I doubt it. Just like everything else, it will blow over and the proles return to work, just like yesterday. I wonder if anyone called the NRA for help?
I read about this on Free Republic this morning. You're right...someone might wind up dead. Perhaps we'll find out if any "three percenters" live in Connecticut.
I dislike Connecticut and everyone I have ever meet from there, however if they try this crapola I will end up going to Connecticut with some 100 and 75 round mags, and a belt feed .308 to boot. Enough is enough and this is what started it at Lexington and Concord. I guess it will start in Hartford, or some other place in Connecticut this time, so be it.
I am no expert, but the following is my understanding of the Constitutional law in relation to the prior postings. Please specifically point out any errors/omissions, and forgive any mistakes.
(1). The Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure; it does not protect any "right" to possess anything so long as it is on private property. Here, the law does not extend the realm of permissible searches, but merely holds the high capacity mags illegal and imposes punishment on offenders.
(2). The Fifth Amendment: Not applicable against a state government. (Barron v. Baltimore). Presumably the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted and applied against the states in largely the same manner as the 5th is applied against the federal government, was the intended citation. This is certainly not a "taking" within the legal meaning. Here, the government is not converting anyone's property to its own use. It is prohibiting possession of an object. Section (c) permits current owners to dispose of the magazines in any way they please up until November. Further, Section (d) lists multiple exceptions by which one may legally possess a magazine. A classical taking is where a government exercises its power of imminent domain to force the sale of land for construction of a highway. The government takes the land from the owner for its own use, and therefore it incurs a debt for the reasonable value of the land to the owner. Just as the government may outlaw possession of crack cocaine or child pornography without owing any possessor for "taking" his property, so may it regulate magazine capacity so long as it does not overreach into the domain of the 2nd Amendment.
(3). The Second Amendment: The 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the Second Amendment is not unlimited; thus, the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as the First Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. A limitation on the right to keep and carry arms is that the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time. (Heller). Here, the CT legislature seeks to employ its regulatory authority by limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. This permits significantly advanced weapons, and thus does not violate the "use at the time" limitation. It has determined that a magazine with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds is unnecessary/undesirable in that state. Significantly, the law imposes no limitations on the type of gun or on the amount of magazines that one may possess - it merely limits the size of magazines. This seemingly does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
(4) Good News (finally): There might be some support for the unconstitutional argument in an unlikely source: the privacy cases. SCOTUS held a state birth control prohibition illegal, citing a "penumbra of rights emanating from the Bill of Rights." While carrying a large magazine on one's person may certainly be prohibited, there is a strong argument to be made that this prohibition cannot be extended to one's home.
As a matter of policy, I am against this bill. I cannot perceive of a goal which will be accomplished by this bill. I believe that the politicians should decide to either create laws that will effect whatever they seek to accomplish with this and let the courts examine the legislation, or they should leave the issue alone. While I believe that the law will pass constitutional muster, I KNOW that it is half-assed either way.
24 comments:
Any law repugnant to the Constitution is void and without effect.
Come and take it.
WarriorClass
III
Molon Labe.
Belt feed, it's the only way to go.
So, what's the worst job in CT come July 1?
Magazine collector.
Wouldn't want to be the guy who draws that short stick.
I doubt it. Just like everything else, it will blow over and the proles return to work, just like yesterday.
I wonder if anyone called the NRA for help?
0321
Surely they can't be THAT stupid...
Try it.
I don't see where it mentions the names of the legislator(s) sponsoring the bill.
What good will this bill do?
When they decide to confiscate they better have made their peace with God.
I have.
Nuff said.
Diamondback
I read about this on Free Republic this morning. You're right...someone might wind up dead. Perhaps we'll find out if any "three percenters" live in Connecticut.
The bill as listed in the article.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-01094-R00-SB.htm
this way everyone can keep up with the status
I guess this will test the resolve of the CT Threepers
The sponsor of the bill is State Senate Majority Leader, Senator Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven) of:
132 Fort Hale Road
New Haven, CT
http://www.senatedems.ct.gov/Looney.html
All magazines except those owned by law enforcement and military.
Pffft. Good luck with that.
Come. and. get. them.
One. round. at. a. time.
B Woodman
III-per
With the "full faith and credit" clause, if they actually do this in CT and make it signed law, that's really the start of the dance...
It won't do to just sit back and watch what happens there...
Not if we mean what we say, "Not one inch backwards!"
"Not one more infringement!"
"No more free Wacos, Katrina's, stolen elections..."
And we might add, "No more confiscations!"
And have that be national in its scope.
Anyone think this will actually pass? If it does, anyone think that anyone in CT will actually stand up when the police come knocking?
Fearless prediction if it passes:
People will meekly comply and then later talk like tough guys about the "revolution" on the internet, but never actually do anything about it.
Hmm. I think General Gage tried something similar to this.
I dislike Connecticut and everyone I have ever meet from there, however if they try this crapola I will end up going to Connecticut with some 100 and 75 round mags, and a belt feed .308 to boot.
Enough is enough and this is what started it at Lexington and Concord. I guess it will start in Hartford, or some other place in Connecticut this time, so be it.
I am no expert, but the following is my understanding of the Constitutional law in relation to the prior postings. Please specifically point out any errors/omissions, and forgive any mistakes.
(1). The Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure; it does not protect any "right" to possess anything so long as it is on private property. Here, the law does not extend the realm of permissible searches, but merely holds the high capacity mags illegal and imposes punishment on offenders.
(2). The Fifth Amendment: Not applicable against a state government. (Barron v. Baltimore). Presumably the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted and applied against the states in largely the same manner as the 5th is applied against the federal government, was the intended citation. This is certainly not a "taking" within the legal meaning. Here, the government is not converting anyone's property to its own use. It is prohibiting possession of an object. Section (c) permits current owners to dispose of the magazines in any way they please up until November. Further, Section (d) lists multiple exceptions by which one may legally possess a magazine. A classical taking is where a government exercises its power of imminent domain to force the sale of land for construction of a highway. The government takes the land from the owner for its own use, and therefore it incurs a debt for the reasonable value of the land to the owner. Just as the government may outlaw possession of crack cocaine or child pornography without owing any possessor for "taking" his property, so may it regulate magazine capacity so long as it does not overreach into the domain of the 2nd Amendment.
(3). The Second Amendment: The 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the Second Amendment is not unlimited; thus, the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as the First Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. A limitation on the right to keep and carry arms is that the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time. (Heller). Here, the CT legislature seeks to employ its regulatory authority by limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. This permits significantly advanced weapons, and thus does not violate the "use at the time" limitation. It has determined that a magazine with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds is unnecessary/undesirable in that state. Significantly, the law imposes no limitations on the type of gun or on the amount of magazines that one may possess - it merely limits the size of magazines. This seemingly does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
(4) Good News (finally): There might be some support for the unconstitutional argument in an unlikely source: the privacy cases. SCOTUS held a state birth control prohibition illegal, citing a "penumbra of rights emanating from the Bill of Rights." While carrying a large magazine on one's person may certainly be prohibited, there is a strong argument to be made that this prohibition cannot be extended to one's home.
As a matter of policy, I am against this bill. I cannot perceive of a goal which will be accomplished by this bill. I believe that the politicians should decide to either create laws that will effect whatever they seek to accomplish with this and let the courts examine the legislation, or they should leave the issue alone. While I believe that the law will pass constitutional muster, I KNOW that it is half-assed either way.
Keep your powder dry.
Oh LAWD. That's asking for a court case!! I mean, seriously... if someone doesn't sue that sucker the day it's filed...
Post a Comment