Rhode Island 10 Round mag limit lawsuit

[EJFudd]

I absolutely think the wording was intentional, as a sneaky attempt at outlawing all modern semi-automatic firearms (with a detachable magazine).


Frank

I don't doubt that some ultra-crazy anti-2A pol(s) down in RI maybe felt that way and slipped the words in there in the "fog of DimocRAT law-making" to be cute. How 'bout this: Can we place a bet on whether or not ALL modern semi-auto firearms with detachable magazines regardless of magazine capacity do end up banned in RI as the result of the "removable floor" provision? I think it's a pretty safe bet (that they won't) and I could really use the money.

 

[hennypenny]

Can't say whether or not a successful outcome in Rhode Island would be applicable to MA. Think a victory there would be a good start and a wake-up call for the rest within the First Circuit. As others have said, many little battles need to be won, God willing.

 

[Tartakovsky]

Can't say whether or not a successful outcome in Rhode Island would be applicable to MA. Think a victory there would be a good start and a wake-up call for the rest within the First Circuit. As others have said, many little battles need to be won, God willing.

If it makes it to the First Circuit and they strike down a magazine capacity ban, it will apply to MA as well.

 

[cathouse01]

NYC dominates NYS politics. 43% of the population lives in New York City. Add the liberal counties surrounding it and they determine the politics of the state. You're right that they get the politicians they deserve despite the more conservative upstate voters.

Boston Metro population in 2021: 4,315,000
Massachusetts population in 2021: 6,984,723
Percentage of Massachusetts population living in the Boston Metro area: 61.7%.
Massachusetts is even more heavily biased by the one large metro area. The state is run for the benefit of Boston. Those of us in the western half of the state are well aware of it.

 

[MaverickNH]

I don’t know what to call such Bruen-motivated new gun laws. Pyrrhic Gun Laws, perhaps. Of all the useless guns laws, NY, DE, RI are passing new laws that only infringe on rights of honest, law-abiding citizen and do nothing to diminish crime.

When it takes a bunch of anti-gun academics to do some shameful statistics to say gun laws work, when nobody seems to notice crime going down, it’s only the anti-gun cities/states that point to the studies for support in passing such laws. In this case, these states just passed new gun laws for spite, with no idea how to implement or enforce the laws, many of which will cost $Millions yearly, should they actually look to implement them.

 

[Picton]

Boston Metro population in 2021: 4,315,000
Massachusetts population in 2021: 6,984,723
Percentage of Massachusetts population living in the Boston Metro area: 61.7%.
Massachusetts is even more heavily biased by the one large metro area. The state is run for the benefit of Boston. Those of us in the western half of the state are well aware of it.

Yeah, but everyplace in the world works like that.

If you're a Californian living north of Sacramento, a Frenchman living between Paris and Marseille, or a Japanese person living on Hokkaido, you're up the same creek.

So part of it has to be advocacy or education so that the cities know how important the hinterlands are. This is something the French at least try to do, by striking every five or six weeks, but then that causes its own problems.

 

[Picton]

I don’t know what to call such Bruen-motivated new gun laws. Pyrrhic Gun Laws, perhaps. Of all the useless guns laws, NY, DE, RI are passing new laws that only infringe on rights of honest, law-abiding citizen and do nothing to diminish crime.

When it takes a bunch of anti-gun academics to do some shameful statistics to say gun laws work, when nobody seems to notice crime going down, it’s only the anti-gun cities/states that point to the studies for support in passing such laws. In this case, these states just passed new gun laws for spite, with no idea how to implement or enforce the laws, many of which will cost $Millions yearly, should they actually look to implement them.

I've had NBC10 on in the background all morning, and they're covering last night's shooting; whoever wrote the copy made sure to mention that MA, "despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the country," is seeing a spate of shootings lately.

They just don't work.

 

[Broc]

You know what’s depressing about the battle though: Democrats create, pass and enact new state laws at the speed of single-digit days….while court battles to prove unconstitutionality take years.

From a legal fight perspective, we’re outgunned.

This is why, and I said this in another thread and got shut down, I think when a law is unconstitutional and is going to court, it should not be enforceable until the court makes a decision.

Someone is going to say "well, someone with money can keep this in court for decades, keep bringing it up". Yes and no, it would basically get to a point when if the court says it is valid, it gets enforced then people can appeal it.

Might be a sh*t way of doing it, I dont know. But it is better than laws being enacted in days and taking years and a sh*t ton of money to get shut down.

Would force people to be more careful.

 

[Knob Creek]

Boston Metro population in 2021: 4,315,000
Massachusetts population in 2021: 6,984,723
Percentage of Massachusetts population living in the Boston Metro area: 61.7%.
Massachusetts is even more heavily biased by the one large metro area. The state is run for the benefit of Boston. Those of us in the western half of the state are well aware of it.

There are two Massachusetts. Divided by Route 495.

 

[bigbravehog]

I was pondering that myself....

I've given enough money to them for 20+ years. Time o use it for something useful. Seems FPC and SAF are doing most of the work

 

[safetyfirst2125]

This is why, and I said this in another thread and got shut down, I think when a law is unconstitutional and is going to court, it should not be enforceable until the court makes a decision.

Someone is going to say "well, someone with money can keep this in court for decades, keep bringing it up". Yes and no, it would basically get to a point when if the court says it is valid, it gets enforced then people can appeal it.

Might be a sh*t way of doing it, I dont know. But it is better than laws being enacted in days and taking years and a sh*t ton of money to get shut down.

Would force people to be more careful.

Yep. Having said that, Democrats were lightning fast filing injunctions on Trump’s EO’s (days) in friendly court districts, so it does seem if there’s a will there’s a way.

Republicans have no will to fight. Lawfare (except perhaps for a few like DeSantis) is avoided unless a citizen case is filed and has some success on its own, then they happily cheer from the sidelines.

It’s Mr Rogers V. Al-Qaeda.

 

[PappyM3]

If it makes it to the First Circuit and they strike down a magazine capacity ban, it will apply to MA as well.

A positive ruling could be narrow, with wording to strike down the ban purely because of the lack of grandfathering. Without even getting into the constitutionality of the mag cap to begin with. In that case, MA would not benefit.

 

[drgrant]

Might be a sh*t way of doing it, I dont know. But it is better than laws being enacted in days and taking years and a sh*t ton of money to get shut down.

Problem is RKBA is "right of the second class"* so judges usually won't just run right out and go "bam, injunction, get f***ed until the cases are settled law" against legislator
a**h***s.

Basically injunctions dont or rarely get allowed "because guns". This is done on purpose, obviously.


*yes, I realize in Bruen, Clarence Thomas asserted that this shouldnt be the case, but that doesnt mean that other judges are going to respect his position....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Problem is RKBA is "right of the second class"* so judges usually won't just run right out and go "bam, injunction, get f***ed until the cases are settled law" against legislator
a**h***s.

Basically injunctions dont or rarely get allowed "because guns". This is done on purpose, obviously.


*yes, I realize in Bruen, Clarence Thomas asserted that this shouldnt be the case, but that doesnt mean that other judges are going to respect his position....

The legal reason is to avoid "irreparable harm".

The courts view is that allowing a gun/mag ban to be lifted pending trial (and sometimes even appeal) poses the risk of long term damage because if the state loses, it will be damaged by persons taking advantage of the ruling that may be eventually be overturned.. If the state loses, the harm is consider "reparable" as the plaintiffs can "repair" the harm by buying the formerly prohibited mags.

Sometimes, judges will stay their own ruling (and not just on gun issues) pending appeal to protect the right of the losing party to avoid "irreparable harm". A good example would be forcing a business to reveal confidential information in public - like forcing Ticketmaster to disclose where it gets its inventory from.

 

[pinefd]

A positive ruling could be narrow, with wording to strike down the ban purely because of the lack of grandfathering. Without even getting into the constitutionality of the mag cap to begin with. In that case, MA would not benefit.

Exactly my point from earlier in this thread:

I think a good part of the argument on our side, and what contributes to this ban being unconstitutional, is the fact that there's no grandfathering, and no compensation for forfeited magazines; it's a an outright confiscation. To me, that makes the ruling potentially less applicable to other states, although that's just my layman's opinion.


Frank

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The NYS legislature has been doing this kind of thing for years. This wasn't a surprise to any of us. And the good people of NYS can vote those dicks out of office anytime they want to.

They've got the government they deserve. Most of the people in that state clearly don't mind what goes on in Albany, just like most of the people in MA don't mind what goes on up on Beacon Hill. The bottom line is, there are a lot of people we share citizenship with who just disagree with us, flat-out.

The only time I know of that MA has done this was with the upskirt photo bill.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If it makes it to the First Circuit and they strike down a magazine capacity ban, it will apply to MA as well.

Oxymoron alert.

 

[drgrant]

The legal reason is to avoid "irreparable harm".

The courts view is that allowing a gun/mag ban to be lifted pending trial (and sometimes even appeal) poses the risk of long term damage because if the state loses, it will be damaged by persons taking advantage of the ruling that may be eventually be overturned.. If the state loses, the harm is consider "reparable" as the plaintiffs can "repair" the harm by buying the formerly prohibited mags.

Sometimes, judges will stay their own ruling (and not just on gun issues) pending appeal to protect the right of the losing party to avoid "irreparable harm". A good example would be forcing a business to reveal confidential information in public - like forcing Ticketmaster to disclose where it gets its inventory from.

Yeah but you know damn well the way they define "harm" is prejudiced because guns/gun owners are the harmed party with these shit laws.

It's not just magazines either, its poessession of the magazines and the felonies attached to them etc. There is "harm" in a party getting charged with an F bomb that
otherwise wouldn't be had a real injunction been in place. I would define a felony rap as "irreperable harm".

 

[GaryO]

You can't expect RI politicians to work on trivial things like constitutional rights when they have more important things to do.

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1544131356526948352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544131356526948352%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=about%3Ablank

 

[upcountry]

Good lord, what was that?

 

[T-Unit]

A positive ruling could be narrow, with wording to strike down the ban purely because of the lack of grandfathering. Without even getting into the constitutionality of the mag cap to begin with. In that case, MA would not benefit.

The 1st Circuit would have to walk a tightrope doing that because if they construe mag bans as being ok with grandfathering and the 9th Circuit says all mag bans are unconstitutional then that sets up a potential challenge for the Supreme Court because we'd have two Circuits saying conflicting things.

I agree that the 1st is going to try to strike down the law on lack of grandfathering, but IDK what the 9th is going to rule. The outcome is either mag bans are okay with grandfathering or any bans on mags is unconstitutional.

I can't see any of the circuits saying outright bans on mags is okay because that's ripe for a Scotus Smackdown.

 

[teamRR]

I'll say if I had my choice between modification being legal and grandfathering I'd take the former. If for instance your 20 round pistol mag just needed a minus 10 round follower swapped in, or a pin, or whatever, to make it only capable as-is of holding 10 - at least you can source new reliable mags that can be as easily converted back.

But either way it's a crock of shit that does nothing and I hope to see all this mag limit business thrown out.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'll say if I had my choice between modification being legal and grandfathering I'd take the former. If for instance your 20 round pistol mag just needed a minus 10 round follower swapped in, or a pin, or whatever, to make it only capable as-is of holding 10 - at least you can source new reliable mags that can be as easily converted back.

But either way it's a crock of shit that does nothing and I hope to see all this mag limit business thrown out.

The problem is that the laws aren't written to allow for an easily swapped follower and they also would not allow you to source that new reliable mag since it would be prohibited in that state. In the context of Bruen, I find this whole thing totally disgusting ... it is OBVIOUS that these laws are unconstitutional, everyone knows it .... but crickets ... that's all I hear. Can't even find a court date in the district court for the RI suit ... and it harms the shops already.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yeah but you know damn well the way they define "harm" is prejudiced because guns/gun owners are the harmed party with these shit laws.

It's not just magazines either, its poessession of the magazines and the felonies attached to them etc. There is "harm" in a party getting charged with an F bomb that
otherwise wouldn't be had a real injunction been in place. I would define a felony rap as "irreperable harm".

That is your logic.

The courts logic is:

- If gun owners do not possess these mags while waiting the decision, and they win, the harm is temporary and does not extend beyond the court's decision. They do not acknowledge the consequences of willing violating a law not enjoined from enforcement as "harm" since it is a choice of the individual.

- If the injunction is granted, and the state wins but more gun owners become grandfathered, the harm to the winning party extends beyond the time of the court's decision.

 

[drgrant]

That is your logic.

The courts logic is:

- If gun owners do not possess these mags while waiting the decision, and they win, the harm is temporary and does not extend beyond the court's decision. They do not acknowledge the consequences of willing violating a law not enjoined from enforcement as "harm" since it is a choice of the individual.

- If the injunction is granted, and the state wins but more gun owners become grandfathered, the harm to the winning party extends beyond the time of the court's decision.

Kinda, problem is under the first one someone could still easily be wrongfully accused even without having bought a new magazine after the ban etc. Only a state actor/court would consider a few metal boxes being retained by citizens worse than citizens eating felonies for a garbage/paper gun "crime".

 

[aiwnios]

Link to complaint filed, post #21

RI "high" capacity magazine ban lawsuit question

I think that in light of recent SCOTUS ruling there is a good chance that RI "high" capacity magazine ban will be recognized as unconstitutional. Meanwhile I spent over $200 on buying 10 round magazines and that's just a start. Does anybody have any info about timetable on the pending case in...

www.northeastshooters.com