California Magazine ban struck down by federal court

No, it's a fact.

 

It really isn't.

What it is is the argument California used to pass this ill-crafted law in the first place.

If you somehow feel safer in the knowledge that your neighbors are limited to ten shots, but, by your own admission, can reload with another ten, so be it.

I do not share in your ignorance.

Thankfully, Judge Benetiz saw things with a much clearer head.

 

It really is.

Still waiting for all the examples of needing a 30 round magazine. Speaking of ignorance.

 

Checking around before I walk the dog.

 

If need was the requirement for someone to own something, no one would have sports cars, swimming pools, alcoholic drinks etc. The burden is on people for you to prove honest citizens should not be able to own something. You cannot

 

why are you so afraid of your fellow citizens that you cannot trust them to own normal capacity magazines?

 

And you'll be waiting an eternity. There is no constitutional requirement that I justify my "need".

That 30 round mags have been the standard for more than half a century is all the reason I "need" for me to legally obtain and possess them.

Something that Judge Benetiz recognizes, but the State of California, and you apparently, do not.

You really should take 30 minutes and READ THE F**KING DECISION IN ITS ENTIRETY.

 

A totally unnecessary arms race in our own country. Nothing f***ing dumber.

 

No but I see no issue with carrying one in a safe, slinged, non-threatening manner.

 

Quite true.

Reread what you posted, word for word.

Then explain how this makes any sense, "Maintaining a 30 round magazine at home is legal. Brandishing it in an offensive or belligerent manner in public is not."

Are you and the judge really claiming brandishing a 30 round magazine in public in a offensive or belligerent manner is illegal?

It seems some people amongst us fail to understand magazines do not load cartridges and fire bullets, and therefore are not devices that can be used to threaten someone.

That's firearms 101 and a poorly worded decision.

 

Give it up, to Dave a flintlock has too much capacity to be owned by the law abiding and should be restricted to the military and law enforcement.

 

Still waiting for all those examples of civilians needing 30 rounds to defend themselves.

Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to have 30 round mags. They should. Let me repeat that...people should be able to have 30 round mags. But let's just not pretend 30 round mags are needed for hunting or self defense. That's all I'm saying. If one needs a 30 round mag to feel more manly then by all means have as many as you like. If one needs a bump stock to feel more manly then by all means you should be able to have one or ten or whatever. Just as one should be able to buy as many guns as they want and as much ammo as they want. Just don't p!$$ on my head and tell me it's raining by trying to BS me on why one wants a 30 round mag.

 

It does not matter. Government is devoid of the legal authority to determine what capacity of magazine is legal for private citizens to use, and what capacity of magazine is illegal for the same purposes. Ultimately it is a decision that the individual must make for themselves, rather than some bureaucrat or politician making the decision for everyone.

 

Reloading is not easily achieved in a high-stress situation, especially when an individual does not have a free hand for use. Nor does everyone have the time and funding necessary to undergo whatever degree of extensive training may prove necessary to learn such skills.

 

Nonsense.

 

Is the purpose of law to achieve nothing but annoying others who do not hold political power, simply to remind them that they do not hold political power?

 

It is the truth. And nothing can be presented on the part of yourself to demonstrate otherwise.

 

It does matter in that the person made a specific claim that I would like to see proven. It has nothing to do with what you are going on about.

 

Complete nonsense. The greater the stress the quicker you'll reload, and without even being aware of it.

 

Since the phrase "high-capacity magazine" means anything that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition, that means the term applies to any magazine whether it holds eleven rounds of ammunition or one hundred rounds of ammunition. Somehow government made the decision that no one, absolutely no private individual to be found anywhere in the entire state of California, had any legitimate reason to use for the ability to carry eleven rounds of ammunition in a single magazine. The decision is both arbitrary and capricious, devoid of anything in the way of legitimacy.

 

Then go about demonstrating such as actually being the case. Merely claiming such is not good enough, actually demonstrate such as being fact. Demonstrate that anyone can change out an empty magazine for a loaded one in a high-stress situation where the risk of death is quite real and quite likely.

 

Cool rant, still has nothing to the discussion I was having with the other poster.

 

It's way more than changing a magazine, first the person must have additional magazines and very few people outside of military and law enforcement carry additional magazines. The next problem is remembering to count the number of rounds fired and that becomes very difficult under stress even for those who are highly trained. And finally is the actual magazine change out, someone who has practiced a lot and can see, that is to say is not working in total darkness, can complete a mag change in about 4 seconds... and in a defensive situation 4 seconds can get a person killed.

As such mag change outs should be avoided as much as practical.

 

Count the number of rounds fired. Ha ha.

And nobody carries additional magazines. That's why they sell multi-magazine pouches.

 

That's part of professional training, it bets the heck out of having to manually chamber another round.

And the majority of civilians do not carry extra mags, more so at home, where many defensive shootings happen.