B.L.U.F. The last article was suppose to include this but turned into taxes aren’t infringements. I’m going to try and stay on topic with the state’s arguments about why certain things are not arms.
Bullets are not arms
This has been debunked so many times it isn’t even worth addressing. The Supreme Court has ruled that ammunition is considered “arms” under the meaning of the Second Amendment. Any ban of ammunition is an infringement and under Bruen triggers “history and tradition”.
Magazines are not arms
The state is arguing that arguments are acrutiements and not arms.
The argument goes that since a firearm can operate with a magazine with limited capacity and does not require a magazine with a greater capacity that this means that “Large Capacity Magazines” are not arms and since LCMs are not arms then all magazines are not arms.
Following their logic to its conclusion you find that the state believes that they can require that all firearms only accept magazines holding one round. So it is ok for you to have a semi-auto rifle but the bolt locks open after each shot and you have to reload by hand.
The state is kind enough to state that firearms that can not operate without a magazine have certain exemptions but fails to discuss how that doesn’t make magazines an integral part of those firearms.
If their argument holds any weight it implies that “firing pins” can be regulated such that only those weapons that have a certain type of firing pin are allowed. None of it makes any real logical sense. All of the arguments are so wrapped up with emotional blackmail it is hard to extract what they are truly arguing for.
Firearm furniture is not arms
According to the state, the stocks and grips you put on a firearm are not protected as “arms” and therefore they can ban them. This is how you end up with “featureless” rifles in California.
Somewhere I have a AK-47 stock. It is ugly wood. It was purchased when the federal AWB was in place. The rifle that it came on did not have a pistol grip. It has this ugly thing, a thumbhole stock.
This made it legal in Maryland at the time.
As I was picking up this rifle my FFL asked if I could take out a box of trash for him. In that box was an AK-47 pistol grip, stock and all the other furniture that would allow me to make that AK-47 look like an AK-47. Including a couple of 30 round magazines that he wasn’t allowed to sell.
I disposed of that “trash” for him.
The point of all of this is that the state recognizes that their ban by combination of features is just trivial changes. That there will be work arounds for most of what they come up with. They were upset the first time around.
They banned the “bullet button”. Somebody made a gizmo that allows you to reload your “fixed” magazine from the ejection port from stripper like clips. Somebody else came up with something where you can just crack your AR-15 apart and the magazine falls out. They provide a rear takedown pin with a ring pull so it is really fast to do.
All of this because the state has been able to ban furniture by claiming it isn’t protected under the Second Amendment as “arms”
No cases have been finalized yet in regards to the state’s argument post Bruen
Conclusion
The gist is that the state is willing to argue that the only thing that is a protected “arm” under the Second Amendment is a frame or receiver. That anything else attached to that skeleton is just not an arm and they can ban it.
The case we are watching regarding this is Duncan v. Bonta
Comments
4 responses to “Arguments: Still not an “arm””
If their argument holds any weight it implies that “firing pins” can be regulated such that only those weapons that have a certain type of firing pin are allowed.
.
Shades of microstamping.
.
I think we need to be a little careful re the furniture and features. If they are arms, then future regulations that do happen to pass muster, somehow, can regulate the furniture. If they are not arms, then why can’t they be regulated now? etc. Basically, to me this amounts to a “have you stopped beating your wife yet” type of argument.
This article was difficult to write as I didn’t get enough sleep before writing it. Something about spring forward along with a daughter needing consulting regarding HR issue way to early in my morning after being up way to late reading.
.
I choose to use the term “Furniture” because I didn’t want to list out “stock”, “hand grip”, “barrel shroud”, “flash hider”, “muzzle device”, “bayonet lug” and all the rest that the infringers think allow them to ban a firearm.
Oh, I wasn’t complaining about your use of “furniture.” Given rail systems, even things like bayonette mounts are eminently detachable today.
Reading this almost caused an anger induced aneurism at the gamesmanship that goes on with these things. Its concerning because they only have to win once to chip away at the whole cake where we have to get it right every single time to preserve our rights.