Originally Posted by listopencil
I'm not familiar with that at all, and I'm digging around with Google but not finding much. Can you explain this for me?
Ok here's the 1A bit, we have the freedom of press. There is actual news value for him to show his viewers what a 30rd magazine is. People who've never seen one want to know. They asked the PD and the PD said no(not surprisingly). But there is a valid press freedom to show it. And if one looks at it, not really a valid criminal reason for the PD to deny them or frankly prohibit possession at all. If this went to trial I would be that 1A freedom of press would trump the magazine possession prohibition.
2A is obvious, since it now applies to the states and you have a right to bear arms(and their accessories), the government can't just prohibit things because they don't like them. Right now the courts are applying intermediate scrutiny to 2A cases but there is a real likely hood with the recent cases that they will up grade to strict scrutiny.
When that happens most of the gun laws are going to be KO'd as 2A violations because the government can't show a compelling reason for it!
as for the 14A issue, it all comes about to equal under the law, if there isn't a compelling reason to jail a reporter over a magazine is there really a compelling reason to jail a regular citizen merely for possession of something that likely won't be used in a crime? Am I not entitled to be treated the same as a reporter? You end up treating him differently under the law because it's a 1A issue versus Joe Citizen and it being a 2A issue.
That's a rough 10K feet outline of some of the issues.