Is the Banning of "High-Capacity" Magazines that hold over 10 Rounds Constitutional?

Question

LiamJHayden · Accepted Answer

I see more BS about muskets. Using that logic, freedom of the press could be limited to only printing presses that were available at the time or quill and ink.

The truth is that self-defense in an inherent right, and existed prior to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment created nothing new.

cth96190 · Accepted Answer

Such a ban would be unconstitutional. Denocrats appear to be too retarded to understand the meaning of “…shall not be infringed”.

humanearth · Answer

All forms of Gun Control is Unconstitutional

There are several reasons why gun control is unconstitutional. The most important reason is that this Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of Americans to own and bear arms.

This amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the people would always have a way to defend themselves, both from criminals and from government tyranny.

Also, gun control laws are often written in a way that disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to address the root causes of crime. For example, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but it also has one of the highest murder rates. This is because criminals don’t obey the law, and therefore gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens who are left helpless to defend themselves.

Gun Control Laws Would Violate The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
There’s been a lot of talks recently about gun control laws and how they would violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. But what does that mean?

The 14th amendment says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. This means that the government can’t pass laws that treat people differently based on things like their race, religion, or sex.

So if the government tried to pass a gun control law that only applied to certain races or religions, it would be violating the 14th amendment. This is because the law would be treating those groups of people differently than everyone else, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

Some people might argue that gun control laws are necessary to protect public safety. But if the government tries to pass a law that only applies to certain groups of people, it’s not going to be effective in achieving that goal.

And even if gun control laws were constitutional, they would likely be ineffective in reducing gun violence. There’s simply no evidence that such laws would make any difference. Many countries with strict gun control laws still have high levels of gun violence.

So if you’re concerned about the Constitution or public safety, gun control laws are not the answer.

StanDan · Answer

Back when the 2nd amendment was created (and before) there were guns that held more than 10 rounds such as; The Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock and The Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle (lethal up to 150 yards). There were assult guns as well, The Puckle Gun, that could fire nine shots per minute. And, multi barrel Nock Volley Guns and the Duckfoot Pistol to name a few. So, the thought that technology improvements was not on their minds is absurd. Their biggest fear was tyranny, of which they just left. I wonder if tyranny ever happen again... MAO ZEDONG, JOSEPH STALIN (Lenin’s paranoid successor was the runner-up to Mao in the mass-murder stakes. Stalin imposed a deliberate famine on Ukraine, killed millions of the wealthier peasants – or ‘kulaks’ – as he forced them off their land, and purged his own party, shooting thousands and sending millions more to work as slaves and perish in the Gulag), ADOLF HITLER, and now, VLADIMIR PUTIN. You tell me if well armed militia is still relevant.

Aerissa_Jade · Answer

Doesn't matter if they get outlawed, it is very easy to use duct table and a hacksaw to tape two different ones together, I've seen a guy do that.

I would say no it is not, because if 10 is then what's to stop a magazine of 1, or 3? The constitution does not say, so it is up to lawmakers and the courts to ultimately decide.

It is like when states try to say, fine you can have your guns but ammo you can't buy.

Plus they want people to simply turn in their high capacity magazines, without any compensation, that is stealing, the government should at least buy them back at a inflated price.

I would never turn something in I bought, simply cause a law changed and they wanted me to. They'd have to buy it from me, not only for what I paid for it, but for the time I spent picking it out, for gas and travel time to and from the gun show.

As it is 80 miles round trip plus a few hours to go into the city for me... I need that compensated too, not just the cost of the device.

Goforit1010 · Answer

Please show us in the Constitution where there's a limit on the types of weapons or the types of ammunition. The simple fact is, it doesn't exist and EVERYONE knows that.

There's also no limit on the weapons allowed. It simply says the right of the people to be armed will not be infringed.

And that militia thingy... during the time it was written, there was no standing military for the "Colonies". That militia thing was the people in each state that could called up if necessary. Therefore, owning weapons of war was expected.

All my guns hold FAR more than 10 rounds. Part of the reason I chose them is because in all the confusion, I'm likely to miss a few times. And any perps I need to bring down are likely to have friends with them who I GUARANTEE WILL be armed with guns holding FAR more than 10 rounds. In that "game", I plan on being the last one standing and there will be ONLY 1 story to tell the cops what happened - mine!

NewYorkCity · Answer

Every single country, state or city that disarmed it's citizens has the highest crime rate, but every country, state or city that still has a right to own weapons still manages to keep crime under control. It is un-constitutional to take any hand held weapons from people. I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a law one day that restricts buying any firearm that has a trigger, because passing such law technically not forbidding to own weapons, it just would make it illegal to own tools that have fire pins and triggers on them, do you see how such ""laws"" work? they are not allowed to take away guns, but they are allowed in their corrupt judicial system to pass idiotic none logical laws.

RingOfFire · Answer

Let's get something straight. Many people who own guns couldn't give a damn about hunting. They want guns for SELF DEFENSE.

The bad guys don't care about the law. So making laws to make your guns less effective than the bad guy's gun IS UNCONSTIUTIONAL on its face. Your most basic right as a human being is self defense and no man whether government men or otherwise has any right to take that right away. Like all of your other basic rights, they don't come from government, they come from your CREATOR. And government has no business interfering with them. It's none of their business. If they spent more time going after the bad guys than the good guys who are trying to protect themselves then this discussion wouldn't even be necessary.

I am a law abiding citizen and I want the biggest baddest gun I can get my hands on for self defense. Who the hell is anybody else to tell me I can't have it?

NamerOfStars · Answer

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Arguably, the ban on private ownership of  nuclear weapons  isn't Constitutional. Concealed carry requiring permits and open carry being banned, too. I can't say I lack reservations about those ideas, though.

HighValue · Answer

No, and if they go by the standard of, "as informed by history" then they would see that plenty of times civilians actually have had SUPERIOR weapons than the government. Even now, the standard issue handguns for the USA military is not the best at all. They chose the current model based on it having interchangeable parts with other calibers, not on best performance.

AviatorTom · Answer

The 2nd Amendment covers the "right to bear arms". It doesn't say "the right to have any kind of weapons you want".

Reasonable restrictions on guns is Constitutional, so long as they don't take away the right for someone to have some type (not all types) of a weapon.

AimeeKyle · Answer

Probably not. The only thing more gun laws or restrictions do is keep (whatever it is) out of the hands of the law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t care about the laws…. they will do as they please (which they are currently doing now (in record numbers) since ridiculous bail changes, no pursuit rules and public defenders/prosecutors aren’t holding people accountable).

Daniela1982 · Answer

All they have to do is suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights as archaic, and then ban anything they want. Funny how our government can give weapons to other countries for killing people, but want to take yours away.

Adaeva · Answer

That is not relevant because the Constitution is not law. That is because there are no penalties for congress violating the Constitution nor is there any way to enforce compliance. At times, the Courts may enforce part of the Constitution but generally whatever the government wants the government gets.

Surely · Answer

If Biden would somehow ban guns with magazines. Would the police and the military have to carry single shot firearms? Hollywood needs to stop making the mindless people believe that every gun owner only owns a fully automatic weapon.

exitseven · Answer

he constitution insures the right to bear arms an maintain a well armed militia. It does not specify the type of weapons.

Anonymous · Answer

Hard to say since when that amendment was written we only had muskets. I also think one has to remember it was written in a time when colonials had just thrown off the rule of an abusive king. So defense of one's liberty was a very real threat. Yes I very much believe in personal liberty. But with that power comes responsibility. And in this day and age a certain segment of the population suspends common sense in defense of somewhat antiquated legislation.

suzzieQ · Answer

Just as constitutional as banning handguns to individuals under 21 or felons

Anonymous · Answer

It depends on who does it, it is certantly Not constitutional for the Federal Goverment to do it, nor is it constitutional for many if not most states.

A State Constitution could in fact be written to allow it.

Dargil · Answer

Because I can read the Constitution. No mention of magazines is made.

LuvMeSomeBoys · Answer

The short answer is yes, it's constitutional.

BLP11520 · Answer

High capacity mags are f great for range day, save time

msc545 · Answer

You cannot ban guns, but you CAN ban high-capacity magazines which are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous · Answer

Not American. I don't understand why you need such things.

MementoMori777 · Answer

I'm not giving up my extended magazines

joeldalton · Answer

no, it is not.

BeMuse · Answer

Nope.

panamared1 · Answer

I would think yes. A well regulated malitia

Is the Banning of "High-Capacity" Magazines that hold over 10 Rounds Constitutional?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is the Banning of "High-Capacity" Magazines that hold over 10 Rounds Constitutional?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.