Thursday, March 24, 2011

It's like a high-powered Fail machine.

The Connecticut legislature is apparently kicking around the idea for a magazine ban that is wrong in so very many ways:
Connecticut’s bill is worse than unenforceable; it is unconstitutional. Perhaps realizing that a grandfather clause would make the ban worthless, CT legislators stipulate that anyone who owns large-capacity magazines will have 90 days to turn them over to the government, without compensation, so the magazines can be destroyed. Citizens who fail to hand in their magazines will be guilty of a class D felony.
Dude, when your proposed gun law makes California's firearms laws look sensible by comparison, you're so far out in left field that you're actually up in the bleachers.

Even assuming you somehow get it passed, it's going to get shot down in a courtroom faster than the Libyan air force. You couldn't throw a rock at a copy of the Constitution without hitting a part this bill violates. That popping sound you hear? It's Alan Gura cracking his knuckles...

20 comments:

Keads said...

And from the Home State of Colt to boot. Go figure.

loren said...

Tam, ever hear of Judicial activism?
You'll note that judges routinely rule that the 2nd isn't about private ownership of guns but rather a national guard in spite the Federalist Papers saying otherwise.
The constitution says what a judge says it says. Ultimately what 5 Supremes say it says. With enough Dems in government appointing judges, you'll be amazed how the constitution will meaning.

Anonymous said...

And the answer is, no, it does not say that, and if someone tries to enforce that unconstitutional interpretation, I will not follow it, I will not obey it, and I will make a point of disobeying any law officer, any law which has as its basis.

Your mileage may vary

Tam said...

loren,

"You'll note that judges routinely rule that the 2nd isn't about private ownership of guns but rather a national guard in spite the Federalist Papers saying otherwise."

Funny you should bring up the Supremes...

Anonymous said...

Remember what Ben Franklin said about the President?

Governor Morris stated that he was opposed to impeachment, as he wanted a strong executive that would not limit his actions based on that which was acceptable to politicians. He talked on the subject for half an hour.

Ben Franklin asked to be recognized. "If the President can not be removed by impeachment, he could still be removed by assassination." Ben sat. The gentlemen's jaws dropped as they looked at the old revolutionary.

Governor Morris asked, once again to be recognized. "I withdraw my previous objection to impeachment. Further, impeachment provides an opportunity for the President to explain his actions, that would not be provided in the case of impeachment."

Impeachment of any judge would be a proper remedy. Improper remedies would still be available should impeachment fail.

The Jack said...

It's also nice to see NRO tackle gun rights more and more. There's even this:

"But there is no reason outside bureaucratic whim for one efinition [of maximum "allowed" capacity] over another. People who have such magazines haven’t necessarily gone out to buy them specially — a compact 9mm pistol might come with a 13-round magazine as standard. Anyway, the concept of a “large capacity” magazine is meaningless: capacity depends on the size of the cartridge — a larger caliber means fewer rounds."

And Daniel Gelernter points that this "is another incremental step on the road to a complete ban. It is obvious that the men who propose and support this bill would rather that people couldn’t have guns at all."

So that's good to see a broader organization "get" that such restrictions are arbitrary and dangerous.

PS: Odds on that Connecticut police would be exempt from this limit?

Oh wow... WV: victim
(previous post removed due to formating error)

docjim505 said...

I have to agree with loren (I am getting increasingly cynical in my old age): some judge will doubtless rule this as perfectly constitutional. The Supreme Court may have narrowly agreed that Amendment II guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, but it says nothing about about magazines. Further, I think that the courts have long recognized the concept of "reasonable" restrictions; the National Firearms Act of 1934 is still with us for that reason.

The truly sad thing is that it will really come down to how Mr. Justice Kennedy feels on a given day.

Ed Foster said...

Eternal vigilance, etc. I checked in with a buddy who was at the hearing today, and it was the same-o, same-o we get every couple of weeks from the hoplophobic fringe.

It won't get close to passing, it's just the losers making noise, and said noise being echoed by their tame (and usually ignored hereabouts) media.

Wordment said...

If it passes, it would perhaps be wise of CT residents to ship their over-cap mags to out-of-state friends, pending the law's overturnment.

jimbob86 said...

It being unconstitutional won't keep folks from being jailed while the appeal works it's way through the courts..... Mr. Gura may be mighty, but he don't pay the mortgage.

They intend to govern with fear of THE LAW, as opposed to respect for it.

The cops will take the owners to jail, sayin' "It's my job." The prosecutor will say the same. The Jury is a roll of the dice, though a set of loaded dice, more than likely, as the Judge will give instructions and allow evidence as he sees fit (see Brian Aitken-New Jersey).....

They have effectively overwhelmed the justice system with a myriad of confusing laws, such that one needs a contest between lawyers (fueled by money) refereed by a Judge (promoted Lawyer) to find what is legal, and it is quite often nothing approaching what is just.

There IS the remedy of overwhelming this "legal system" by clogging it with our bodies.... but me, I have slightly more important things to do..... 5 kids to feed, etc.

Separate countries ..... can we ship Dennis to the North-East?

Jim said...

If it passes, it would perhaps be wise of CT residents to hang onto their over-cap mags, pending the law's overturnment.

There, fixed that for you.

Jim

Joseph said...

I'm sure a typical reporter from the mainstream media will oppose magazine bans on the ground that the government has no business suppressing Time or Newsweek.

mopar said...

@Jack, yes police are exempt, but only while on duty. We had several police officers testify at t he hearing that they actually need MORE capacity off duty, not less. Speaking of testifying.... at the public hearing on this bill, something like 550+ people turned up to speak (one major paper reported the number as "dozens"), 3 minutes each, for 12.5hrs straight. In that 12.5 hrs, I think I heard 4 people support the ban, the rest opposed.
The NRA rep was pretty ineffective, but the CCDL had dozens of members speaking who picked up the slack.

pdb said...

Even assuming you somehow get it passed, it's going to get shot down in a courtroom faster than the Libyan air force. You couldn't throw a rock at a copy of the Constitution without hitting a part this bill violates. That popping sound you hear? It's Alan Gura cracking his knuckles...

I'm still LOL'ing, a day later.

JimB said...

Seems to me New Jersey has had the same type of ban for quite a while (15 rd Max no .22 excemption). Meer posession of a magazine with or without a firearm is a felony. People have been convicted/jailed for for this. I have yet to see it being overturned as unconstitutional. Do what you feel is necessary but don't cry if you get caught. The goverment has a lot of more time and money than you do.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like more of a 5th Amendment Takings problem than a 2nd Amendment one, to me anyway.

staghounds said...

This is perfectly constitutional, it's a "REASONABLE REGULATION".

(HELLER and MACDONALD were the high water mark of second amendment cases. The Supreme Court MIGHT overturn an actual whim statute (where the citizen has to show "good cause" or some such amorphous, discretionary term), but anything else will be RR.

And a grandfather clause isn't necessary, nor is this an unlawful taking.

Sebastian said...

I'm not optimistic that we'd prevail on arguing a magazine ban is unconstitutional. Plenty of ground for arguing it is. Might not be right, but judges aren't known for doing what's right, and we know the Heller majority is weak, or we would have gotten more talk about standards of review, without anything being presumed constitutional

Kristopher said...

Jim: It would be wiser to store said magazine off of your home address.

Like in a storage unit, or some other kind of safe house.

If you get arrested, a credit check will be run, and enough evidence of gun-nuttery will be uncovered from your credit card receipts to get a warrant. It's kinda hard to resist confiscation while cuffed after a traffic stop.

In fact, if you plan on going that route, you may want to reconsider posting a comment on the internet about it.

I, for one, welcome our new nannystate overlords, and will destroy all contraband the instant they tell me owning it is unlawful. Because I'm just such a respecter of all laws, no matter how harmful or evil.

An Ordinary American said...

I'm pretty much all for the majority of the northeast and extreme west coast just ceasing to exist as part of the U.S.

Why any of the major firearms manufacturers continue to reside and do business in locales so blatantly hostile to the very industry they are a part of is bewildering.

Quite honestly, I'd like to see a mass migration of conservatives to the midwest, south and western states, with a reciprocal mass migration of the socialists and communists, aka: Democrats, to the frozen northeast.

Or, maybe we just pack all the Democrats in to the San Fran bay area, then build a wall around it, charge admission and call it Hell.

AOA