California Magazine ban struck down by federal court

It's a public safety issue. Again, the decision addresses this fact as well. There is a difference between maintaining a 30 round magazine at home for self defense purposes and waving an AR-15 around outside a mall or movie theater. There is a point at which a legal activity becomes an illegal one. Driving is legal. Driving drunk is not. Maintaining a 30 round magazine at home is legal. Brandishing it in an offensive or belligerent manner in public is not.

 

for purely political speech and redress of grievances.

Better solutions at lower cost!

 

Good points. The courts are going to decide this. I personally do not think SCOTUS will support a magazine ban.

 

You actually shot yourself in the foot with that nonsense.

 

Really? How so? I simply paraphrased the judges' decision.

Did you bother to read it in its entirety?

 

Except for the simple fact that it is not, as use of public right of ways is subject to taxation and fees.

 

In other words you cannot come up with a valid reason yourself.

 

And why should I? The judge's ruling speaks rather clearly. There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel.

Something tells me you didn't bother to read the actual ruling.

 

That reply indicates to me you have no idea of what your talking about.

 

Whereas your reply indicates you haven't read the actual ruling.

 

Incorrect, I read the entire ruling, now go mind your own business.

 

Doesn’t appear so.

 

And yet another uninformed assumption by yourself.

 

Post 29 proves you didn't read it. No worries....I don't expect you to admit your gaffe.

 

Once again another uninformed assumption by yourself.

 

Uh huh

 

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson

 

I would never assume that because one reads something that they actually understood it.

You either didn't read it, or you did, and didn't understand it.

So, which is it?

 

I read it and understood it, none the less your post was silly and revealing of how little you understand firearms.

 

I've been laughing about this all weekend. The best part is that today is a state holiday in California so they're going to have a hard time getting an injunction filed today (fed court is open but its state emps who have to make the filing so....) which means one more day of sales and digging up ****

 

PSA and Primary arms already are stating on their web page that they are shipping normal capacity magazines to Bannefornia

 

Pretty much every manufacturer sold out this weekend.

 

For the benefit of us all please explain how Judge Benitez doesn't "understand firearms".

After all, it was his example that I paraphrased here, leading to your absurd quote about understanding firearms and shooting myself in the foot.

Again, it is so painfully obvious that you didn't bother to read the decision in it's entirety, yet you sit here bloviating like your god's gift to the 2nd amendment.

 

Well Bonded is certainly no gift to understanding the 2d Amendment.