Certain provisions of the SAFE act shot down...

[TGS]

Surprised I didn't find anything on this forum concerning the recent developments.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/sa...ts-embarrassin

[BaiHu]

Saw it in a different publication. Looks like they just dumped the capriciousness of the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[TGS]

Saw it in a different publication. Looks like they just dumped the capriciousness of the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Given that it was nixed because of it being arbitrary, wouldn't that also make the NY's 10 round limit virtually null and void even though they haven't fought that specific piece of legislation yet? There's already lots of non-compliance with the SAFE Act (both by citizens and local/county LE), so...

[BaiHu]

Good question above my pay grade.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[TR675]

IIRC, the court said that the 10 rounds magazine restriction was a reasonable restriction passing intermediate scrutiny for public safety reasons.

The court then ruled that allowing 10 round magazines but forbidding people to load with more than 7 rounds is arbitrary, in specifically mentioning that the restriction puts citizens who follow the law at a disadvantage compared to bad guys who load to the full ten. Everyone can hash out some of the possible inconsistencies in that train of thought on their own.

I would classify this ruling as squarely within the mainstream of current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, with the caveats that I took only a very brief 10,000 foot view of the opinion and also don't do constitutional law for a living.

[TR675]

Interesting article from John Lott on this ruling; found the link at David Hardy's excellent Of Arms and the Law blog.

I'm not a Lott fan, but he often says something worth thinking about. It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of the case; I haven't found one yet.