Los Angeles bans ownership of firearm magazines > 10 rounds

oldman12 · Jul 30, 2015

The sphinx said:
I'm so glad I don't live in CA. When I was a kid it was a dream to one day live there. Then again I also dreamed of becoming a Wizard.

Vile Shadow · Jul 30, 2015

Hit and Run said:
To paraphrase Connecticut Legislator in regards to massive non-compliance to their knee-jerk reaction laws post Sandy-Hook, "If you pass a law and it is ignored by an overwhelming majority, is it truly a law."

No. It's a sign you did something incredibly stupid and pissed a lot of people off. :rolleyes:

Vile Shadow · Jul 30, 2015

smokey0118 said:
The best way to point out the errors in reasoning here are to ask those in favor of this how exactly they arrived at 10 rounds. Ask why not 9 or 12 or 3. If it'still to limit how many people can be killed, why not ban magazines outright and force people to handload one at a time, why do they think it's OK for 10 people to be shot before a reload if they believe this will stop criminals? If this is such a good idea, make it mandatory for police as well. If they don't agree it should also apply to police force them to explain why police need more than 10 rounds and then ask why those same arguments don't apply to law abiding citizens using guns for THEIR defense.

Funny how the New York knuckleheads came up with the amount of 7.

I'll bet the intent there was a defacto ban on all pistols, so the only legal handguns for the peasants are revolvers.

It escaped the dumbasses' attention the 1911 mags hold 7 rounds.

Idiots. :rolleyes:

TheSubieNinja7 · Jul 30, 2015

Dingo3 said:
I'm not a lawyer and did not stay at a Holiday Inn. That being said, I believe that the above only refers to Congress according to the Constitution and not to the States.

Please correct me if I am wrong (which happens a lot but that's how I learn). I'm sure that I'm wrong and would definitely appreciate constructive criticism.

I'm neither a lawyer, nor did I stay at the Holiday Inn, but I am 2/3 of the way finished law school, so that has to be good for something.

That being said, the ex post facto clause is applicable to the states via Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. The "Takings Clause" involving just compensation is also applicable to the states.

JohnnyE said:
It would only be an ex post facto law if they passed a law today that punished you for having the magazines yesterday. The new law is only prospective. It was ok to have the magazines yesterday and today, but you got to get rid of them before tomorrow. Heck, I'm sure the folks possessing cocaine and morphine on the '30's were upset when these things got regulated by the pure food and drug act, which suddenly made them illegal, or booze, when the Volstead Act was passed following adoption of the 18th amendment...

I see what you're saying. But they're punishing the act of possession, which could have happened yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So I'm saying it's ex post facto by punishing the continuing act of possession that began as soon the person obtained the magazine.

annihilation-time · Jul 30, 2015

Thank God. Now everyone in LA will be safe.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

JohnnyE · Jul 30, 2015

TheSubieNinja7 said:
I'm neither a lawyer, nor did I stay at the Holiday Inn, but I am 2/3 of the way finished law school, so that has to be good for something.

That being said, the ex post facto clause is applicable to the states via Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. The "Takings Clause" involving just compensation is also applicable to the states.

I see what you're saying. But they're punishing the act of possession, which could have happened yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So I'm saying it's ex post facto by punishing the continuing act of possession that began as soon the person obtained the magazine.

Not really. If you get rid of the mags before the effective date of the statute/ordinance, you can't be convicted. A crime occurs if you are in possession of a banned item on or after the effective date, a date which must come after enactment of the statute or ordinance. If the effective date of a law predates the enactment date, it is an ex post facto law.

kenpo333 · Jul 30, 2015

Sling Blade said:
The stupid is strong in the land of fruits and nuts with an ample supply of both.

That'll teach those hoodrats not to shoot people.

As well know this applies to Maryland and California. What a sad comparison.

ShallNotInfringe · Jul 30, 2015

Why would anyone need a magazine with more than 10 bullets? Geez ya gotta throw 'em out anyway after ya use 'em.

john_bud · Jul 31, 2015

Everyone knows the "evil content" in a gun grows stronger and stronger as more evil bullets are jambed into a magazine.... oops! I meant "clip". When the amount of evil reaches critical the gun spontaneously goes on a killing rampage.

Allium · Jul 31, 2015

embermage said:
The rally cry of those of us from Colorado!

I thought the rally cry was _ DONT BOGART THAT JOINT

Vile Shadow · Jul 31, 2015

john_bud said:
Everyone knows the "evil content" in a gun grows stronger and stronger as more evil bullets are jambed into a magazine.... oops! I meant "clip". When the amount of evil reaches critical the gun spontaneously goes on a killing rampage.

Don't forget a gun's "evil" factor also varies in direct proportion to its appearances on TV. :rolleyes:

Nanook · Aug 1, 2015

Never forget that the dipshits who shot up that high school in Columbine had Hi Point carbines with.....wait for it.....10 round mags. Tell me again how this 'will prevent mass shootings'?

bkuether · Aug 1, 2015

Mr Bear said:
I bet there'll be a few Cali's who comply simply because the gov't is telling them to do it, disregarding the fact the mags have been legal to possess until today.

Politicians out there have been inhaling too much polluted air. Unfortunately for us, the nitwits in our GA might try to pass something similar for us. Don't believe there'd be a very high rate of compliance by our Md brethren.

There was a book about that. The lead in the pollution made all the kids become pack murderers, with their eyes rolled back into their heads.

Forget the name. Good read.

dontpanic · Aug 1, 2015

Sling Blade said:
Funny how the New York knuckleheads came up with the amount of 7.

I'll bet the intent there was a defacto ban on all pistols, so the only legal handguns for the peasants are revolvers.

It escaped the dumbasses' attention the 1911 mags hold 7 rounds.
Idiots.

They actually chose 7 so the 1911 would not be impacted.

Funny that all my 1911 mags are 8 rounders

rlc2 · Aug 7, 2015

The arrogance at LA City Council is nothing new...

and its more wide-spread, as in past years:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Complaint.pdf

Omega21 · Aug 7, 2015

Isn't this the fake website that publishes stories that are designed for this sort of stuff. I seem to recall another article like this about guns being banned somewhere and it turned out this was a fake news website.

Los Angeles bans ownership of firearm magazines > 10 rounds

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

...

...

Member

MOLON LABE

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Lil Firecracker

Ultimate Member

Senior Keyboard Operator

...

F-notso-NG-anymore

Judge not this race .....

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics