Guns

Gun Rights: Will SCOTUS Block Implementation of High-Capacity Magazine Ban?

|

The gun rights case Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale has just taken a very interesting turn. Last week the plaintiffs in that dispute, who are challenging a Sunnyvale, California, ordinance banning the possession of high-capacity gun magazines, failed to persuade both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to block the ban from going into effect while their Second Amendment suit moves forward. Yesterday, those plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (who fields such requests originating from the 9th Circuit) to stop the law, asking him to "simply preserve Applicants' rights while the case is decided on the merits."

Something in that emergency motion appears to have caught Kennedy's attention, because earlier today the justice asked the city of Sunnyvale to submit a response to him by 3 P.M. on Wednesday. Is Kennedy seriously entertaining the idea of putting the ban on hold while the case is fought out in court? We should have an answer later this week.

NEXT: Americans Are Less Enthusiastic About War and 'Leaders,' and This Makes David Brooks Sad

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lets hope so.

    1. BUT WHAT ABOUT NEWTOWN YOU MONSTER YOU WANT CHILDREN TO DIE LIKE SHEEP AT SLAUGHTER BECAUSE OF YOUR SUPPOSED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BUT YOUR RIGHTS STOP AT MURDERING CHILDREN AND TEACHERS!!!!

      1. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
        GUNS FOR THE GUN NUTS

        1. Please, only the blood of a worthy foe will slake.

      2. Ignorant and angry. Now that’s a deadly combination.

  2. Nobody NEEDS a high capacity magazine! We should ban all guns that can hold more than one bullet! People only need derringers!

    1. You jest, but you’re underestimating the effectiveness of Patton’s Third Derringer Army on the western front.

      1. That was artillery.

  3. Answer: it depends, which side of the bed did kennedy wake on this morning?

  4. Hmm, I’m no lawyer (or Doctor), but given Heller, I fear these mag cap bans fall under the ‘reasonable restrictions’ loophole.

    1. Yeah, I forgot about the secret part of the Bill of Rights that says “subject of course to whatever restrictions the government considers ‘reasonable'”

    2. I can see why restrictions on machine guns and grenades count as “reasonable,” but not standard magazines on semi-auto guns.

      1. Reasonable would be making sure that the grenade buyer had someplace to store them where an accidental explosion would not result in fatalities.

    3. This has been discussed at Volokh conspiracy and Volokh himself made the same argument. This is only a minor restriction and thus it is constitutional. I disagree: it may be only a minor restriction but it serves no government interest whatsoever. It is a local law that applies only to Sunnyvale residents – how many criminals will be affected by it even if it works as advertised (which it won’t)? Thus in the equation we have minor inconvenience on one side but zero on the other. That shouldn’t pass any level of scrutiny.

      1. I disagree: it may be only a minor restriction but it serves no government interest whatsoever.

        Try telling the government that. “Government interest” is the bullshittiest of the bullshit concepts like… EVAR.

        The government getting to decide if it has a compelling interest to do anything is grossly undemocratic. Like if Paul gets to decide Paul gets to do something if he has a ‘compelling interest’, guess how often Paul will deny himself something that he wants?

        The ‘compelling interest’ in these restrictions is “reduction of gun violence”. They don’t have to make any scientific connection to lower round count and gun violence. They say it is so, and so it is so.

        1. Government always has an interest in compelling us to act a certain way. And therein lies the problem.

      2. The intended role of the militia is to support the legitimate state, that mythical creature that’s the servant of the citizen rather than his master, during periods of invasion or revolt.

        How does forcing your militia to have use less effective weapons in your own defense constitute a legitimate interest of the (legitimate) state?

        1. Not only that, but the practical effect is nil: making those rare mass-murderers reload more often will have little if any effect, even assuming mass-murderers are going to follow laws about magazine capacity.

    4. Unless they are “in common use at the time”.

  5. The government has all sorts of “compelling” interests. But that is why we have Constitutions (state and federal). They are checks on the exercise of power, saying “this is the line. Don’t step over it.”

  6. A judge doing the right thing concerning law abiding people and firearms. What a novel idea!

  7. Whatever SCOTUS decides to do – the people have spoken….

    300,000 in Connecticut say HELLL NO……..

    YOU GRABBERS WILL NOT HAVE OUR GUNS!!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.