9th Circuit Ends California Ban on High-Capacity Magazines

Would a ban on magazines with a capacity larger than two, iyo, violate the constitution? Or perhaps we should limit based on the potential speed of repeatable fire? would 2 seconds per shot be an infringement? 2 minutes?

The point- Assuming the 2A has a purpose, then at a certain point there has to be a line at which reducing the effectiveness of firearms does become an infringement because it nullifies that purpose... most gun control opponents are willing to establish that line (though certainly few will agree on it) whereas those who promote more gun control rarely are willing to define how much restriction would be too much, indicating a probable willingness (and imo intent) to allow the restriction of the right to bear arms to a degree that makes bearing arms pointless and/or ineffective.

 

Never mind the fact a ban on magazines based on the number of rounds they hold is arbitrary and capricious; arbitrary and capricious restrictions on the exercise of a right infringe upon that right.

 

I believe in SUPERIOR! Firepower to Criminals. I'm a Law abiding, Tax paying American who LEGALLY! owns Firearms. I should be allowed to own and use a Bazooka against a Criminal with a Pellet Gun that comes to harm me.

 

What I can never understand who what well regulated militia you all belong to. Why are those three words always completely ignored in these arguments?

The number of rounds is absolutely arbitrary, untrained idiots waving treason flags screaming conspiracies are the issue.

 

militia is just armed civilians. Well regulated in the 18th century meant well maintained firearms.

 

See post #229... The only "purpose" of the 2A, if you are a strict "originalist", is a "well-regulated militia"

Again, if you believe the Constitution as written...

I find it laughable that most reasonable people would think a 10 magazine clip limit would "make bearing arms pointless"

 

Source?

How are we tracking to make sure the weapons are well maintained as per required in your view of the amendment?

 

Except for the 23 executive actions after his proposed gun bill didn't even make out of the democratically controlled house.

 

Federalist Papers number 46.

 

They aren't ignored. They aren't conditional. The militia is necessary to secure a free state. The people's right to bear arms cannot be infringed. It's not the right of the militia. It's the right of the people.

A militia is formed of the people. Therefor the right of the people to bear arms is necessary for that to take place. You don't have to be in a militia. You just have to be a citizen, because citizens need to be able to form a militia.

 

Common knowledge. Basically its saying keep your firearm ready to go at a moments notice in case it is needed. And no one is tracking it. That's the point. The country had just freed itself from tyranny. Part of the reason for the second amendment is to keep the federal government from becoming tyrannical by having an armed populace more powerful than the government itself when everyone takes up arms. It's as relevant now as it was back then. Possibly moreso now, as before the federal government was not nearly as powerful as it is now.

 

From Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

That's 10 star gibberish....

And none of it has anything to do with the point of this thread....

Clip size limit

Not unconstitutional....

 

Anything regulating firearms is unconstitutional. That's one thing the government has no right to touch. Anytime they come up with a new regulation it is an abuse of power.

 

Communists don't like the idea of People being able to stand up to Government.

 

When did Heller get into clip size? Was that the 2nd paragraph??

It always sucks when your home is invaded by 11 people and you have to go to the backup clip....

 

Really? Ever hear of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban?? Or was Spongebob on?

 

Ultimate power needs to always rest with the common man, not the central government. Government will ALWAYS eventually get out of control if not held in check by hard power in the hands of citizens. Not soft, theoretical power, but the power to literally burn the government to the ground and start fresh if they grow too tyrannical.

 

Yeah, it was unconstitutional then and it still is. A judge saying it is constitutional doesnt make it so. They are human, not gods of law.

 

I was addressing the claim about the militia quoted in my previous post.

It's the very first sentence of the holding. Do you think the supreme court will contradict itself later in the opinion?

The 9th didn't think so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sa...igh-capacity-magazine-ban-explained?_amp=true

 

Does limiting magazine capacity better regulate the militia?

Not what I said. Save your strawmen for some other purpose, plz and thx.

Would it be 'well regulated' if the militia were limited to a magazine capacity of 1?

 

Thats kinda my point, tho Im attempting to expound upon why it is so.

 

Fascinating read. It does appear that the militia is still sanctioned and semi-controlled by the individual states in that paper however and not just individuals not organized under a specific cause.

I also note that it says the military is to be kept small in order for this to work — seeing that our military is the largest in the world by a significant margin, much above the 30,000 in the papers, how can this be used to reconcile the points of the second amendment?

 

Anecdotally, I was in a Civil Defense group that petitioned the office of the governor of our state for direction, training, coordination ...all the things classically considered 'regulation' a century and more ago when these sorts of things were codified. We received no response. Just for the record, our state defines 'the militia' similarly to US Code- all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. So, yes, our state does have some jurisdiction over the regulation of the militia. And, no, it does not seem to have any interest in doing so. As far as I can tell, the only thing the state can't order the militia to do is disarm and/or disband. I suspect thats the only order it would be willing to give, if it could.

 

The SCOTUS has spoken.