E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A leading gun-rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent "looney tunes" from committing more gun massacres.
Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court's decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.
"I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines," Levy said in an interview with NBC. "Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute."
The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill tomorrow that would ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy's comments as a sign that at least some gun-rights advocates might be open to the idea.
"For somebody like him to say this is significant," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Project, a leading gun control group. (Levy was one of the lead lawyers for gun rights in D.C. v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court case that overturned Washington D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendment encompassed an individual right to own firearms.)
There is little doubt that any gun-control proposal will face tough sledding in the Congress. A spokesman said today House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is against the idea. One leading gun-rights group, Gun Owners of America, posted a statement on its Web site this week denouncing "liberal politicians flocking like vultures" to gain political advantage from the Tucson tragedy by proposing new gun control measures.
But gun-control groups argue that measures like the one being proposed by McCarthy in the House (and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who is sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate) are so modest and reasonable that they could gain traction. Law-enforcement officials have noted that Loughner's high-capacity round magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage; he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine.
The manufacture of such magazines were prohibited under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, but that law lapsed in 2004 and gun experts say the sale of such magazines have since proliferated.
President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, had supported reinstating the assault weapons ban, but soon abandoned the idea as politically impractical after taking office. This week, the White House has declined to respond to requests for comment on whether the president would support a restriction on high-capacity magazines.
Although he is strongly opposed to most gun-control measures, Levy said in this case, "as a policy matter," restricting access to high-capacity magazines such as the 33-round ones used by Loughner makes sense.
"It may stop a few of these looney tunes," Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a "close call, he said that that a restriction of "10 to 15 rounds makes sense."
Leave a Comment:
Murder is murder Paul. Let's not elevate this guy into a higher state of being. If, if, if. Loughner is certifiable.
Who knows what he see's and if any of it's real. If your not paying attention to what's goin on, your asking for surprises, not all will be good either. And more to the point. One of the few things "Sneaky" here is why nothing was done sooner. There is a whole lot of what ifs and maybes, and some whys for the cospiracy people to chew on for a good while. Simple point is guns save lives.
Being an assassin isn't a higher state of being from a murderer. Being a failed assassin who murders in a failed attempt at escape is lower yet. Guns don't kill, people kill; by the same token, guns don't save lives, people save lives. Try to stay consistent, and logical.
Assasins by their very nature are step above a murderer, gun save lives every day as in the same regard that a surgeon does with the many tools of that trade. Consistent is what I am unfortunately logical deduction is about a foreign to you as reason is to a insane person.
stephen stuck on stupid: the surgeon's tools are analogous to the gun, not the surgeon. The tool doesn't kill, it doesn't save, and it doesn't repair, the person weilding the tool does all of intelligent work.
Guns don't kill, guns don't save, people do.
An assassin is a step above a murderer on what scale of being? getting paid to murder?
Seems to me that the people that want no control on guns tend to forget the first part of the 2nd amendment, "In order to form a well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now, there is no way that this whacko is in any way, shape, or form any part of a well regulated militia, nor could he be. While I am not in favor of gun control, I do think that the gun lobby had better try to figure some way to stop mentally unstable people like this person from being able to get a gun. If the gun lobby does not, there is always a chance that it will be done for them, and, if so, it is usually in a way that is not favorable to them.
But what can you do even if you suspect someone has a problem? If that person doesn't want help it's hard to force it on him (or her).
The 30 round magazine isn't the problem. The handgun that contained the magazine isn't even the problem. The person pulling the trigger is the problem. The high capacity magazines are going to be banned that is a givin dealing with this government. Maybe when they ban the high caps it will help you sleep better at night. I know I will sleep better at night.... because I went out and bought 20 - 40rd magazines the other day! That is the problem with your little ban, people already have a grip of these things. So ban away.... and I can't wait until they ban your favorite TV shows or football. Then we will REALLY hear an outcry!!!
It is just like the Meth Cooks and the Meth Addicts. Legislation is passed constantly to ban the chemicals, ingredients, and precursors to make meth, and to REGULATE other ingredients to make this ILLEGAL drug, but has meth gone away? Are there still Meth Addicts?? Meth addicts only disappear when they get treatment and abstain from being an addict. They do not disappear because of LAWS and BANS!!
Or overdose, of blow themselves up .... maybe with others!
Yes, of course limiting magazines to "low" capacity makes sense...to any tyrant that will take any possible advantage over the populace. I guess low capacity pump and bolt actions would be next, leaving single shot capacity. Oh hell just as well ban all guns and if the people don't like it we'll ban knives and leather to make slingshots, too. Maybe all you sensible limit-lovers better start reconsidering.
Ah, the slippery-sloper false argument again.
Slippery slope argument is completely true. give the government room to take away a small right you give them room to take a big one away too
Oh, the slippery-slope stupidity, again. Fear mongering and RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans, never far apart. Just say it over and over again and it magically becomes true. If they are going to suspend the constitution entirely, your owning a gun isn't going to save you from the biological agents they will use to "disarm" the populace.
Standard magazine for the Glock 19 is 15, 5 over the maximum of 10 of the original magazine capacity ban. Many other pistols, including the Glock 17 (from which the Glock 19 is derived) also hold more stock than the original banned magazines. Let's not forget that these weapons have been out for a long time, so banning (back to the original 10 as some have advocated), is a moot point. Besides that, I have many doubts that the banning of large cap. magazines would ever fly due to the manufacturers; all manufacturers of 9mm that I can think of build weapons of over 10 round capacity. Let's not forget, "Gun control is not about guns; it's about control" and Loughner definitely is a sick, out-of-control individual.
I appreciate your thoughts. Well said. The problem is you don't understand the biological agents which will be employed, how few in the military will need to be involved, and how vulnerable the families of any in the military who would think to resist would be made readily apparent to them. They don't have to kill us to "disarm" us, they can compel you to give up your "outlawed" clips, magazines, automatic weapons, excessive ammunition stocks, etc. without actively engaging with you. Total disarmament would never be their aim. You can keep your revolver, shotgun and rifle.
How many attacks do you think there would be if everyone had a gun at there hip? probably very few who in there right mind would commit an armed robbery knowing the clerk had a gun?
It's not about people in their right mind.
I hate it when people suposed quote our forefathers yet do not have the atribution to back it up. One of the first commentators had this quote alledgedly from Thomas Jefferson. " "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson" This supposed quote has never been found in any of Thomas Jefferson's papers and as far as can be determined was never uttered by him.
As for allowing citizens to bear arms against tyranny, does any reasonable person believe today that he and buddies owning AK-47's are going to be able to stop the power of the federal government if tyranny is its bent?
LL
1. As long as they are legally purchased, people have every right to own them.
2. As long as our government respects the power of the people at the ballot box, this will NEVER happen.
3. As I posted below, read United States Code: Title 10> Subtitle A>Part 1>Chapter 13>311. Militia: Composition and Classes. Read the section listed as b(2).
Thats correct, according to our own law, every law abiding american citizen is a part of the militia, whether or not they are in the military.
4. The AK-47 (U.S. legal semi-auto clones) Are actually very effective rifles for hog hunting. You don't think there is any need for a 30 round magazine? If you run into a pack of 20 ferrell hogs (which will KILL you and not think twice about it) you will understand the need for a 30 round magazine.
5. My legal AK-47's (both of them) haven't ever killed anyone. In fact, most legal ones...never will.
Wrong, it has NOTHING at all to do with Gun Safety, neither is it really gun control. It's PEOPLE Control, it's people like you saying "I don't waaaaaant to be responsible", "I waaaaant somebody else to take care of me", "All you other people are scary and dangerous and I waaaaant you to be as helpless and ineffectual as I am", "Waaaaaaa", and there are Power Hungry Politicians and paid Judas Goats who are more than happy to dance in the blood of the victims and never let a good crisis go to waste.
If the crowd had been full of people like you he could have done just as much or more damage with a single shot pistol. VT didn't involve any high capacity magazines, just disarmed victims hiding under desks or behind someone slower than they were.
Rights predate government. Just because Mr. Levy, Judge Scalia, Rep. McCarthy or any other fool is willing to claim the sun rises in the west, don't make it so. Anyone foolish enough to speak out against the private ownership of "high-capacity magazines" should note the following: During the L.A. riots, the police, who are sworn "To Protect and Serve", refused to enter certain areas of the city. (note for Mr. Scalia: SCOTUS has consistently ruled the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizen.) Caught in this no man's land were Korean American businessmen, who armed themselves and stood on their rooftops to defend their lives and property against the roving mobs of rioters looting and burning everything in sight. Would any of you self-important twits be willing to go on camera to explain to those Korean American businessmen why no one could possibly have a need for "high capacity magazines" which hold more than 10 rounds?
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, m limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps I could not surrender if I would." - John Adams, AMerican Patriot, U.S. President, British Traitor
Here is my take:
While a high capacity magazine is not needed, I prefer to have and not needing it than needing and not having it.
Also, by banning high cap magazines, it opens the door for more gun restrictions in the future. Therefore, no to a new ban.
The LARGEST MASS MURDER in recent history was accomplished with 2 dollars Regular Gas, a coffee can& Ignition. (NYC,Social Club) Once bans start, they seldom stop, as there is always one more Dragon to slay,isn't there? Drug BANS worked OH-SO-WELL, in Jared's case, didn't they? If he had used a CAR,What Then? If someone wants it bad enough,it WILL BE GOTTEN,BAN OR NOT. Occam's Razor in Action, front and center. So what now? Keepng weapons minimized,regarding Mentallly Disturbed citizens. There is where all this "Feedback" could begin, but most-likely will not, as it is always Easier to blame an Object,as it cannot answer back,can it?
2nd Amendment - Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testimony
type that in on youtube and re-think your current stance on gun control.
There is no statistical data showing that limiting a magazine's capacity has reduced crime of any sort.
To limit capacity, you must insert a spacer in a magazine which occasionally needs to be disassembled for cleaning and replacing worn springs for proper maintenance. Law abiding citizens put the spacer back in. A criminal may not.
When the illegal magazines are imported with the drug shipments, we'll need to include in the legislation that the spacers must be scented with catnip so spacer-sniffing cats can detect whether the internal parts are legal or not and stop the flow of illegal magazines as well as they stopped illegal drugs. I hope the catnip scented magazine cats get along with the drug sniffing dogs.
Why does anyone need a 30 round magazine? First of all, if you are on this page proclaiming yourself to support the second amendment, and advocating the banning of these magazines, you don't support the second amendment. The second amendment was never written with any intent of hunting, or sport shooting, or even self defense in mind. The purpose of the second amendment was to utilize the citizen as the final resort of defense against a tyrant.
Don't believe me?
Read the section listed as b(2). Its even in the law elsewhere.
Also, the proposed act of banning such a magazine is a total joke in the first place. These magazines are standard already on most semi-auto rifles, and are cheap and easy to legally buy. Banning the manufacture of them would take 30 years to see ANY result. Banning the privately owned sale is just as much of a joke, since so many people already own stockpiles of them. Such a law is and would be TOTALLY unenforceable.
On the other hand, I actually do agree with Chuck Schumer, that if you fail a drug test while applying to enter the armed forces, they should have every right to report such a finding to the FBI, and you should be barred from owning a firearm.
If you want to talk about results, THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED LAUGHNER FROM BUYING HIS GUN.
All this talk of banning high cap magazines is just a ploy by the anti-gun community to see how much they can exploit a tragedy, just like always.
Forgive me...I listed the link and it didn't post.
Look up: United States Code: Title 10> Subtitle A>Part 1>Chapter 13>311. Militia: Composition and Classes.
Read the section listed as b(2).
Somewhat limiting magazine capacities might be reasonable politically, but I'm tired of everyone whining about "why would you ever need 31 bullets, you must be a terrible shot, I know just how many you need to defend your own home, and it's no more than 10."
First off, does Jay Leno need 100 antique cars? He can't ever drive them all at once! Does my mom need to keep 10 throw blankets in every closet? She'll never have to keep that many people warm! Guess what? We're adults in this free country and we can own what we darn well want to. I don't own a 30-rounder for my Glock, but if I wanted to, why shouldn't I be able to? Another problem is that this won't just apply to handguns. An oversized magazine might be a little silly and unwieldy in a handgun, but 30 rounds is a standard mag size for sport shooting rifles like my AR-15 and in "plinking" guns like the .22s my friends and I had growing up. You cripple them if you start messing with the accessories you allow.
Second, who the bejeezus are you to say how many rounds I might need in a defense situation? If your life or your family's lives are on the line, you'll take as many as you can darn well carry. Not every situation is going to be a quick-draw vs a single intruder! If 5 or 8 thugs surround me in an alley, or if, god forbid, I ended up in a shootout situation behind cover, I'm probably going to need 30 or even more. Heck, if "Katrina 2" hits my state and I end up having to do a little crowd control during a lawless situation, I'm going to have five 30-round mags on me for my AR-15, plus a handgun on my hip. Do you ever wonder why the cops end up firing 70 rounds into that criminal who was reaching for his gun? Because when lives are in danger, they have a responsibility to make sure they stop the attacker as quickly as possible (and because they all shoot at the same time). When my life or someone else's is in imminent danger, I have a legal right to end that danger as quickly as possible by doing everything within my means. In such a situation, I'd like as many rounds as possible to be within my means, and dang it, you would too.
If you're going to allow free citizens to own guns at all, then it makes no sense to unnecessarily hinder their use as a self-defense tool. It's like passing a law that says you can't own a hammer that is over 6 inches in length, because research indicates that too many people break their fingers using heavier hammers. At that point, the tool is pretty much useless for efficient nail-driving anyway, so you might as well just outlaw hammers.
Try to tell these people that they don't need normal-capacity (greater than 10 rounds) magazines. Try to tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to carry. You can't. You just can't tell these people that they shouldn't be able to defend themselves or their loved ones.
You're no better than Hitler if you want to infringe on the rights of this minority.