[1024Megabytes]

by S.H. Blannelberry on February 23rd 2021

The Vermont Supreme Court last Friday upheld the state's ban on standard capacity magazines.

The court found that the law, which restricts magazine capacity to 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for long guns, is a "reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense."

Signed into law by Governor Phil Scott in 2018, the magazine ban was part of a larger, national anti-gun push in the wake of the mass killing at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Scott and the Democratically-controlled legislature also, at that time, criminalized private transfers, prohibited the possession of bump stocks, allowed for the seizure of firearms from anyone deemed an extreme risk, and outlawed the purchase of firearms for adults under the age of 21.

Max Misch, an Iraq war veteran, challenged the constitutionality of the magazine restriction after he was cited in 2019 for buying two 30-round rifle magazines in New Hampshire and bringing them back to Vermont.

In its 51-page ruling, the court examined Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution, the provision dealing with one's right to keep and bear arms, concluding it "protects a limited right to individual self-defense" and is "subject to reasonable regulation."

"Applying this standard," the justices went on to say, "we conclude that (the law) satisfies the reasonable-regulation test because the statute has a valid purpose of reducing the lethality of mass shootings, the Legislature was within its authority in concluding that the regulation promotes this purpose, and the statute leaves ample means for Vermonters to exercise their right to bear arms in self-defense."

Governor Scott briefly commented Friday on the ruling. "That doesn't surprise me," he told a reporter who had informed him of the decision. "We thought it was constitutional from the start."

Read more at: https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/vermont-supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-standard-capacity-magazines/

 

[1024Megabytes]

Vermont used to be one of the best states for citizens in their 2nd Amendment rights. Sadly this is not true anymore. Full capacity magazines are too good for the peasants of Vermont now according to Vermont Congress, Governor and the Courts. Likely too many people from New York State invaded Vermont and are slowly changing the laws to be more like New York.

 

[Visper]

Vermont used to be one of the best states for citizens in their 2nd Amendment rights. Sadly this is not true anymore. Full capacity magazines are too good for the peasants of Vermont now according to Vermont Congress, Governor and the Courts. Likely too many people from New York State invaded Vermont and are slowly changing the laws to be more like New York.

Yup, feel your pain on that, pray you don't have Jersey people invading too!!! At least I hope not...

But yeah, it is ridiculous. Love how they move because of the politics in their home state, then try to make it just like the one they left... confuses the crap out of me...

 

[TheLASwamp]

The Bill of Rights has been a thorn in the side of the democrats for 60 years. They can't get rid of it, so they are trying everything under the sun to get around it. "Reasonable Regulation" is simply their latest angle of attack on citizen rights. If they can't do away with the 2A, they will create so many loopholes and exemptions that there will eventually be no way to exercise the right. That's their goal. This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court, and we're going to have to hope they have our backs.

Heller was a huge setback for them. They wanted so badly for the Court to rule that the right to bear arms is a "collective" right, not a personal right. So now they are going to try to regulate the right out of existence. They are vile and evil, and we will allow them their agenda to our great peril.

 

[Hipointer]

The Bill of Rights has been a thorn in the side of the democrats for 60 years. They can't get rid of it, so they are trying everything under the sun to get around it. "Reasonable Regulation" is simply their latest angle of attack on citizen rights. If they can't do away with the 2A, they will create so many loopholes and exemptions that there will eventually be no way to exercise the right. That's their goal. This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court, and we're going to have to hope they have our backs.

Heller was a huge setback for them. They wanted so badly for the Court to rule that the right to bear arms is a "collective" right, not a personal right. So now they are going to try to regulate the right out of existence. They are vile and evil, and we will allow them their agenda to our great peril.

Exactly...good post.

 

[ajole]

Sounds like a group of justices don’t really understand the Constitution at all.

 

[SDProf]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?

There's no demonstrable proof that mag limits would limit the carnage in a mass shooting. Most are such a slow rate of fire that mag changes are no problem. And with just a bit of practice, mag changes can be so quick one might not notice the break in fire. Plenty of demonstrations of this available on the interwebz.

 

[Rachgier]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?

There's no demonstrable proof that mag limits would limit the carnage in a mass shooting. Most are such a slow rate of fire that mag changes are no problem. And with just a bit of practice, mag changes can be so quick one might not notice the break in fire. Plenty of demonstrations of this available on the interwebz.

The caveat to your argument is that if mag capacity doesn't matter, why do you care if they restrict them?

And before you counter with a "my rights" argument, they've already queued up the your rights cover firearms and not magazines logic.

Then they'll start high fiving themselves after a, but if it saves just one child.

 

[TheLASwamp]

The caveat to your argument is that if mag capacity doesn't matter, why do you care if they restrict them?

And before you counter with a "my rights" argument, they've already queued up the your rights cover firearms and not magazines logic.

Then they'll start high fiving themselves after a, but if it saves just one child.

Because they aren't going to stop there. Their goal is not to limit mags to 10 rounds. It's simply the next stop on the path to criminalizing private gun ownership. Or, to make gun ownership so difficult and expensive that most people won't be able to exercise their rights to it. Democrats are not against guns. Their own private security details are armed to the teeth.

No, they don't want anyone else to be able to own guns. Elites are like that. They want their exclusive club that they have and no one else can join. Guns represent power to the citizens. It's our last line of defense against a rogue government that has turned to absolute control by tyranny. Which is exactly why they want it taken away from us all. To do what they plan to do to us, they need a helpless, defenseless population. They need to be the only group of people with access to guns, which will then be used to inflict their will on everyone else. Just as it is in other communist countries. Democrats understand that power flows from the barrel of a gun. That's why they are so obsessed with making sure we have none with which to challenge theirs.

As a country, we'd better wake up.

 

[Rachgier]

Because they aren't going to stop there. Their goal is not to limit mags to 10 rounds. It's simply the next stop on the path to criminalizing private gun ownership. Or, to make gun ownership so difficult and expensive that most people won't be able to exercise their rights to it. Democrats are not against guns. Their own private security details are armed to the teeth.

No, they don't want anyone else to be able to own guns. Elites are like that. They want their exclusive club that they have and no one else can join. Guns represent power to the citizens. It's our last line of defense against a rogue government that has turned to absolute control by tyranny. Which is exactly why they want it taken away from us all. To do what they plan to do to us, they need a helpless, defenseless population. They need to be the only group of people with access to guns, which will then be used to inflict their will on everyone else. Just as it is in other communist countries. Democrats understand that power flows from the barrel of a gun. That's why they are so obsessed with making sure we have none with which to challenge theirs.

As a country, we'd better wake up.

You think the country is still asleep after last election? Why is that always the default response? "Wake up 'Muricah!" The people who care, one way or the other, are already awake. The people who don't care, won't no matter how hard you try.

If gun owners want to keep their guns, y'all need to come up with something better than; "shall not be infringed" and "well statistically you can't prove more bullets means more bodies in a mass shooting event."

Career liars calling out career liars for twisting the truth to suit their political careers. That's all politics is.

 

[TheLASwamp]

You think the country is still asleep after last election? Why is that always the default response? "Wake up 'Muricah!" The people who care, one way or the other, are already awake. The people who don't care, won't no matter how hard you try.

If gun owners want to keep their guns, y'all need to come up with something better than; "shall not be infringed" and "well statistically you can't prove more bullets means more bodies in a mass shooting event."

Career liars calling out career liars for twisting the truth to suit their political careers. That's all politics is.

I think there are still lots of people who don't believe the democrats are actually going to try to disarm the country. The democrats just stole a presidential election. Sure, people are unhappy about it. But other than having people complain about it on the internet, the democrats are no worse for wear having done it. The same attitude seems to infest an awful lot of people when it comes to gun ownership and possession.

The real rub is that those who seek to disarm us already know we're right. Attacking gun rights isn't going to stop, or curb, violent crime. You can't prevent drunk driving by taking cars away from sober drivers. The sober drivers are not the problem so focusing on them won't be a solution. Same logic applies to lawful gun owners.

I don't know what the solution is, although I worry about what's going to happen as democrats continue to back us into the corner inch by inch. Sooner or later, we'll have to either give up and give in... or say no and thrown down the gauntlet.

 

[TNTRAILERTRASH]

IIRC SanBernadeno was done with 10rd mags. 16-18 killed, AR15's with disabled bullet buttons.

Parkland was done with 10's or 20's. The 30's wouldn't fit in his back pack.

 

[TheLASwamp]

IIRC SanBernadeno was done with 10rd mags. 16-18 killed, AR15's with disabled bullet buttons.

Parkland was done with 10's or 20's. The 30's wouldn't fit in his back pack.

Someone who means to do harm is going to do it. Mag limits aren't going to stop mass shootings. Murder is already illegal. How murder is committed doesn't make it any more illegal than it already is.

You can't control evil with legislation, limits, prohibitions, or bans. Cain killed Able with a rock. It's a heart thing, not a gun thing. Guns are just the scapegoat for those who seek to take what's left of our freedoms and liberties.

 

[SDProf]

The caveat to your argument is that if mag capacity doesn't matter, why do you care if they restrict them?

And before you counter with a "my rights" argument, they've already queued up the your rights cover firearms and not magazines logic.

Then they'll start high fiving themselves after a, but if it saves just one child.

Their reason is to stop mass violence. One who plans such will carry spare mags, be it 10 rounders or a 50 round drum. They plan on doing max damage.

What about you, in your home, when the bump in the night comes? Will you don a vest with spare mags, grab your battle belt? No, most home defenders grab the one gun at hand with what it has in it. Would you rather face several home invaders with a limited 10 round mag, or a stadard 15-17 rounder?

There was a video (which seems to have disappeared) that came out shortly after NY's SAFE act, with the 7 round limit. Multiple home invaders. Defending dad took out the first two with all 7 rounds he had, then the third guy appears.

Yes, that bad law has since been made less bad by going back to 10 round limit. But is that enough to subdue 2 or 3 or 4 invaders in your home?

Who the <blankety blank> is the government to tell you how much of anything is too much? Would you stand by if they said you could only have an 80hp car? A 3cuft fridge?

Oh, and the saves one child trope? In almost all cases, more usually die from those things than that one child. In this arena, certainly.

 

[ajole]

I don't know what the solution is.....

Of course you do. So did the Founding Fathers. You just don't want it to be the solution.
People need to wake up to THAT reality.

Their reason is to stop mass violence.

That's not their reason.

That's their sorry assed illogical lame excuse, their rationale for doing what they want, which is bypassing the constitution and limiting your rights, to gain power.

 

[Keystone]

A disarmed society is an easily controlled society.
If these F-heads are concerned about the children:
"In 2018, almost 2,500 teens in the United States aged 13–19 were killed, and about 285,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes."
So what is the governments plan to protect them?
Is it:
A) Ban teenage drivers
B) Ban cars
C) Give 16 y.o. the right to vote
D) Ban guns

 

[TheLASwamp]

Of course you do. So did the Founding Fathers. You just don't want it to be the solution.
People need to wake up to THAT reality.

No one with even half a brain "wants" that to have to be the solution. The question is what will happen if it becomes the only solution. Because if it gets there, things will have become extremely bad.

 

[ajole]

No one with even half a brain "wants" that to have to be the solution. The question is what will happen if it becomes the only solution. Because if it gets there, things will have become extremely bad.

You're right. No one should want it.

But that doesn't mean you don't know it.

No one wants to amputate a limb or discipline their children either.

But some things have to be done.

 

[TheLASwamp]

You're right. No one should want it.

But that doesn't mean you don't know it.

No one wants to amputate a limb or discipline their children either.

But some things have to be done.

As a free country, we've never faced a situation where our own government is truly at the edge, poised to start trying to take major civil liberties away from us. I say start... of course, last year they began a massive governmental overreach with all of the Covid lockdowns, mandates, and restrictions. The gun laws being proposed now are the most draconian ever proposed. And that's just the beginning for them.

It's hard to wrap your mind around the possibility that we, as a nation, may have to push back on a government that's getting entirely too comfortable with their ever-increasing power grabs. At least the democrats aren't trying to hide their intentions. A disarmed population is a compliant population. Politicians no longer believe they work for the people. They believe the people exist to be ruled. It's troubling they have managed to get as far with it as they have with so little resistance.

 

[ajole]

"It's hard to wrap your mind around the possibility that we, as a nation, may have to push back on a government that's getting entirely too comfortable with their ever-increasing power grabs. "

It's not that hard for some of us....