If you' re going to make insults, veiled or otherwise- please do so clearly for the benefit of all.


Thank you.

(March 30, 2019 at 8:03 am)Nomad Wrote: Either way it's not a good look for the US body of judges in their ability to interpret and rule on law.

I can't help but wonder if you even looked at the 86 page decision before making this comment. I didn't read the whole thing before I made the original post in this thread, but I did hit some of the highlights. The decision appears to be quite detailed. The judge refutes the state's argument point by point and supports his argument with plenty of recent case law. If you didn't look at the reasons the judge rendered this decision then I suspect your comment is based solely on your preconceived bias on the issue. If you did then please explain where the judge got it wrong.

(March 30, 2019 at 9:31 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(March 30, 2019 at 8:03 am)Nomad Wrote: Either way it's not a good look for the US body of judges in their ability to interpret and rule on law.

I can't help but wonder if you even looked at the 86 page decision before making this comment.

I don't need to. Anything that goes against the original 2nd amendment idea that you only have a right to bear arms as part of a state run, funded and trained militia shows a worrying lack of ability to interpret law.

A particular misreading of the 2nd amendment has become popular, but that misreading doesn't fit at all with how the 2nd amendment has been understood in practice throughout American history. There is a phrase that is sort of confusing, and it really does have to be understood within the context of its time.

The context is basically a federalist verses antifederalist thing. Anti federalists believed that the state tends to become corrupt. They didn't want an authoritarian state with a standing army. They wanted a system where the people rallied to the defense of the nation, rather than a standing army. However, the federalists weren't big fans of depending on citizen militias to defend the nation. They had had experience with citizen militias in the Revolution, and knew that citizen militias just aren't very effective against the trained soldiers of hostile enemy armies. But, the anti federalists had had experience with being disarmed by authoritarian states with standing armies. An armed state tends to disarm its citizens. So the 2nd acknowledges that a state must be armed, and promises that the people will not be disarmed.

This understanding is in keeping with how the 2nd has been practiced throughout the history of the US. That currently popular understanding in which the 2nd only refers to well regulated militias is not in keeping with how the 2nd has been practiced.

(March 30, 2019 at 7:02 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(March 30, 2019 at 6:44 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Because everyone has the right to shoot lots of people?

So we should only have single shots? Or no- shots?

The law applied to magazines of more than ten rounds.  If you're in a situation where you fire a weapon ten times and you're still not out of trouble, it might be time to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

Boru

(March 30, 2019 at 10:54 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The law applied to magazines of more than ten rounds.  If you're in a situation where you fire a weapon ten times and you're still not out of trouble, it might be time to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

Boru

This issue was directly addressed in the judge's decision.

---

(March 30, 2019 at 11:02 am)Brian37 Wrote: The intent of banning high capacity clips isn't a political party agenda, it is a public safety issue.

This was also addressed in the judge's decision.

(March 30, 2019 at 10:54 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 30, 2019 at 7:02 am)onlinebiker Wrote: So we should only have single shots? Or no- shots?

The law applied to magazines of more than ten rounds.  If you're in a situation where you fire a weapon ten times and you're still not out of trouble, it might be time to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

Boru

I'm not so sure. The decision was backed by a substantial evidence that engaging in a firefight frequently requires more than ten rounds.  The police have arrived at a number of homes where a dead defender is found laying next to their empty 10 round magazine. That's actually not too surprising, what with firefights being firefights and all. I think that we tend to assume that a civilian firefight is just going to involve one inept attacker who is either going to die quickly or run away. But two or three determined attackers who figure they have a two minute window within which to press the attack can totally take advantage of the fact that their target is going to run out of ammo after 10 shots.

I have 10 round mags. I have no intention of getting larger mags. I'm pretty much prepared to defend myself against the lone attacker who is probably going to die or run away. But I totally know that I'm not prepared to get into a real firefight with multiple determined attackers who aren't going to run away. Hopefully, I can handle one determined attacker who isn't going to run away-- but I don't know that 10 rounds will be enough to take them. I hope it will be. I guess it mostly depends on whether I get a good first shot or not.