Yes. This is the continuing gambit. That something isn’t ‘covered’ by the 2nd since it’s not an ‘arm’.<\/p>\n
Federal judge declares “large capacity” magazines not protected by the Second Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n A U.S. District Judge in Washington, D.C. has declined to grant an injunction against the city\u2019s ban on \u201clarge capacity\u201d magazines, ruling that while magazines in general are \u201carms\u201d protected by the Second Amendment, LCMs fall outside of the scope of the amendment because they\u2019re a \u201cpoor fit\u201d for self-defense purposes.<\/p>\n The challenge to the District\u2019s magazine ban, known as\u00a0Hanson v. D.C.<\/em>, involves four legal gun owners from D.C. who all say that they would possess and carry \u201clarge capacity\u201d magazines in their firearms if they weren\u2019t banned by law. The District\u2019s prohibition comes complete with a potential three-year prison sentence, though it\u2019s unclear how often that sentence is handed down in practice, especially with D.C. prosecutors routinely deciding to\u00a0decline charges<\/a>\u00a0in many illegal gun possession cases.<\/p>\n Even though the D.C. Attorney General\u2019s office is taking a mostly hands-off approach to illegal gun (and magazine) possession, the ban remains on the books and was defended in court by D.C. officials, who maintain that magazines aren\u2019t \u201carms\u201d at all, but accessories that aren\u2019t protected by the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, rejected that argument in his opinion, but\u00a0agreed with the District<\/a>\u00a0on its fallback argument that LCM\u2019s are most suitable for military purposes and are not used in self-defense because \u201cbecause incidents where a civilian actually expends more than ten bullets in self-defense are \u201cvanishingly rare.\u201d From the opinion (citations omitted):<\/p>\n Heller specifically contemplated that \u201cweapons that are most useful in military service\u201d fall outside of Second Amendment protection.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs counter that \u201cthe Supreme Court\u2019s precedents do not withhold protection from arms merely because they are useful in militia service.\u201d Pls.\u2019 Reply at 15. That may be true, but it is beside the point. Heller established that weapons that are \u201cmost useful in military service\u201d are excluded from Second Amendment protection. \u201cMost\u201d is a superlative. A weapon may have some useful purposes in both civilian and military contexts, but if it is most useful in military service, it is not protected by the Second Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve gotta say, that\u2019s giving a\u00a0lot\u00a0<\/em>of weight to Scalia\u2019s phrase about \u201cweapons that are most useful in military service\u201d, especially since Contreras contradicted himself by pointing to the benefits of LCM\u2019s for civilian law enforcement.<\/p>\n The judge simultaneously says that magazines over 10 rounds are "most useful in military service" and also that the ban "keeps the advantage police have over armed civilians who may be suspects or engaged in criminal activity." https:\/\/t.co\/TajMhtFoAI<\/a><\/p>\n — Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) April 20, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n