California ban on high capacity magazines declared unconstitutional

[Brian37]

This is bullshit, even SCOTUS Scallia said in one of his rulings on guns, that guns could be regulated. Since clips are a firearm part, I don't see how that is unconstitutional. You can regulate firearms. It is also why you cant carry them into the Capital Building in DC or carry them carry on on airplanes.

[onlinebiker]

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

Ah. Blame the victim... If I'm being attacked and I don' t stop the aggression in 10 rounds - I'm doing something wrong.


Nice pretzel logic..


Try again.

[Brian37]

Don't hand me this "rights" bullshit. I don't give a shit anymore. This has nothing to do with rights. This is simply another ruling that does nothing but protect the profits of one industry.

Lead was taken out of gas, and seat belts and air bags were also added to cars and cars are still in huge supply. And saying we need to get off fossil fuel burning transportation is not a call to ban transportation, but a call to create clean technology. NOBODY, needs a big clip unless they are on the battlefield.

Anyone who thinks this was a correct ruling, remember this bullshit the next time someone shoots up a business, or holy place or school. I am tired of that shit.

---

We don't need Snack Patriot bullshit like this. We need to do what New Zealand did. FYI gun worshipers, what they did was not a ban on 100% of all sales. Regulations are not bans, just regulations. I do think we need to make it harder for people to murder lots of people at the same time.

[brewer]

[The Grand Nudger]

Unenforceable bans are unenforceable. Duct tape is an illegal aftermarket modification.

---

If you see something, say something.

(couldn't help it)

[Brian37]

Yep, enjoy the show. Out of all the subjects I will not back off of, this is one of them.  I have seen too much firearm violence in my life in America to find this shit acceptable. We have more civilian deaths from firearms than military deaths. There is lots of good about America, but nobody should be proud of the amount of firearm fatalities in America. One really has to be delusional or flat out selfish to find 36,000 firearm deaths per year acceptable. If the current crop of firearm laws worked, we would not see that amount we do. 

Europe and Australia and Japan and New Zealand are not closed fascist states, but seem to get their laws right. 

We SHOULD ban high capacity clips for both handguns and riffles. None of that sentence saying ban 100% of all firearm ownership. We should take firearms away from disturbed people, such as domestic abusers, violent felons and terrorists and the mentally ill. We should vet anyone buying a gun to insure they are mentally fit to safely keep and safely us and safely store them. AGAIN, none of anything I said is calling for a complete 100% ban. This is just a call for pragmatic regulations to insure a firearm does not get into the wrong hands.

It is sad that the last time a majority of government cared to prevent firearm violence was when the Brady Bill was passed after Reagan got shot. Ever since the NRA and the firearm industry has done everything in the world to stifle and prevent anything sane that would promote a safer society.

---

Unenforceable bans are unenforceable.  Duct tape is an illegal aftermarket modification.

---

If you see something, say something.

(couldn't help it)

Yes people can and do do that, that should be illegal too. Just like it is illegal in most of the country to modify a shotgun to be a sawed off shotgun. You cant stop all speeders 100% of the time either, but we still have speed limits.

[zebo-the-fat]

Because everyone has the right to shoot lots of people?

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

No shots would be much safer

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure.  Still, I personally think that sinking political capital into magazine regulation is misguided.   It's not going to stop anything (even if we somehow managed to find all the high cap mags and got rid of them - which we won't)........ there isn't even a credible explanation as to how it could stop anything.  

I'm not a big fan of paying for nothing, as a principle.  Regardless of whether any of us think there should be, any gun regulation will cost. Every single time that gun control advocates sink whatever they've been gifted by tragedy into silly shit it just confirms my suspicion that we'll never actually get around to doing anything effective.

[Brian37]

Sure.  Still, I personally think that sinking political capital into magazine regulation is misguided.   It's not going to stop anything (even if we somehow managed to find all the high cap mags and got rid of them - which we won't)........ there isn't even a credible explanation as to how it could stop anything.  

I'm not a big fan of paying for nothing, as a principle.  Regardless of whether any of us think there should be, any gun regulation will cost.

Nobody should think things will magically change overnight, but we are at this point because of 40 years of fear marketing by the NRA and the industry. There was a time when nobody thought slavery would end, or segregation would end, but it did. America CAN if it wanted to, get a handle on firearm violence and still allow firearm ownership. But we cannot sit and do nothing and allow one industry and one lobby dictate the narrative. 

We have to do something other than what we are currently doing.

[Yonadav]

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.

That's what I thought. You've made up your mind so why bother to look at the contrary evidence.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make here. First is it is a district judge's job to make a decision based on applicable case law. Second is right now at this point in time in the United States the latest decided by SCOTUS applicable case law says gun ownership is an individual right not a collective one, and gun owners are allowed to have guns commonly in use in the country. Right or wrong those are decisions were made by SCOTUS, and district judges don't get to contradict them. So before you question a judges "ability to interpret and rule on law" when you don't like a decision it just might be a good idea to look at the decision first.

---

Here is a new like to the decision since the original one seems to be broken now.

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sh...s_-msj.pdf

Thanks for posting the link. My guess is that the adamant gun control crowd will refuse to read it. I just spent a good deal of time looking it over, but haven't read it all. It's coverage of Heller would be a good education for some of these folks. For me, the reading became almost comical when the matter of the state's interest in the law was covered, because the law so utterly fails to address the state's specifically stated interest in it. I'm sure the judge was not intentionally lampooning the state. It was just impossible to honestly examine the state's interest in the law without it sort of lampooning the state.

---

Sure.  Still, I personally think that sinking political capital into magazine regulation is misguided.   It's not going to stop anything (even if we somehow managed to find all the high cap mags and got rid of them - which we won't)........ there isn't even a credible explanation as to how it could stop anything.  

I'm not a big fan of paying for nothing, as a principle.  Regardless of whether any of us think there should be, any gun regulation will cost.

Nobody should think things will magically change overnight, but we are at this point because of 40 years of fear marketing by the NRA and the industry. There was a time when nobody thought slavery would end, or segregation would end, but it did. America CAN if it wanted to, get a handle on firearm violence and still allow firearm ownership. But we cannot sit and do nothing and allow one industry and one lobby dictate the narrative. 

We have to do something other than what we are currently doing.

The NRA thanks you for mentioning the NRA.