New Jersey Bill to Limit Magazines to 5 rounds or less.

[ultramanhyata]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



^

Found that on Twitter somewhere, seems pretty smart. Maybe someone could introduce it to NJ lawmakers.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that without the militias we wouldn't have beaten Hitler. And don't even get me started on the lifesaving role they played during catastrophes like Katrina and Harvey.

 

[Greoric]

5 rounds seems low, but ammunition regulation, from what I can tell, is the way to constitutionally go after gun violence without unduly infringing on rights.

Also, let's be honest, the bill could have been "only 20 round to a magazine and any citizen can only own 850 firearms and 500,000,000 rounds of ammo at any time" and the slippery slope crowd would still be talking about the end of the 2nd Amendment

....because it would. Shall not be infringed.

 

[Greoric]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that without the militias we wouldn't have beaten Hitler. And don't even get me started on the lifesaving role they played during catastrophes like Katrina and Harvey.

If we didn't have a standing army, there wouldn't have even been WWII, so acutally, no.

Also, with regard to your other post: The people that know what they're doing aren't going to be defending their rights from their mailbox, and just because you're a pussy doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

[Trotsky]

....because it would. Shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not infringed. You're still allowed to keep and bear arms.

 

[Greoric]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not infringed. You're still allowed to keep and bear arms.

It's restricted... that's an infringement. Do we need to bring in a dictionary?

 

[mb23100]

Why not just outlaw guns altogether and eliminate the gun violence problem like Chicago and New York did?

 

[Trotsky]

It's restricted... that's an infringement. Do we need to bring in a dictionary?

You don't know what you're talking about.
There is no jurisprudence that suggests that the simple "right to keep and bear arms" keeps the state from setting any limitations on the scope of arms owned.

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

Also, I've written legal articles defending the right to own firearm against arbitrary and capricious restrictions, which of course afflict black citizens, but the gun community could give fuck all about the people that gun laws were originally designed to disarm. It goes to show how reactionary, obtuse, and non-ideological the 2nd amendment folks really are, that they don't care and altogether support the disarming of nonviolent felons.

But I don't often talk about it, because people will then reflexively lump me in with reductive absolutist dolts like you and your kin. Also, your unqualified condescension makes you look like an idiot, no matter how typical it is for you.

 

[Greoric]

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

Also, I've written legal articles defending the right to own firearm against arbitrary and capricious restrictions, which of course afflict black citizens, but the gun community could give fuck all about the people that gun laws were originally designed to disarm. It goes to show how reactionary, obtuse, and non-ideological the 2nd amendment folks really are, that they don't care and altogether support the disarming of nonviolent felons.

But I don't often talk about it, because people will then reflexively lump me in with reductive absolutist dolts like you and your kin. Also, your unqualified condescension makes you look like an idiot, no matter how typical it is for you.

Search my post history for that argument exactly.

 

[Exception]

I think it is all hilarious, because anyone in NJ or anywhere else can go get a class III weapons license, and own a machine gun.

Not only that, but there are so many clips in circulation already that would break this law, it makes it absurd, and not enforceable.

No, not just "anyone" can do that. Even if you were pretending that you u derstood what was happening here you would still be incorrect.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

No, not just "anyone" can do that. Even if you were pretending that you u derstood what was happening here you would still be incorrect.

Just need a lot of money and a clean background check

Or just convert to auto illegally like a lot of people do and a lot more will do in the future with the recent introduction of 3d printers

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Also, let's be honest, the bill could have been "only 20 round to a magazine and any citizen can only own 850 firearms and 500,000,000 rounds of ammo at any time" and the slippery slope crowd would still be talking about the end of the 2nd Amendment

Obviously as that would ban all of my standard and high capacity mags for my AR's. How is that not seen as slippery slope. Next it would be 10 rounds. Or in this case 5. They never stop taking.

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

False, as a private citizen I could own those.

 

[mike sherry]

You don't know what you're talking about.
There is no jurisprudence that suggests that the simple "right to keep and bear arms" keeps the state from setting any limitations on the scope of arms owned.

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

Also, I've written legal articles defending the right to own firearm against arbitrary and capricious restrictions, which of course afflict black citizens, but the gun community could give fuck all about the people that gun laws were originally designed to disarm. It goes to show how reactionary, obtuse, and non-ideological the 2nd amendment folks really are, that they don't care and altogether support the disarming of nonviolent felons.

But I don't often talk about it, because people will then reflexively lump me in with reductive absolutist dolts like you and your kin. Also, your unqualified condescension makes you look like an idiot, no matter how typical it is for you.

you do realize you can buy grenades, automatics, though right?

As you probably know...only the rich can afford them

 

[Greoric]

you do realize you can buy grenades, automatics, though right?

As you probably know...only the rich can afford them

....But more importantly only the people working for the extortionist class.

That's right, @Trotsky , taxation is indeed theft.

 

[Trotsky]

Obviously as that would ban all of my standard and high capacity mags for my AR's. How is that not seen as slippery slope. Next it would be 10 rounds. Or in this case 5. They never stop taking.

And that is the slippery slope. They stop taking when the collective benefits are no longer outweighed by the personal restriction.

Obviously, considering we still have some of the most robust gun rights in the advanced world, they do stop taking.

False, as a private citizen I could own those.

I didn't say you couldn't, genius. I said that it's constitutional for states to qualify or ban access to them, which it is.

you do realize you can buy grenades, automatics, though right?

As you probably know...only the rich can afford them

No, not everyone can. Both sale and purchase are extremely restricted at both the state and federal level, and in some states banned.

 

[Greoric]

I didn't say you couldn't, genius. I said that it's constitutional for states to qualify or ban access to them, which it is.

False. Supremacy clause.

 

[jlagman]

Well yes and no. They just restricted mag capacity on a specific 22 rifle (can't recall which one). Handguns are also allowed 10 round mags. If some long guns accept 10 round magazines from handguns then those mags can be used in those specific long guns. We have some weird workarounds on specific firearms. Clear as mud, right?

The Ruger 10/22 was affected; as in arguably the most popular .22LR rifle.

 

[Roaming East]

You don't know what you're talking about.
There is no jurisprudence that suggests that the simple "right to keep and bear arms" keeps the state from setting any limitations on the scope of arms owned.

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

Also, I've written legal articles defending the right to own firearm against arbitrary and capricious restrictions, which of course afflict black citizens, but the gun community could give fuck all about the people that gun laws were originally designed to disarm. It goes to show how reactionary, obtuse, and non-ideological the 2nd amendment folks really are, that they don't care and altogether support the disarming of nonviolent felons.

But I don't often talk about it, because people will then reflexively lump me in with reductive absolutist dolts like you and your kin. Also, your unqualified condescension makes you look like an idiot, no matter how typical it is for you.

You're one of those guys that passionately defends your interpretation of a document you actually haven't read, aren't you?

 

[Roaming East]

The Ruger 10/22 was affected; as in arguably the most popular .22LR rifle.

does a cyclinder count as a magazine? how about tubulars like on lever actions?

 

[PHATV]

The Ruger 10/22 was affected; as in arguably the most popular .22LR rifle.

Hard to argue the 10/22 is not the one.

 

[Exception]

You don't know what you're talking about.
There is no jurisprudence that suggests that the simple "right to keep and bear arms" keeps the state from setting any limitations on the scope of arms owned.

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

Also, I've written legal articles defending the right to own firearm against arbitrary and capricious restrictions, which of course afflict black citizens, but the gun community could give fuck all about the people that gun laws were originally designed to disarm. It goes to show how reactionary, obtuse, and non-ideological the 2nd amendment folks really are, that they don't care and altogether support the disarming of nonviolent felons.

But I don't often talk about it, because people will then reflexively lump me in with reductive absolutist dolts like you and your kin. Also, your unqualified condescension makes you look like an idiot, no matter how typical it is for you.

Holy shit. The Supreme Court has ruled on exactly that subject, multiple times. Quit pretending to pass the bar and be real.

You are of the least educated (forget attornies) posters on this site. You once claimed that eye witness testimony was equivalent to forensic evidence.

In short: you're an idiot. Quit pretending you're educated, we know you're not.