California ban on high-capacity gun magazines (win for the people)

“ A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” wrote U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego in a 71-page decision published Friday. “Based on the text, history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional. “

From Los Angeles Times

a reply to: NickPDX22

This is an awesome win for hunters in this state. .223 ammo is great for small game. This will be perfect for those rabbits and foxes that need 11 shots or more to go down.

a reply to: NickPDX22

I saw this earlier.

Surprising win from a judge in Commiefornia.

a reply to: Degradation33

Hunting animals has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

a reply to: Degradation33

This is an awesome win for hunters. .223 ammo is great for small game. This will be great for those rabbits that need 11 shots to go down.

damn right little blankers run fast, if you miss you got 14 more to chase them with.
personally i prefer 30 minus one.

a reply to: watchitburn

Calm down. I love shooting AR's, fired them on several occasions. Just never owned one or wanted to. For those reasons gotta have fun with their utilitarian purpose with a high capacity magazine.

Like the entire argument is, "Is doesn't matter that this has no peace-time civilian use, it's the principle of it! It's my right!"

And I can support people owning whatever gun they want, and still mock it for being a looped-holed thing not envisioned in the days of muskets and cannons. It really is applying something in a 250 year old context of what constitutes "arms". I can and will have fun with that. It can be consistent to take both sides here.

If you pay by the hour to use the range, any magazine under 20 rounds is a huge waste of range time.

Good win for the country, I suppose.

Dbl

a reply to: Degradation33

Neither was the internet.

[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

The government was never meant to be armed to a greater extent than the people.

a reply to: NickPDX22

The Constitution.

Anyone against it is an enemy.

a reply to: JinMI

Using that logic in argumentum ad absurdum...

Can I own an armed fighter jet? Or only buy a demilitarized one? Can I own a stinger missile, ever? What if I invoke the militia privilege, as outlined. What if our compound needs surface to air protection? Is this not the same mindset and application? What isn't within our compounds rights?

There are arms limits. Even a modified shotgun is illegal unless registered with the ATF. Clearly lots of disambiguation and red tape of legal vs illegal arms are present.

And if it's a common sense thing. What weapons are common sense like legal, but heavily regulated, rocket launchers vs an illegal shoulder fired missile.

Clearly there's an effort to keep civilians lesser armed than the miltary.

So why can't this apply as far down as an AR15 vs an M4?

This needs to happen in Washington state too. The commie in charge of Washington state hates the second amendment. AR's and AK's are all banned now can't buy them. People who already owned them before can keep them. That's a blatant misuse of power to ban them. Plus also the mags above 10 are all banned for any gun.

Try to buy most any pistol online and "not available in Washington state". Since most hold more than 10 rounds.

Glad to see the commies in Commiefornia lose in court. These people do not care at all about gun deaths, they are only concerned about their own safety when they pass commie laws since they fear retribution, otherwise there would be no "gun free zones" that invite the death of children. Newsome and his ilk are not concerned with the lives of anyone except their own based upon how they act, never what they say. Plus they seem to have zero interest in prosecuting people for the gun laws already on the books. They let them out so they can kill or rape someone else within hours.

They don't like people defending themselves.

If anyone needs more than 10 rounds to shoot a deer, they probably also go grenade fishing.

I kid, I kid. I'm a pretty decent marksman to this day, so when someone says they need an extended magazine, I usually tell them to spend more Saturdays at the range.

a reply to: Degradation33

It's not absurd if you understand the context and intent rather than going into hyperbole.

Can I own an armed fighter jet?

If the gov't can...

Or only buy demilitarized Migs?

If the gov't can.....

Can I own a stinger missile.

If the gov't can.........

What if What if I invoke the militia privilege, as outlined.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

You already have it as a citizen.

So why can't this apply to AR15 vs an M4?

Good question. The National Firearms act is the reason. A case that I would like to see relitigated, not only for its gross violation of the Constitution, but for the laughably corrupt case of The United States v Miller (1939).

If you want to travel back in time for some true crime drama, that's a good real world example.

originally posted by: Mahogany
If anyone needs more than 10 rounds to shoot a deer, they probably also go grenade fishing.

I kid, I kid. I'm a pretty decent marksman to this day, so when someone says they need an extended magazine, I usually tell them to spend more Saturdays at the range.

Sorry, I missed "deer hunting" in the Constitution.


Can you point it out for us please.......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Degradation33

Neither was the internet.

[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

The government was never meant to be armed to a greater extent than the people.

Thank you for posting this.
I have nothing to add besides this congratulations. And I don't say that to be sarcastic.

a reply to: NickPDX22

Back when I lived in California, I was still of militia age. Supposed to have a musket.

So I converted my single shot break action 20gauge. It was pretty easy; loaded up a bunch of hulls with triple x black powder, trimmed down plastic wad and .70 cal round balls.

A freaking 70 cal breach loading musket. The rapidity of reloading was a vast improvement over what my forbearers ever dreamed of.

Once I moved out of state and exceeded militia age I sold it. I should have kept it for nostalgia's sake.

originally posted by: Mahogany
If anyone needs more than 10 rounds to shoot a deer, they probably also go grenade fishing.

I kid, I kid. I'm a pretty decent marksman to this day, so when someone says they need an extended magazine, I usually tell them to spend more Saturdays at the range.

Why not mind your own business as to what people want.

I kid, I kid.

Please, continue to infringe on people's rights.

a reply to: pthena

Jesus man! Ya ya should've kept that beast!

a reply to: Degradation33

Even at the time of the writing of the Constitution one wasn't likely to own a fleet of warships.
Yet the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a well regulated militia was specifically spelled out and has not been modified since it's inception.
No one is asking to keep a nuclear warhead on hand. But what we are witnessing with these capacity limits and certain types of firearm bans is just the idealists taking baby steps towards disarmament of the citizenry, which is really what they desire, so long as it doesn't apply to the ivory tower living libs personal security services