Mag Ban back on in CA.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tes-california-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tes-california-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines
9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional
- Thread starter JerseyMike
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Kharn
Ultimate Member
One of the fastest en banc we've ever seen, as if they rushed it to be published prior to NYSRPA v Bruen being published and yanking the rug out from under them...
These MF'ers have their heads so far up their ass I don't know where to start with it all. This shit really, really pisses me off.
Rather than promote things like peace and security and family and respect and property rights, they promote division, entitlement, and fear. Those cockbreaths implement all kinds of wackadoo shit that gives rise to all kinds of crazy shit and then they double down on their wackadoo shit rather than is the root cause, they seek to ban inanimate objects as a magic elixir to cure the societal ills they created which is dysfunctional pieces of shit that breed more dysfunctional pieces of shit.
They can truly suck a bushel bag, no, a cargo container of donkey dicks.
You want poster examples of the need for standard cap mags:
1. Rooftop Koreans (and others) in the LA riots
2. Kenosha Kid; he ran 5 with 3 hits but he had change to spare on the mob if needed
3. Other riots and chit over the years.
Who the F has the right to set limits on my mag capacity for self-defense?
This ruling is politics not rights.
Rather than promote things like peace and security and family and respect and property rights, they promote division, entitlement, and fear. Those cockbreaths implement all kinds of wackadoo shit that gives rise to all kinds of crazy shit and then they double down on their wackadoo shit rather than is the root cause, they seek to ban inanimate objects as a magic elixir to cure the societal ills they created which is dysfunctional pieces of shit that breed more dysfunctional pieces of shit.
They can truly suck a bushel bag, no, a cargo container of donkey dicks.
You want poster examples of the need for standard cap mags:
1. Rooftop Koreans (and others) in the LA riots
2. Kenosha Kid; he ran 5 with 3 hits but he had change to spare on the mob if needed
3. Other riots and chit over the years.
Who the F has the right to set limits on my mag capacity for self-defense?
This ruling is politics not rights.
Attachments
Nothing unexpected. No pro-2A ruling has survived en banc in 9CA.
GrimReaper
Ultimate Member
What part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand? If I cannot carry a firearm that has a adequate capacity to defend myself and my country, that is an infringement. Its about time to get out the tar and feathers. And maybe the nooses.
Fair enough and nothing personal but at some point this shit will break wide open.
The current CA law says you can steal under 900 bucks and it's just a citation while if you get caught with a standard capacity mag you may be looking at a felony????
The world's turned upside down.
That's one of the root arguments of Benitez's ruling; what's adequate. That definition is set by dipshits who know nothing.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
Or steal the cops' "hi" capacity mag?
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Don’t forget or give up hope yet.
Duncan will file for cert, and the NJ magazine ban case is ON HOLD with SCOTUS allready
SCOTUS doesn’t put a case on hold, unless a current case that they have granted cert too and either are deciding on, or will decide on has some effect on the case that is on hold, or they are going to rule and issue an opinion on the case, without granting cert and hearing oral arguments. They have done that before many times. That is SCOTUS has issued rulings and opinions on case without hearing oral arguments or granting cert.
Hope is not yet lost.
Duncan will file for cert, and the NJ magazine ban case is ON HOLD with SCOTUS allready
SCOTUS doesn’t put a case on hold, unless a current case that they have granted cert too and either are deciding on, or will decide on has some effect on the case that is on hold, or they are going to rule and issue an opinion on the case, without granting cert and hearing oral arguments. They have done that before many times. That is SCOTUS has issued rulings and opinions on case without hearing oral arguments or granting cert.
Hope is not yet lost.
End all security details for those MFer judges and all politicians and leave them with no "adequate" defensive tools to use. Then see how they like being exposed to the dipshit criminals they put back out on the streets.
One threatens the oligarchy status quo, the other only hurts the little people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
camo556
Ultimate Member
- Aug 29, 2021
- 2,634
The first 5 pages summary sound like a lot of sniping. They could be embarrassed to put this out. Why embarrass the court like this when they all know its getting returned to sender.
these upper courts are partisan poltical institutions. The judges, especially on 2A do not listen to cases, read constitution, or look at case law on merits, but as cover for positions they already have.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
I think it was done to send their message about how they feel about text history and tradition and why they feel it is wrong. They feel intermediate scrutiny is the more appropriate method.
We will need to wait and see how narrow of a ruling the court decides to issue. It is certainly possible that NYSRPA may not address the intermediate scrutiny issue and they may want to wait for another case to resolve the scrutiny issue.
Josh Blackman suggests that other cases may also affect what is decided. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/03/guns-terms-and-deals/
Is it June yet?
When that Blackman article came out it was critiqued as problematic. On one hand he is correct on the general observation that tacit deals, signaling and minimal decisions to avoid support of court packing schemes have become common.
On the other hand Blackman seems more or less lost on practicalities of gun control laws esp when it comes to carry. HIs quote of Kagan is absurd since she doesn't support Heller at all, no inherent right to even have a revolver in a safe at home. Kagan's views are not relevant to this case at all, nor are the views of Roberts, Sotomayer or Breyer. Some of the questions by the five actual conservatives are problematic
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
My takeaway from the article was that deal making makes predictions on the outcome that much more difficult.
I would disagree that he seems lost on the practicalities of gun control law. He is simply pointing out some of the issues the court needs to address.
His quote of Kagan is not absurd. It remains an issue and it is unclear how the court will deal with the issue.
I suspect that Kagan would find the law constitutional because there is no right to concealed carry and justify that conclusion based on history.
Given the wheeling and dealing that may occur, I would not dismiss other's view because they may impact the opinion that is ultimately written.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Severna Park Elementary School Teacher Accused of Inappropriately Touching Students (7 Viewers)- Latest: Boondock Saint
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (1 Viewer)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
