California Magazine ban struck down by federal court

stop whining about "illegals".

 

Never said that, I stated you do not understand firearms, try a little comprehension next time.

 

Thanks for the personal insult, it's clear you have nothing else to add to the thread.

 

Ten round mags can also be a “public safety issue”...see Virginia Tech shooter. Should we have a limit of five rounds? Three? One?
Personally I don’t have a need/want for 30 round mags and no one is ever going to need 30 rounds to hunt or defend themselves. But if people want a 30 round mag for whatever reason they should be able to obtain one.

 

My post was a nearly word for word copy of what was written by Judge Benetiz in his decision. So, it's Judge Benetiz that doesn't understand firearms, according to you.

Give it up, dude. You said you read the decision when it's plainly evident that you did not.

 

Like I have stated previously, and is plainly outlined in the judges decision, which Well Bonded obviously did not bother to read, it matters what your intent is. If you intend to shoot up a school with 30 round magazines, you are committing an illegal act. If you keep 30 round magazines in your home for defensive purposes, you are in the clear. At issue was the state making the decision for the individual as to what capacity they were allowed to use. A clear violation of the 2nd amendment, and the judge acted reasonably and accordingly in deciding that the state failed to make its case that 30 round magazines were a danger to the public.

 

This is demonstrably wrong. People have used 30 round mags to defend themselves. See any defense shooting with an AR or AK ever. There are numerous examples I could pull with news clips. Want some?

 

5,10,20,30, or 100 is irrelevant. The point is that the government has no right to decide which capacity magazine works best for me, the citizen.

 

Yes, would love to see how many civilians needed 30 rounds to defend themselves.

 

Doesn't anybody know how to reload?

 

Again, did anyone bother to actually read the decision?

Never mind the FACT that 30 round magazines have been the norm for decades among, wait for it....civilian shooters.

Who are you, or the State of California in this case, to tell me how many rounds I may need to defend my life, my family, or my home?

This decision rightly concludes that it is no ones business but the one pulling the trigger in defense of their lives, or the lives of the ones they love.

You are free to continue to own and use 10 round magazines. I have thirty or so that I'm not tossing in the trash just because I can now legally use my 30 round mags again.

However, I'd rather have 30 rounds at my fingertips and not need them, then to need them and not have them.

 

Gee, if travelers carried 30 round magazine no one would need to be a Good Samaritan.

 

Where are the examples of civilians needing 30 round magazines?

 

Sure, but having 5 to 30 extra rounds is a lot faster in dispatching a lethal threat charging you than reloading.

 

To be fair, the situations cited in the decision clearly indicate that the unexpected use of a firearm in defense of one's life left no time for them reload. In the case of the mother and her two daughters, they were hiding in a closet with no access to more ammo.

 

Sure, in the A Shau Valley.

 

There are documented cases of people hitting their assailant multiple times to the point of emptying their firearm and the assailant still acting as a lethal threat.

 

Where are the examples that they don't?

 

It happens, about once a decade. A State Trooper here in Ma. unloaded 18 rounds of .357 in a 400 lb. man and the guy was still a threat. But..............

 

So you don't have any huh?

 

Nor do you.

 

There aren't any cases where under 5 rounds stopped a threat? Ha ha. Where do you live, Mars?

 

Clearly you didn’t read my original post where I said people should be able to have 30 round mags if they want to.

 

If a law restricting the number of rounds you can have in a magazine pisses off the 4 or 5 percent of the civilian population that actually carries a concealed firearm, it's a good law. I'm all for pissing them off.

 

That is a specious argument at best.

One round can stop a threat. Heck, often just brandishing a firearm can stop a threat. That isn't now, and never has been, the argument in play here.