ... strictions
which "can fire more than 31 without reloading" which gives you a thirty round mag, plus one chambered round.
So functionally, you can purchase a detachable magazine with any capacity you want, but if you're caught with that magazine attached to a gun, you're technically in possession of what Ohio defines as an "automatic firearm"
by Telconi » Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:07 pm
Germanic Templars wrote:Telconi wrote:
which "can fire more than 31 without reloading" which gives you a thirty round mag, plus one chambered round.
So functionally, you can purchase a detachable magazine with any capacity you want, but if you're caught with that magazine attached to a gun, you're technically in possession of what Ohio defines as an "automatic firearm"
Gotta see if there is a candidate or are candidates who are willing to make our laws more on par with Arizona, Utah, or Alaska in regards of lax laws.
On another note, you still can own a 50 or 60-round magazine.
by Germanic Templars » Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:15 pm
Telconi wrote:Germanic Templars wrote:
Gotta see if there is a candidate or are candidates who are willing to make our laws more on par with Arizona, Utah, or Alaska in regards of lax laws.
On another note, you still can own a 50 or 60-round magazine.
Yeah, and you could use those magazines in any manually activated weapon, like if you had a bolt gun which accepted STANAG type mags, you could use a 100 round AR drum in that without issue.
The whole stated goal of the mag ban was to lower the potential death toll of spree shootings, by causing "life saving pauses" in the murderer's gunfire. Rather you agree with the law or not, Ohio's law more closely meets the given requirements without being as arbitrary as California's.
For example, there's no need to use magazine changes to slow down a killer using a bolt action, because it's a bolt action, thus Ohio's law more closely fits the stated goal. It also takes common use into account, allowing for standard magazines, while still prohibiting magazines which actually have high capacity, not just the "high capacity" magazines that some politicians like to harp on.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Attempted Socialism, Balanc, Durius, Ezotorro, Foxyshire, Ifreann, Jerzylvania, Juristonia, Pale Dawn, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, RonFlorida, Siluravia, The Chuck, The Jamesian Republic
Advertisement