A judge in Washington state ruled Monday that the state’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines is unconstitutional — but the law will remain in effect while the state appeals the decision.
Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Gary Bashor ruled that Washington’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds violates both the Washington state and U.S. constitutions, The Seattle Times reported. He issued an immediate injunction to stop the state from enforcing the ban, which has been in place since 2022.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed an emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court seeking to keep the law in effect during the appeals process. That was granted Monday evening and the ban will stay in place for now.
In granting the emergency appeal, Washington State Supreme Court commissioner Michael Johnston wrote that he considered “the debatable nature of the factual and legal issues raised in this case, and the public safety issues concerning the proliferation of large capacity magazines.”
30 rounders are not going to make the difference in mass shootings. If you can carry plenty of 30s you can carry even more 10s. You’re not limited to pockets and what you can carry with your hands, chest rigs with pouches exist.
How about we put serious efforts into gun control that actually does something meaningful instead of doing literally anything for the sake of doing something
The thought is that since you’ll have to stop more often to reload, it presents an opportunity for someone to take down the shooter.
But yeah, we need to address the root causes of socioeconomic inequality and lack of mental healthcare, not just try to legislate the symptoms away.
Didn’t stop/slow columbine very much
Wasn’t Columbine a failed bombing that also happened to involve guns? Or was that another one?
The studies that I have seen said that the 1994 AWB had questionable if any effects, but that the magazine limits showed a reduction in violence. It wasn’t huge, but it was something.
Standard capacity magazines are in common use for lawful purposes. An outright ban is going to continue to fail to stick.
So, how was the ten year ban in 1994 allowed? Just because it was a temporary law?
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The ban expired in September 2004 per a sunset provision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban#United_StatesHeller vs DC happened since then:
The Heller test looks at what arms are “in common use” today, not in the past. If semiautomatic rifles and handguns that accept detachable magazines are in common use today, they are protected. Their ubiquity, and their being “in common use,” confirms their protected status under the Second Amendment.
Which amendment, due to their ubiquity, confirms the protected status of mass shootings?
LOL I guess my sarcasm didn’t come through :D
As one might expect, mass shootings are decidedly not legal.
But which amendment makes it that way? Huh? Huh? Huh?
“Thou shall not kill”!
It’s really thou shalt not murder. There’s always war. War never changes.
War… What is it good for.
Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022) were not decided yet. It’s impossible to overstate how significantly those decisions change gun laws in this country.
The existence of a law isn’t enough to support the constitutionality of a law. There has been quite a few patently unconstitutional laws enacted. Like the Sedition Act of 1918.
The Founding Fathers wanted Americans to have the right to shoot as many bullets as they want as quickly as they want wherever they want. They definitely foresaw high-capacity magazines when drafting the Bill of Rights.
The Girandoni air rifle used by the Louis and Clark Expedition had a capacity of 21 rounds. This idea the framers had no idea one could use a magazine is ahistorical.
