Robert Levy decides to follow in Bill Ruger's footsteps

[Tom Servo]

The prohibition of large capacity magazines is probably misguided, but it's clearly not unconstitutional.

Actually, we don't know that. Right now, the courts are hashing out exactly what infringements of the 2nd Amendment are "constitutional" and which aren't.

[TallPine]

Sounds like "infringement" to me

[igpoobah]

There is no fundamental difference between these four statements:
The right to free speech does not include the right to libel.
The right to be secure in your possessions does not apply when a valid search warrant has been issued.
Freedom of the press does not include the right to produce child pornography.
The right to assemble does not include the right to riot.
The right to bear arms does not necessarily include the right to buy a 30-round magazine.

Let's put the apples in the apple bag and the oranges in the orange bag, shall we...let's see here -

Apple bag:

The right to free speech does not include the right to libel.
Freedom of the press does not include the right to produce child pornography.
The right to assemble does not include the right to riot.
The right to bear arms does not include the right to MURDER.

Orange bag:

The right to free speech does not include the right to use your vocal cords just in case you want to libel someone.
Freedom of the press does not include the right to own a digital camera, just in case you want to produce child pornography.
The right to bear arms does not include the right to buy a 30-round magazine, just in case you want to murder someone.

Now that we've got the apples seperated from the oranges, we can see that the 30 round magazine is just another tool, like a camera or vocal cords that *could* be used for evil should the USER choose to do so.

If you want my 30 rounders, you'd better come get my vocal cords and Canon DSLR as well, because they are ALL equally as dangerous to you when in my possession.

[Old Grump]

Do I really need to enumerate examples of established limitations to constitutional rights?

There is no fundamental difference between these statements:

* The right to free speech does not include the right to libel.
* The right to be secure in your possessions does not apply when a valid search warrant has been issued.
* Freedom of the press does not include the right to produce child pornography.
* The right to assemble does not include the right to riot.
* The right to bear arms does not necessarily include the right to buy a 30-round magazine.

The prohibition of large capacity magazines is probably misguided, but it's clearly not unconstitutional.

You really need to pick your examples better, that defense was weak. Libel is hurting somebody, it is a crime. 30 round magazines are not evil they do not hurt anybody, owning or using them is not a crime. Shooting people is a crime. He could just as easily used 3 guns with 10 round magazines.

Shooting people is a criminal act when it isn't done as an act of self defense. The use of any magazine no matter what color, material or capacity is not a crime. I am sorry if they are ugly and do not meet your aesthetic sensibilities, (I think they are ugly and ungainly too but my opinion doesn't matter on that point), or they scare you but your feelings on the subject of large capacity magazines is not relevant to whether they can be legally owned or not.

You lose that point and my point stands. "Shall not be infringed".

[DaveBeal]

Deleted.

[brolin_1911a1]

Bill Ruger's motive for his sell-out was obvious. First, he'd always been a proponent of reserving certain full-capacity firearms and magazines for police and restricting access to ordinary citizens. Just look at how long the Mini-14 was "law enforcement only" and then equipped only with 5-round magazines when first released to the "civilian" market. Second, when he sent that letter to Congress in 1989 supporting magazine limits, his proposed limit was 15rds for a handgun, just coincidentally the capacity of his P-85 pistol and two less than his major competitors at the time, the 17rd Glock 17 and Beretta 92. In short, Bill Ruger Sr.'s motivation was to curry favor with the gun ban crowd and to protect his own company's products.

Why Mr. Levy should sell out basic Libertarian and Constitutionalist principles like this is less clear.

[Siggy]

If the guy (Levy) did not serve in the military, and continue to hunt wild game on occasion, I'm definitely not sure that I trust him.

[sanglant]

any new firearm, or weapon restrictions should apply to off-duty law enforcement. and ALL bodyguards, on the clock or not.

[IA_farmboy]

any new firearm, or weapon restrictions should apply to off-duty law enforcement.

I think it should apply to on-duty police as well. Police are civilians, despite what so many claim. The police being civilians means when they screw up they go to the same courts as we do, the same laws apply (well, except firearm law but that is the issue here) and they go to the same prisons.

The police are not so special that their lives are worth any more than mine. In fact since police are servants of the people their use of weapons should be RESTRICTED more than what any other civilian can. This is true already to some extent, I had an interesting chat with a former federal LEO where he said he was required to register every weapon he owned. I suspect this was to prevent the ownership of "plant" weapons.

[Johnny Dollar]

I suspect this was to prevent the ownership of "plant" weapons.

That is almost certainly true.This was a tactic that was rampant in Miami and Fort Lauderdale during the wild cocaine cowboy days of the 1980's and early '90's.

With more than a dozen LEO's going to the big house and more vigilant oversight, this despicable practice has been almost completely eliminated in South Florida.