Speculation: Will the standard capacity magazine ban ever be struck down?

Joined
Feb 2, 2024
Messages
45
Likes
45
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
With all of the lawsuits going around, I believe there are a few which challenge the standard capacity magazine bans.

What are the odds that these will make it to the Supreme Court and eventually allow Mass citizens to own normal people sized magazines?
 
With all of the lawsuits going around, I believe there are a few which challenge the standard capacity magazine bans.

What are the odds that these will make it to the Supreme Court and eventually allow Mass citizens to own normal people sized magazines?
Lol that's anyones guess especially if scotus decides to ignore or sidestep that issue during an awb case. It's still likely years regardless unless relief comes by way of a large decision with Bianchi or something.
 
As much as I’d like to see the mag bans go down, the federal ban from 1994-2004 wasn’t overturned by the court so I’m pessimistic.
 
Let's let the AW bans get to scotus first

There is zero historical support for magazine capacity limits.
Proponents like to point to laws like those in Boston limiting the the amount of powder one could store in a building
But those laws were for fire safety and had zero consequence on how much powder one could own as long as it didn't create a fire risk.

If SCOTUS doesn't take a AWB case this coming term, we have our answer - the republic is done.
If they do then we will see how much protection they assign to these hated arms.
 
As much as I’d like to see the mag bans go down, the federal ban from 1994-2004 wasn’t overturned by the court so I’m pessimistic.
That's in the pre Heller era. The game is not the same anymore.

I still partially agree with you if only because scotus tends to get fatigued by this stuff, but a mag ban should be killable based on some kind of common use argument. In like 40+ something states there are millions in use since 2004 and beyond. In a normal state it's not even a regulated item. In NH if I'm working at a gun shop a child can walk in with a fistful of benjamins and I can fill his red ryder wagon with a bunch of pmags for his dads gun and a bunch of BX25 mags for his 10/22. The way it should be.
 
That's in the pre Heller era. The game is not the same anymore.

I still partially agree with you if only because scotus tends to get fatigued by this stuff, but a mag ban should be killable based on some kind of common use argument. In like 40+ something states there are millions in use since 2004 and beyond. In a normal state it's not even a regulated item. In NH if I'm working at a gun shop a child can walk in with a fistful of benjamins and I can fill his red ryder wagon with a bunch of pmags for his dads gun and a bunch of BX25 mags for his 10/22. The way it should be.
And the historical record closest to the enactment is the 2nd Militia Act which required male citizens to arm themselves with a minimum of 24 cartridges in a box - and today's magazine is unquestionably a logical outflow from the cartridge box.
There is no logical means to turn that required minimum into a limit less than half that number.

If mad limits cross the bench of an honest judge that judge can do nothing other than strike down the ban.
 
That's in the pre Heller era. The game is not the same anymore.

I still partially agree with you if only because scotus tends to get fatigued by this stuff, but a mag ban should be killable based on some kind of common use argument. In like 40+ something states there are millions in use since 2004 and beyond. In a normal state it's not even a regulated item. In NH if I'm working at a gun shop a child can walk in with a fistful of benjamins and I can fill his red ryder wagon with a bunch of pmags for his dads gun and a bunch of BX25 mags for his 10/22. The way it should be.
Been saying regarding NFA items in states that ban them that with Bruen citing the 14th Amendment that should also apply to AWB and mag bans.

Going back to Heller, SCOTUS has had no issues striking down state and local gun regulations and the Bianchi case is a state based regulation as will be magazine cases in the future and things lean in the direction of SCOTUS striking them down. Stuff like Rahimi, bad case aside, it is a federal law and to this date every federal gun regulation passed thru Congress going back to 1934 has been upheld by SCOTUS.

I doubt the NFA ever goes away, but what we can get out of SCOTUS regarding it beyond removing state restrictions is a removal of the tax stamp and speeding up the process of registering and getting approval for them by allowing the agencies that deal with the NFA to be sued under civil rights violations for not having a more expedient system.

I mean, if they can do an instant background check for someone buying an AR, why can't the process for buying an SBR or suppressor be as fast other than because nobody is lighting a fire under their ass to do better or becuase these agencies are just anti gun in nature?
 
With all of the lawsuits going around, I believe there are a few which challenge the standard capacity magazine bans.

What are the odds that these will make it to the Supreme Court and eventually allow Mass citizens to own normal people sized magazines?

There have been multiple holdings by lower courts striking down such bans, but so far no federal circuit court has ruled against them on Constitutional grounds. The 3rd,4th, and 9th circuit cases are still pending after a NYSRPA ruling remand.

New York’s idiotic “7 rounds in a 10-round mag” rule is the only one I can think of where a challenge succeeded for the long haul.

IMO, the magazine size ban is perhaps the 2nd least likely feature to be overturned. (Grenade launcher attachment capability is #1). Eventually the Supreme Court will have to address the circuit level conflict on “assault-style weapons,” but they appear to want to dodge that as long as possible.
 
Doesn’t mean we can freely buy them, especially on platforms like Glock where certain preban models go for $200+ per mag

Yeah.

I'll just say I've never had to pay nearly that much, and leave it at that. Then again, I tend to do most of my "panic buying" long before there's a panic, so maybe that's why.
 
What baffles me is the random number of ten. 7, 10, 15 vs. standard cap. How do pols justify their magic number.
 
What baffles me is the random number of ten. 7, 10, 15 vs. standard cap. How do pols justify their magic number.

They don’t have to justify them to anyone except their colleagues to convince them to vote for it. Yet.

Ten was a nice round number that was picked out of the air by Feinstein when crafting the original AWB. 7 was chosen when New York pols decided “we must do something and this is something” after the Webster and Sandy Hook shootings. If it had survived, it would have inconvenienced owners and deterred sales of all semi-auto rifles and pistols, which was exactly the objective. In Colorado, 15 was chosen for no more reason than it was half of 30.
 
There have been multiple holdings by lower courts striking down such bans, but so far no federal circuit court has ruled against them on Constitutional grounds. The 3rd,4th, and 9th circuit cases are still pending after a NYSRPA ruling remand.

New York’s idiotic “7 rounds in a 10-round mag” rule is the only one I can think of where a challenge succeeded for the long haul.

IMO, the magazine size ban is perhaps the 2nd least likely feature to be overturned. (Grenade launcher attachment capability is #1). Eventually the Supreme Court will have to address the circuit level conflict on “assault-style weapons,” but they appear to want to dodge that as long as possible.
Federal judge again overturns California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
 
This isn't reality, despite what the rapey gougeflippers want you to believe.

Granted I have seen lower prices for $110 or so. And then the “gold standard” AKA just a regular 30 year old magazine can be bought for the low low price of $250:


Pricing is just based on supply and demand, as these become older I can’t foresee prices improving. Citizens shouldn’t have to pay egregious amounts for magazines they can’t even carry outside of their home with 4885 now.
 
Been saying regarding NFA items in states that ban them that with Bruen citing the 14th Amendment that should also apply to AWB and mag bans.

Going back to Heller, SCOTUS has had no issues striking down state and local gun regulations and the Bianchi case is a state based regulation as will be magazine cases in the future and things lean in the direction of SCOTUS striking them down. Stuff like Rahimi, bad case aside, it is a federal law and to this date every federal gun regulation passed thru Congress going back to 1934 has been upheld by SCOTUS.

I doubt the NFA ever goes away, but what we can get out of SCOTUS regarding it beyond removing state restrictions is a removal of the tax stamp and speeding up the process of registering and getting approval for them by allowing the agencies that deal with the NFA to be sued under civil rights violations for not having a more expedient system.

I mean, if they can do an instant background check for someone buying an AR, why can't the process for buying an SBR or suppressor be as fast other than because nobody is lighting a fire under their ass to do better or becuase these agencies are just anti gun in nature?
I've been saying that for years. Buy an 11.5" AR. Shop does a background check. During checkout, the $200 tax is rung up just like a sales tax is (in MA at least). Stamp is printed out along with the sales receipt. What's so f*cking hard?

I know we should be able to pay cash for one at a hardware store and walk away,but as long as we're stuck with these shitty laws, there's no reason the process can't be easier. (I know the process is the punishment, I'm just venting)
 
I've been saying that for years. Buy an 11.5" AR. Shop does a background check. During checkout, the $200 tax is rung up just like a sales tax is (in MA at least). Stamp is printed out along with the sales receipt. What's so f*cking hard?

I know we should be able to pay cash for one at a hardware store and walk away,but as long as we're stuck with these shitty laws, there's no reason the process can't be easier. (I know the process is the punishment, I'm just venting)
If anything a court case should have been brought ages ago based on the NFA tax collection method being inherently obstructionist. There's no valid reason FFLs couldn't have collected the tax the moment the NFA was birthed and then the buyer would get a real stamp by proxy during purchase.
 

Granted I have seen lower prices for $110 or so. And then the “gold standard” AKA just a regular 30 year old magazine can be bought for the low low price of $250:


Pricing is just based on supply and demand, as these become older I can’t foresee prices improving. Citizens shouldn’t have to pay egregious amounts for magazines they can’t even carry outside of their home with 4885 now.
You missed his whole point. You still have choices. Nobody's holding a gun to your head, not even the stupid shitty laws. You could shop better, ride dirty (like everyone else) and buy new mags, or say f*** it and stick with cheap 10rd or blocked/pinned mags.
 
Yes, that's one of the "multiple holdings by lower courts striking down such bans." That case is currently before an en banc panel of the 9th circuit with oral arguments having been made in March.

 
If anything a court case should have been brought ages ago based on the NFA tax collection method being inherently obstructionist. There's no valid reason FFLs couldn't have collected the tax the moment the NFA was birthed and then the buyer would get a real stamp by proxy during purchase.
I'd say that with the NFA you could get the $200 tax removed entirely along the lines of the poll tax. State sales taxes on guns, ammo, etc. isn't going away because its taxed equally with other goods, but a tax specific to buying a gun is no different that taxing someone to register to vote.

The tax being arbitrary itself set at a fixed amount means Congress could change it to whatever they want and that in itself is meant to be obstructionist as $200 in 1934 is like 4 grand today. Now that $200 is worth a lot less, the federal agencies are using long approval times as a means to obstruct the right to own NFA items.

The tax should be struck down and the approval stamp be auto generated upon transfer. At that point why bother with the NFA at all, but I don't see any SCOTUS ever fully removing elements from NFA regulation like cans and short barrel long guns.
 
I'd say that with the NFA you could get the $200 tax removed entirely along the lines of the poll tax. State sales taxes on guns, ammo, etc. isn't going away because its taxed equally with other goods, but a tax specific to buying a gun is no different that taxing someone to register to vote.

The tax being arbitrary itself set at a fixed amount means Congress could change it to whatever they want and that in itself is meant to be obstructionist as $200 in 1934 is like 4 grand today. Now that $200 is worth a lot less, the federal agencies are using long approval times as a means to obstruct the right to own NFA items.

The tax should be struck down and the approval stamp be auto generated upon transfer. At that point why bother with the NFA at all, but I don't see any SCOTUS ever fully removing elements from NFA regulation like cans and short barrel long guns.

They'd have to amend the law if they wanted to increase the fee and that's not a great idea for them. I can easily see SCOTUS chickening out claiming $200 is not a great burden (and facing dacts, it really isn't) and only considering the other more onerous elements owever. (and, it really isn't high burden compared to the entire rest of the nfa process).
 
They'd have to amend the law if they wanted to increase the fee and that's not a great idea for them. I can easily see SCOTUS chickening out claiming $200 is not a great burden (and facing dacts, it really isn't) and only considering the other more onerous elements owever. (and, it really isn't high burden compared to the entire rest of the nfa process).
The Anti's in Congress (which is all the Democrats) would happily make that $200 become $2000 and all they have to do is attach it to a spending bill, an NDAA, or the next knee jerk gun safety law like the red flag garbage they got enough Republican senators to sign on to. Hell, they're likely to attach it to a bump stock ban bill next time the Donks have the majority in the House.
 
The Anti's in Congress (which is all the Democrats) would happily make that $200 become $2000 and all they have to do is attach it to a spending bill, an NDAA, or the next knee jerk gun safety law like the red flag garbage they got enough Republican senators to sign on to. Hell, they're likely to attach it to a bump stock ban bill next time the Donks have the majority in the House.
Not going to make it to the floor even. Gun control nationally is a loser issue. Part of the reason we see states like MA and NY threshing about is because they're getting their ass kicked.

ETA: obama couldn't even get Pelosi to bring an AWB renewal to the floor.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that with the NFA you could get the $200 tax removed entirely along the lines of the poll tax. State sales taxes on guns, ammo, etc. isn't going away because its taxed equally with other goods, but a tax specific to buying a gun is no different that taxing someone to register to vote.
That’s assuming that SCOTUS believes these NFA items are constitutionally protected items, which there is no guarantee that they would feel that way if an NFA case would come before them. I’ll tell you right now, this current SCOTUS is anti-machine gun so that’s at least one NFA item where the tax isn’t going away. There’s bound to be more.

To be fair though, the only ones I care about are SBRs & silencers, more on those later.
The tax being arbitrary itself set at a fixed amount means Congress could change it to whatever they want and that in itself is meant to be obstructionist as $200 in 1934 is like 4 grand today. Now that $200 is worth a lot less, the federal agencies are using long approval times as a means to obstruct the right to own NFA items.

Wait times are actually a lot shorter nowadays, shorter than they’ve ever been I believe. People are getting approved in as little as a few days time in some cases.
The tax should be struck down and the approval stamp be auto generated upon transfer. At that point why bother with the NFA at all, but I don't see any SCOTUS ever fully removing elements from NFA regulation like cans and short barrel long guns.
I disagree, I think we can get SCOTUS to remove at least short barreled long guns from the NFA. Just need the right case to be decided first. We need an AWB case (Bianchi v. Brown) stating that semiautomatic long guns are protected arms. Then, if both long guns and pistols are protected, it only makes sense that the short barrel guns in the middle would also be protected. Slam dunk EZ Victory.

Don’t think there is as clean of a litigation strategy to pull silencers from the NFA though. It’s probably doable, but it’d probably be better if we could somehow get Congress to do it instead. Just need republicans to take their heads out of their butts and use their brains for once when negotiating with democrats.
 
Not going to make it to the floor even. Gun control nationally is a loser issue. Part of the reason we see states like MA and NY threshing about is because they're getting their ass kicked.

ETA: obama couldn't even get Pelosi to bring an AWB renewal to the floor.
There was no push for AWB in 2009 or 10 because there wasn't a focus on guns at the time and the Supreme Court wasn't tee'd up to strike down state based restrictions like it is now.

Guns were on the backburner until Sandy Hook and by then Scotch Boehner was the Speaker with a huge Republican majority.
 
Back
Top Bottom