9th Circuit Ends California Ban on High-Capacity Magazines

Another violation of my Second Amendment rights.

Do you know that to be a fact? If so could you provide the source of your information?

 

The Second Amendment pertains to the citizenry having the means to mount a military force for the security of all. It states no limit on the keeping and bearing of arms, and does in fact make it crystal clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A magazine capacity of 30 rounds is a very old concept. Repeating arms go back centuries, having been used in combat as early as 1657. The Kalthoff Repeater for example, a flintlock, lever actuated, with magazines for lead balls and black powder built into the gun. Made in various capacities including 30 rounds and issued to royal troops who used them in war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

The Founders not only knew about repeating arms of higher capacity than the single shot rifles and muskets routinely seen in movies and TV shows, they attempted to buy some for the Continental Army. The Belton Repeater for example, claimed a maximum rate of fire of sixty rounds in a minute. The Continental Congress issued an order to buy some without knowing the price. The inventor had some rather odd ideas, deciding to charge a price equal to the number of troops it would take to achieve the same amount of fire. This was a massive sum, and the Congress canceled the order.

Which is evidence that gouging in military procurement has a very long history!

There is a great deal of information available on the web of early repeating flintlock firearms, Wikipedia is just one place to look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flintlock_repeaters

The end result of all this is that the arms the Second Amendment refers to are those which are of common utility to the standing armies of the time and place you live in.Were this hundreds of years into the future, we would be talking about ray guns, possibly. As we are in the here and now of the real world, we are talking about semiautomatic and automatic firearms. As in rifles, carbines, pistols and shotguns.

The standard capacity of the AR-15 pattern rifle or carbine is 30 rounds. For various specialized purposes, there are magazines that are much larger and much smaller. Those tend to be more expensive and exist in fewer numbers than the standard 30 round models.

One more thing, were we all followers of Karl Marx (God Forbid!), not only would the personal ownership of modern military arms be considered vital to the needs of the people, but it would include the owning of cannons and other artillery. A surprising fact, that even a philosophy that is in opposition to our concept of Freedom should share a similar outlook to the need of the People to be armed.

 

That pretty much sums up everything you have contributed to this thread. Why don't you do a little reading and come back better prepared for the discussion?

 

You may hate the truth, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

 

With your logic, a law limiting firearms to only single shot capability (in terms of magazine size, not select fire) would be completely constitutional. I can't possibly disagree with that position more.

 

I feel it actually would be constitutional, but I doubt any State AG would go that restrictive at this time...

 

Hard fail DL, hard fail. The bump-stock ban wasn't a "law". It came through the federal rule-making process. It's that same rule-making process that Obama used throughout his administration to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms. For example: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-truth-about-obamas-social-security-gun-grab

 

The united state supreme court has stated such an approach to firearm-related restrictions would never pass constitutional muster. They stated as much in the Heller ruling, and again in McDonald and again in Caetano.

 

A statement with absolutely no rational basis.

 

And _______ other topics....

 

I wonder how many criminals turned in their magazines when the ban went into effect?

 

I'd be willing to bet it was somewhere less than 1.

 

And how many good people became criminals for having a box with a spring in it?

 

I wonder how many they could have turned in.

 

Do you suppose somebody slipped an integrity and intelligence pill into their punch bowl when they weren't looking???

 

Trump, with his appointees.

 

And I feel that I'd like you to share some of whatever it is you've been smoking...

 

How?

 

Unfortunately, many firearms either had to be registered or modified not to accept a detachable magazine. We still have a lot of work to do.

 

Seems a tide may be turning...

 

Next, I want to see our magazine ban in Colorado thrown out. The Democrats, led by Governor Hickenlooper, imposed this on the citizens of Colorado and as a result, they ran off a fine company called Magpul that makes high-quality weapons magazines. Magpul found a welcoming home up the road in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and over a hundred Coloradoans lost their jobs.

The message to nanny-state, hyperliberal Democrats is underscored with this ruling... nobody needs or wants anybody to TELL them how to load their weapons -- period! If sob-sister liberals don't want to possess weapons of self-defense or the ammunition needed for them -- then FINE! They don't have to have them, or have anything to do with them. BUT -- leave the rest of us the hell alone!

 

Both the law and the moving of Magpul are a shame.

Magpul has been an innovator and its polymer mags are both affordable and reliable.

 

Sorry i am calling shenanigans on the "I made more money under Obama" unless you perhaps are a Therapist that listened to people stress over losing their health insurance or saw their rates skyrocket, and you charge near or at $200 an hour, then if so, I apologize.

 

Bombs are used for at least a few legitimate reasons beyond killing people. Mining, demolition work, pyrotechnics... Etc.

But because of their destructive power they are restricted to certain individuals who've proven their competency.

That said, the ban was stupid. Ok, so now I just tape two mags together, end over end, and now I have a 20 round magazine with a 5-10 second pause while I flip it around. Gun bans don't work very well, and banning bits and pieces works not at all.

 

Well, a lot can happen in that 5-10 second pause, but I get your point.

Hate to necro a thread, but it sounds like this decision to end the ban is now going to the full appeals court so it's probably good to have the original thread for context.

SNIP
A U.S. appeals court said on Thursday it will reconsider its decision that California's ban on high-capacity magazines violates the right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a decision made last August by a divided three-judge panel, which sided with opponents of the ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. An 11-judge panel will now consider the case.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-court-reconsider-california-ban-200903131.html

If I learned nothing else in 2020 (and I learned plenty), it's that "en banc" hearings rarely go well for the conservative position.

Whether it's an effective gun safety measure or not, clearly a magazine size ban doesn't remotely affect somebody's 2A rights....