Rhode Island Magazine Ban - 6 Months To Surrender 'High Capacity Mags'

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Seems Rhode Island is making it a felony to own (no grandfathering) high capacity magazines over 10 rounds. Has this been done before where they are making you a felon if you don't turn in what you have? Also, the question I have for anyone who might live here or know firsthand, I seem to have found someone suggesting that AR-15 high capacity magazines had already been banned there prior to this but I cannot verify this from any sources. So as I understand it one can still purchase these magazines (such as 30 rd. AR-15 magazines) but will be forced to relinquish them or risk jailtime if caught come later this year.

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...capacity-mags/

[Duke]

100% fuck this guy.

Goyette said, “You have to make sure that each procedure that you do to any magazine is only going to accept the ten rounds. If you push [the spring] hard enough and it accepts 11 rounds, you’re a felon.”

[Borderland]

Seems Rhode Island is making it a felony to own (no grandfathering) high capacity magazines over 10 rounds. Has this been done before where they are making you a felon if you don't turn in what you have? Also, the question I have for anyone who might live here or know firsthand, I seem to have found someone suggesting that AR-15 high capacity magazines had already been banned there prior to this but I cannot verify this from any sources. So as I understand it one can still purchase these magazines (such as 30 rd. AR-15 magazines) but will be forced to relinquish them or risk jailtime if caught come later this year.

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...capacity-mags/

I don't keep up with the state laws in the NE so I can't comment on this. Too lazy to research it also.

About 10 states have magazine restrictions now including one that just went into effect in my state.

The difference with this one (RI) and ours is if we purchased the magazine before July it's legal to possess and use. We just can't sell or transfer them in this state.

I thought RI was more lenient than that.

[HeavyDuty]

The whole time I lived in NH it felt like barbarians were at the gate… case in point. Fuck them, they aren’t even an island.

[RoyGBiv]

"Commonly owned".... Calling Justice Thomas...

[elsquid]

Has this been done before where they are making you a felon if you don't turn in what you have?

California…

The ban:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_C...Proposition_63

The court case:

https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

Current status:

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/scotus-v...-bonta-ruling/

— Michael

[JRB]

"Commonly owned".... Calling Justice Thomas...

Why? Due respect to Justice Thomas, but he wouldn't be my first pick for a statement on that. I'd expect him to put some blundering mistake of a caveat in there that would be unreasonably manipulated just like the 'sensitive places' statement he made recently in regards to CCW.

[Hot Sauce]

Why? Due respect to Justice Thomas, but he wouldn't be my first pick for a statement on that. I'd expect him to put some blundering mistake of a caveat in there that would be unreasonably manipulated just like the 'sensitive places' statement he made recently in regards to CCW.

The way I read it, the sensitive places statement included examples and did not just leave it a vaguery to be interpreted willy nilly.

[JRB]

The way I read it, the sensitive places statement included examples and did not just leave it a vaguery to be interpreted willy nilly.

If that were true, the new amendment to NYC's CCW laws going into effect 01 SEP wouldn't exempt pretty much everywhere you'd want to go.

[Hot Sauce]

If that were true, the new amendment to NYC's CCW laws going into effect 01 SEP wouldn't exempt pretty much everywhere you'd want to go.

Not mutually exclusive. The new legislation (primarily state law, not NYC law) is an obvious end run around the SCOTUS decision and will very likely get challenged. The real test will be if it will be batted down again at that point.

From decision text:

Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitiveplaces such as schools and government buildings.” 554U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” whereweapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are alsoaware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “SensitivePlaces” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244–247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled thatthese locations were “sensitive places” where arms carryingcould be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new andanalogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible...

But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail. below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island. of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

In bold, that's pretty much exactly what New York state did, because New York gonna New York. I'm not a big Thomas worshipper, but I don't see him as being the one to blame here.