Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, we're going to talk about magazine bans today. In fact, we're going to talk about a case that's sitting right on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court. It's a case that we haven't had a whole lot of chance to talk about. It's a case of Ocean State Tactical LLC versus State of Road Island. What we're going to do today is actually take a look at an amicus brief that was filed on behalf of numerous organizations. Organizations that we don't normally get to talk about, but because they take a angle on this and they have a viewpoint on this issue that I think a lot of us do not understand and or appreciate. I think this is a good opportunity for us to understand that the Second Amendment tent might be much larger than we think it is, and if it's not, we probably should start making it more inclusive. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about a perspective on magazine bans that you probably never thought of.
Okay, America, the case we're talking about, like I said earlier, is Ocean State Tactical LLC versus State of Rhode Island is a challenge to Road Islands Magazine ban, which not only ban the commercial sale of any magazine, which held more than 10 rounds, also prohibited the possession and use thereof, which means you arguably have not only a Second Amendment violation in the banning of an item, which is in common use for lawful purposes, but then you also have an unconstitutional takings because government basically rendered these things worthless without just compensation. Now, we're not going to talk about the main petition's brief, we're not going to talk about the respondent's brief. What we are going to do is talk about an amicus brief that I found while geeking out. And the reason I wanted to share this with you is listen, I look at my analytics, I know what my typical audience looks like, and I think that this amicus memorandum comes from a perspective that many of us have not thought, but all of us should remember the next time we are trying to advance the cause of our Second Amendment rights.
Because I think that all of us in the Conservative Party or the conservative movement have a tendency sometimes to focus on what makes us different. And what we should do, especially if we want to make our tent larger, is to focus on what we have in common. The amicus brief today is authored by the following organizations, the National African-American Gun Association, the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, DC Project Foundation, operation Blazing Sword Inc. Gabrielle Franco, and the Liberal Gun Club. And listen, kudos to all of you for throwing in on this. It's an excellent memorandum, and we are going to be putting links for all of your organizations down below. So if any of my viewers want to show them some love, you may do so. Now, the Amicus Party starts off their arguments with African-Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Latinos women, and L-G-B-T-Q. People have the right to defend themselves against violent crimes.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees them that right? However, Rhode Island General Law 11 dash four City 7.13 B will severely infringe upon that, right, by denying them the ability to be adequately armed for self-defense. And I like this argument they're making, talking about being adequately armed for self-defense. Okay? And then because of the fact that these communities have been marginalized because of the fact that these communities candidly are subject to far more violence than for people who look like you or me, the ability and necessary of being properly equipped for self-defense is even more important in these communities. And one of the other things they point out, they offer this court a perspective that no other party offers in this action. The perspective of citizens in Rhode Island who are at greater risk of being victims of violence based entirely upon their personal characteristics and identity.
The Amika seek the protection of the court because as history shows, the Constitution is the place of refuge when the majority in the name of safety seek to disarm them, disenfranchise them, and devalue them. And again, the authors of this brief, you guys use really, really great language in describing this. This is a very, very well written brief, but they raise a good point because these are in marginalized communities that candidly are victimized more frequently. Of course, the Amika points out because of the unique perspective of each of the amci and their troubled history as targets of hate and violence in our society, both nationally and in Rhode Island. Amci offer the following historical background and insight into the effects resulting from infringements of their constitutional rights. Most significantly, the groups that comprise the Amika have suffered violence and oppression at a disproportionately higher rate than members of the majority.
Now, this law is not based in race, but could it have a disproportionate impact on race, gender, gender identity, or something like that? Well, according to the Amika party, it most certainly could, even though Rhode Island General Law, 11 dash 47 13 B is not racially motivated. These types of magazine capacity limitation laws have a disproportionate impact on people of color. And again, one of the experiences that people in these marginalized communities have is sometimes growing up in what can be considered not the best part of town. And with that comes a whole slew of other safety issues. And one of the things the Amika party points out due to condemnable, but nonetheless, highly predictable practices of over-policing in minority communities, a disproportionate percentage of those convicted of violating bans on high capacity magazines are likely to be people of color. And that is true because predominantly they are not primary offenses or they're at least not treated by as primary offenses by law enforcement.
And what I mean by that is magazine bans are usually enforced when they find the firearm contemporaneous with the investigation of another crime. Pull somebody over, they have an expired license. Oh, they also have a firearm with a 15 round magazine. Now you got 'em on two things, but in addition to these very compelling issues with the Amicka party points out here, they also kind of resort to some traditional arguments pointing out that there is absolutely no historical tradition to support this ban. And this is really important because I did not see this addressed in some of the other amicus priests that I had a chance to geek out on. But unlike Washington state where we banned the commercial sale of magazines, but we're still allowed to grandfather any of them in and continue to use possess, carry those that we own prior to the enactment of the law.
No, the folks in Rhode Island were not given that luxury. No, they were not. And in fact, overnight a possession of one of those magazines became a crime, which means those magazines are rendered useless. But those magazines have a monetary value, and you have a property interest in something which is now worthless Under the Fifth Amendment, there should have been just compensation given to those individuals. But the state of Rhode Island, no, no, no, no. They just basically took these items. And so one of the things, the Amicus Party points out the magazine capacity restriction law set by Rhode Island and other states with similar Lars are recent developments that lack a historical foundation and therefore unconstitutional. Further, the retroactive nature of the law in question operates the deprived law abiding citizens of Rhode Island of their until now, lawfully owned property, which many have long possessed without incident, without any compensation in violation of the takings clause of the United States Constitution.
And that truly is what makes this law so offensive. And while there is a higher probability that the Supreme Court may be willing to accept this case for all arguments, but the other thing that the Amicus party points out, and this is equally important, the first circuit's upholding of Rhode Island's retrospective and Confiscatory law distorts this court's precedent and illustrates a disturbing trend among the lower courts, which continue to uphold laws that erode the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. This court must intervene and establish clear Unequivocable guidelines for lower courts to follow in such cases, to prevent the continued attempts to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Now, as we know, the state of Rhode Island just kind of found that, well, you don't really need more than a couple of rounds for self-defense. Because of that, we get to ban everything else because only those items which are designed for self-defense in our opinion, are actually protected by the Second Amendment.
That was their position. I think the Amicus Party counters this argument really well with some very simple well realities, having to repeatedly reload low capacity magazines, or simply not having enough rounds of ammunition to end an attack underway, leaves individuals exposed and vulnerable accordingly. Any government regulation that limits magazine capacity substantially inhibits self-defense. Now, you may recall when we actually geeked out on what the Court of Appeals had ruled and some of the absolute absurd rulings they'd come up with. One of the things that was very obvious in just the first few pages of that opinion was that apparently the First Circuit had never read Bruin because they went straight to a balancing test, which of course had been soundly rejected by Bruin. And so the Amika party calls him on it. As comprehensively argued in the petition, the analysis applied by the First Circuit in this case completely ignores this court's recent precedent and reverts to a pre Bruin framework analyzing Rhode Island statute based upon how heavily it burdens Second Amendment rights, while also employing an interest balancing test.
These analytical schemes were plainly rejected by this court in Broan. And again, they call the First Circuit on it one more time, saying you guys flat out employed a test that the Supreme Court told you not to employ. The problematic logic being that since the First Circuit determined that 10 or more rounds are seldom discharge when a victim uses a firearm in self-defense, it concluded that banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds presents only a negligible burden on Second Amendment rights. And then again, the MICUs Party does an excellent job of also breaking down the takings clause. Listen, I want all of you, we're going to link up the memorandum down below. I want you to check it out because we need to understand that the Second Amendment is for everybody because every American has the right to preserve the life that they have chosen for themselves and their families.
Kudos to all of these amicus parties right here, who threw in on the case. The case once again is Ocean State Tactical, LLCV, the state of Rhode Island. We're going to link that up down below in the description box so you can geek out on it. We're going to link up all of the Amicus parties down below. So if you want to show them some love, you may do. So. If you got any questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now. But if you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. If you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here, cool, let's hear about it. Click on that link right there and let us know if you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter. The ability to do all of that is write down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law