In practice states have the rights to ban magazines based on their capacity.
I still don't understand why some US states, like California and 7 other states, can legally ban some types of magazines without the whole thing being unconstitutional ... but they do and apparently the Supreme Court is fine with it.
Should they have that right is another question.
If you follow the Constitution to the letter then there should be no state or federal law to regulate firearms use and ownwership in the first place.
You should be able to carry a gun without a piece of paper from the state and own a machine gun without a piece of paper from the federal government.
I don't understand the logic behind the reduction of magazine capacity either.
If it reduced crime then California would have already passed a zero capacity magazine limit by now.
I still don't understand why some US states, like California and 7 other states, can legally ban some types of magazines without the whole thing being unconstitutional ... but they do and apparently the Supreme Court is fine with it.
Should they have that right is another question.
If you follow the Constitution to the letter then there should be no state or federal law to regulate firearms use and ownwership in the first place.
You should be able to carry a gun without a piece of paper from the state and own a machine gun without a piece of paper from the federal government.
I don't understand the logic behind the reduction of magazine capacity either.
If it reduced crime then California would have already passed a zero capacity magazine limit by now.