““We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense….” And with that, the Vermont supreme court upheld the state’s ban on so-called high capacity magazines. This in a state that has had constitutional carry since 1903.

The court’s ruling went on to conclude that “the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority in determining that the limitation on large-capacity magazines [reduces the potential for injury and death in the event of a mass shooting].”

Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition’s statement on the ruling . . .

Today, FPC condemned the Vermont Supreme Court for issuing a ruling upholding the State’s ban on common firearm magazines using faulty logic and propaganda. The opinion in State v. Misch, issued last week, and FPC’s brief arguing why the ban is unconstitutional can be found at FPCLegal.org.

Vermont law defines a “large-capacity” firearm magazine as a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds for a long gun or more than 15 rounds for a handgun. As FPC argued in our brief, those magazines are both constitutionally protected and effective tools of self-defense. The State’s Supreme Court, however, held that the ban “is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense” and that “[t]he proper test is whether the restriction is a reasonable exercise of police power.”

“We are disappointed in the outcome of this case. Vermont’s founders were especially enthusiastic about liberty and the right to keep and bear arms. It’s unimaginable that they would have enshrined a constitutional right that allows the government to prohibit some of the most common and effective arms for self-defense,” said FPC’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “At the same time, we’re optimistic that the United States Supreme Court will address this issue favorably in the near future.”

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space, having recently filed two United States Supreme Court petitions for certiorari (review) (Folajtar v. Attorney General and Holloway v. Attorney General) and several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

37 COMMENTS

  1. They don’t care… They will justify anything they want, facts, liberty, or truth means nothing to them.

    The Constitution is a living breathing document = It means whatever the hell we say it does, whenever we say it does…now shut up and comply or we will ruin you!

  2. I guess religious prayer could be limited to 15 minutes per day as well? Any more poses a substantial risk.

    This also fails the “Dangerous and Uncommon” mandate from Heller. Magazines with capacity larger than 10 / 15 rounds are definitely “in common use”.

    • 300BlackoutFan,

      “I guess religious prayer could be limited to 15 minutes per day as well? Any more poses a substantial risk.”

      You do realize that courts have upheld bans in the last few months on religious gatherings in excess of a small number of people or a certain percentage of a religious building’s fire-safe capacity, correct?

      So, I would say yes, the courts are already there — banning anything that government claims is a “substantial risk”.

      • This ⬆️ the courts including the Supreme Court have decided the Constitution only applies when there is not a public health crisis. Of course the next step is that is does not apply period. But hey Trumps appointments will save us! Like re arranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

    • Yeah… looks like this one is going to have to be pushed up the ladder. Perhaps this will eventually be a good SCOTUS case to set a precedent rejecting such infringements.

    • I had a conversation with a lawyer one time who was trying to tell me that I didn’t need more than 7 rounds to defend myself. My response to him was to simply ask, “How the hell do you know”? He couldn’t respond because we both knew that he didn’t know, nor could anyone else for that matter.

      Limiting magazine round-count is always arbitrary. They are symbolic virtue signals intended to represent gun-controllers desire make laws that reflect their values. Simply put, if you’re in trouble and need to defend yourself, then you need all the ammo you can use.

  3. “[t]he proper test is whether the restriction is a reasonable exercise of police power.” – proper test in a police state, perhaps; not a proper test for what are supposed to be rights in a constitutional republic.

  4. … FPC condemned the Vermont Supreme Court for issuing a ruling upholding the State’s ban on common firearm magazines using faulty logic and propaganda.

    I am getting tired of plaintiffs’ legal councils throwing their hands up at state supreme court rulings like this. At this point, there is no surprise method of justifying Second Amendment infringements. The courts recycle the same false justifications. Legal council for plaintiffs need to clearly tell the courts that those justifications are based on false “facts” and false “powers” which governments claim to have — and provide real facts and the real limits of government power.

    Second Amendment lawsuit plaintiff legal councils should be ardently painting the courts into a legal corner: force the courts to comply with facts and limits on government power or force the courts to state on public record that the courts are rejecting simple facts and limits on government power.

  5. The people of VT should reject it as the people did in NYS with the SAFE act.

    Just say “NO!”

    Nothing the black robed priests can do when the populace does this and its the only remedy left to the POTG.

  6. If they can just make up their own rules why can’t you?
    This whole world we live in is made up of this mish-mash of bullshit rules.
    Whose rules you follow is essentially might making right.
    Find your might. Make it right.

    • “If they can just make up their own rules why can’t you?”

      We can, but government agents with “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines will show up and threaten you and your family with lethal force. Meanwhile, the media will be running your picture and name as a dangerous “Domestic Terrorist” that has been taken out by our beloved government. …for the children

  7. Right. The SC of Vermont may have failed to uphold the Constitution of the USA, but, do not worry; the US Supreme Court will turn the tide in favor of the 2A. Right. That would be the same SCOTUS that tucked-tail and hid under the bed when rampant, illegal, unconstitutional, and hideously obvious election fraud engineered a coup-de-etas against the citizens of this country. Right.

    Yes, THAT Supreme Court. Yes. Those cowardly, corrupt, and conniving justices. They are going to defend us. Right.

    Yes….Snarkasm.

    • LifeSavor,

      Initially, the same sentiments ran through my mind with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court and the 2020 general election.

      Then something dawned on me: the Electoral College lets the states send any electors they damn well please — including electors that do not represent how their citizens voted in their states. Thus, even if a clear majority of citizens vote for Presidential Candidate A in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Constitution empowers the legislature of Pennsylvania to go against their citizens and cast their Electoral College votes for Presidential Candidate B if the Pennsylvania legislature so chooses.

      That arrangement was originally intended to provide an “out” if a smooth-talking Presidential candidate (who was going to royally screw our nation) fooled the voters — an “out” which empowered state legislatures to reject that smooth-talking disaster and send a much better candidate to the White House. Well, in this case, that arrangement enabled state legislatures to override the voters in their state and cast their Electoral College votes for Biden. Thus, even if there was election fraud and the voters in the five key states actually voted for Trump, the legislatures in those five key states had the U.S. Constitutional authority to cast their Electoral College votes for Biden.

      The proper place to direct your ire is against the legislatures of those five key states, not the U.S. Supreme Court (in this particular case).

      • “… the Electoral College lets the states send any electors they damn well please — including electors that do not represent how their citizens voted in their states.”

        The reason they didn’t is quite simple –

        The legislature has members who have families, and in doing what you suggested, Antifa thugs would likely descend on them to harass or physically attack them or the ones they love.

        How strong would your ‘sense of duty to your elected office’ be if there were a real chance your home could be burned down with you in it while you’re in the state capital doing your job?

        They will have zero problems in doing exactly that…

        • Geoff………..,

          Antifa is the military wing of the Democrat party.

          But, yes, I do expect our elected officials to protect this country with the same vigor as our military.

      • U_C,

        Oh, I am plenty ‘ire-ed’ at the state legislatures that sent electors for Biden even after being presented overwhelming evidence of fraud. But you seem to be saying I should not be ire-ed at the SCOTUS. Why would you say that? They abandoned their post as protectors of the Constitution and allowed the transfer of power to people who drastically undermined, corrupted, our electoral process to the point where that process has completely failed. SCOTUS is derelict of its sacred duty, co-conspirators in undermining the foundations upon which this Republic was built and for which many have died and sacrificed to protect.

        So, I agree the State legislatures in at least 5 states hid behind their Constitutional mandates and knowingly sent electors based upon fraudulent votes. But SCOTUS has earned every despicable epithet, every measure of scorn I can muster. They sold this country to thieves who hate the Constitution and are tearing this country apart.

        • LifeSavor,

          With respect to electing Presidential of the United States in 2020, none of the states violated the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution clearly empowers the state legislatures to direct their electors in the Electoral College any way they want and does not tie a state’s electors to citizens’ votes in that state. (The fact that states historically always directed their electors according to the votes of their citizens does not obligate those states to continue that practice.) Since the states did not violate the U.S. Constitution (with respect to electing the President), there is nothing for the U.S. Supreme Court to evaluate.

          Now, there may be a valid lawsuit of some sort where the U.S. Supreme Court would have jurisdiction — something about the state not counting my vote or allowing fictional votes to negate/override my vote — tied to the 14th Amendment or something like that. I am not an attorney so I have no authoritative opinion in that regard.

  8. Regulating a right…

    Yea. Just think about that one.

    They might as well just burn the constitution. It’s not there to be regulated, it’s there as a guideline and should be used to push for more freedoms, not regulate them.

    The hypocrisy is sickening.

  9. There are some anti-gun bills in Washington State also. Who knows what’s going to happen but it won’t change a —–ing thing for me.

  10. As FPC argued in our brief, those magazines are both constitutionally protected and effective tools of self-defense. The State’s Supreme Court, however, held that the ban “is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense” and that “[t]he proper test is whether the restriction is a reasonable exercise of police power.”

    And what does self defense have to do with it? Take care. Tom Worthington

  11. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Bucks / week, that is brilliant, beneath a year ago and used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently. I used to be invested in these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone, Try it, you won’t regret it…Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… http://www.right75.com

  12. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Bucks / week, that is brilliant, beneath a year ago and used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently. I used to be invested in these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone, Try it, you won’t regret it…Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… http://www.right75.com

  13. One more time: Many people in this country have written off any legal or political remedies for the continuous assaults on the BoR and Constitution by various government entities, and are preparing to follow the guidance contained in the Declaration of Independence. More are waking up to that approach on a daily basis, as evidenced by the purchases of firearms and ammo over the past year.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here