In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Handgun magazine capacity "average?"
salzo
Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
I have been watching the anti gunners runing around saying that Scalia said in Heller that bans on "assault rifles" and magazine capacity limitations is constitutional(Scarborough has been the worst). I have read Heller many times in the past couple of days, and I understand why they are saying that, but it is due to ignorance of firearms that they reach that conclusion. Scalia does not say anything about the constitutionality of banning such guns and/magazines.
What Scalia does say, is that weapons that are commonly found in homes and use are protected.
I am not all too familiar with all of the handguns out there, I pretty much know about what I have. I carry an M&P "compact" 9mm. It has a 12 round magazine. If my compact has 12 round capacity, I have to figure that there are a lot of handguns out there that that carry more rounds than my puny compact. I also care a .380, which only has six rounds. I am wondering how "common" it is that handguns out there have more than ten round capacities? I would think it is quite common, it would seem to me that most guns people own and carry today have magazines with a ten+ capacity.
Would you think that "most" handguns out there being used for personal and self defense exceed ten rounds?
What Scalia does say, is that weapons that are commonly found in homes and use are protected.
I am not all too familiar with all of the handguns out there, I pretty much know about what I have. I carry an M&P "compact" 9mm. It has a 12 round magazine. If my compact has 12 round capacity, I have to figure that there are a lot of handguns out there that that carry more rounds than my puny compact. I also care a .380, which only has six rounds. I am wondering how "common" it is that handguns out there have more than ten round capacities? I would think it is quite common, it would seem to me that most guns people own and carry today have magazines with a ten+ capacity.
Would you think that "most" handguns out there being used for personal and self defense exceed ten rounds?
Comments
Would you think that "most" handguns out there being used for personal and self defense exceed ten rounds?
Yes.
Some carry handguns that are 18 - 19 rounds.
COB
Always in the car is a full size pistol with a magazine capacity of 17. Sometimes that one is on my belt along with two more magazines.
So I'd have to do some picking and choosing to say what an average is. Keeping it simple though the average between the two guns rounds out to 12.
I just don't know what I am going to do to offset the maximum allowed capacity ... but I know that the doc is really pushing me to lose the extra weight that I have put on since this magazine ban talk started.
[:p]
I think that, by the time the on-gun round count goes beyond twenty or so, the actual number is a moot point.
Besides that, I fail to see anything in the Constitution that mentions round count. Justice Scalia is simply trying to twist the Constitution so that it fits his views, instead of having the courage to face the facts that many USG officials are guilty of treason for their attempt to violate the Constitution.
Besides that, I fail to see anything in the Constitution that mentions round count. Justice Scalia is simply trying to twist the Constitution so that it fits his views, instead of having the courage to face the facts that many USG officials are guilty of treason for their attempt to violate the Constitution.
Scalia DID NOT say anything about round count being constitutional. THose on the gun control are saying that Scalia, by way of his decision in Heller, says that magazine restrictions are constitutional. Heller does not say anything like that.
Justice Scalia was giving his opinion in a non-judicial forum, but anytime a Supreme gives his personal opinion, everybody writes it down as a possible clue to how he would rule if that subject comes before him. I think it is also fair to suggest that his opinions (non-caps) are as based on his understanding of the Constitution as his Opinions (note caps).
He seems to me to be suggesting that what is commonly used by people, should be allowed and (it follows) what is not commonly used should be dis-allowed.
I stand by my previous statement because the 2A is not weapon or capacity-dependent. Any attempt to make it so is in opposition to the 'shall not be infringed' wording.
I hope I have clarified my earlier statements.
Salzo,
He seems to me to be suggesting that what is commonly used by people, should be allowed and (it follows) what is not commonly used should be dis-allowed..
And that is the point as to why I started this thread. I do not view the Supreme court as the supreme decider as to what is constitutional; there are certainly aspects of the decision that I find questionable. But in reading Heller, I do not see bans on magazine capacities as constitutional, nor do I see a ban on AR type weapons as constitutional, as the gun grabbers proclaim.
"Scalia says banning assault weapons is constitutional;Scalia says Obamas proposed magazine ban is constitutional" is what I am hearing from the gun grabbers.
What Heller does say, is that weapons that are commonly found in the home, or commonly carried, are protected. If the majority of handguns in use have magazine capacities larger than ten rounds, I do not see how they are not protected by the second amendment (via Heller), because they are "common". Nor do I see AR type weapons as not being protected by the second (via Heller), because there are millions of ARs out there owned by millions of gun owners.
Apparently Scalia knows about guns, and the one gun that he sights as being "questionable" as far as being protected by the constitution is the M16; a select fire or fully automatic weapon. He makes no mention of AR types. He mentions a rifle(M16) that is already essentially illegal- yet the gun grabbers say that Scalia, via Heller says that banning ARs is constitutional-and I do not see that in the decision.
Also, the few times I have heard Scalia speak about the second and what is protected, he is quite vague, but sights weapons such as "bazzokas", "tanks", "nuclear launchers", and "head axes (thats my favorite)" as being questionable. I have not heard him say anything about whether AR's or hicap mags as questionable- unkike the gun grabbers, Scalia knows guns, and does not use terms such as "assault rifles", and "automatic weapons" to describe M-14 type rifles.
I fear any statement that could possibly be twisted, will be twisted. We are still in what has been termed the 'soft war' for the future of our country.
One difference between the progressives and the constitutionists (for want of better terms)is the progressives will fight the 'hard war' with surrogates and the constitutionists will fight for themselves, like the founders did.
Terry