Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Maybe he's working from a Russian translation.
Cali High-Cap Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Observe & Report
- Start date
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
Of course, that was one of the main points in the order. People need more than ten rounds to defend themselves and the state doesn't have the power to say they do not or cannot have it.
Paragraph continues but RIU shitcode truncated it:
travisw
Well-Known Member
Help me figure this out.
Now admittedly, I didn't read your 86 page citation, but I was born in raised in California. I know the loophole @TacoMac is referencing is real. Prop 63 was an attempt to close it. I left California a few years back but was under the impression the Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of 63.
Duncan vs ??????? (can't remember)
What am I missing?
found it edit:
Duncan v. Becerra: Partnering With California Lieutenant Governor Newsom to Defend Prop. 63
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/duncan-v-becerra-partnering-with-lt-gov-newsom-to-defend-prop-63/
stoner edit: just realized your 86 page citation was Duncan v. Becerra
Seriously though, what am I missing? You guys just trolling @TacoMac ?
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'd like to have the low number of gun homicides that other developed countries have -- countries that also have better laws that regulate the sale and ownership of guns. As I see it, many fervent US gun owners simply don't understand there are other ways than wide open gun ownership. Also the courts read special versions of the 2nd that omit the "well regulated" part of it. So an amendment will eventually be enacted to bring the US more in line with civilized countries.
That said, because the US enables everybody regardless of criminal record to own high power high capacity killing machines then it's unreasonable to take them away from peaceable citizens.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
You're not missing much of anything. The law passed after Prop 63 banned all hi cap mags (except for cops on duty and the like) starting in July 2017 . The order I posted was indeed from Duncan v California, which is challenging the law. A preliminary injunction was issued and Duncan moved for summary judgement. Summary judgement was granted and the order declaring the law unconstitutional was handed down last week. California filed an appeal a couple days ago.
Now I'm certainly no expert but I do read a lot of these things and this order does read like the judge is a "firearms enthusiast" ahem. Maybe it will be reversed by the 9th Circuit. I'm sure whoever loses the appeal will petition for SCOTUS to review it. This particular case is far from over but for now the ban is totally gone like it never happened, not just temporarily unenforced.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
CO has a similar ban and the gun shops in Cheyenne WY and Raton NM love it. They do a brisk business in high cap mags. Magpul even relocated out of state because of the ban.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure most homicides committed with firearms are due to prohibition. Illegal drug manufacturers, dealers, and users can't call the cops or take their disputes to court so they settle them the old fashioned way. Americans consume way more illegal drugs than every other civilized country too, so it isn't surprising there is more violence associated with its illegal drug trade. Ending prohibition would do a lot more for reducing homicides than anything else and wouldn't infringe on anyone's rights.
I eat a lot of fiber to keep my bowels well regulated, what does that have to do with the government? Many words have more than one meaning and meanings change over time. There was extensive discussion of this in DC v Heller, the landmark 2nd amendment case. The militia consists of all able bodied men who are capable of coming to the defense of the country. You need to be armed to come to the defense of the country and the militia are expected to bring their own weapons so the 2nd amendment ensures that the militia will have the kinds of weapons that soldiers are expected to carry. However, Heller also explains that rather than limiting the 2nd amendment, the preamble adds additional purpose to the main purpose of protecting peoples right to defend themselves.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
For folks confused about the meaning of the "prefatory clause" of the 2nd amendment, here is the first part of the syllabus from DC v Heller. Obviously, more extensive discussion is contained in the opinion on the pages noted. The Court doesn't "omit the well regulated part."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Held:
1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual- rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Held:
1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual- rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I get it. Many people still cling to the idea that guns will keep them safe when for most the opposite is true. I'm also convinced that the only way we'll be able to enact rational gun control laws is with an amendment to the constitution. Totally agree with you that we should repeal prohibition. Disagree about gun regulations. Agree that you should be able to crap however you like so long as you do it in private. Would prefer you do so in a sanitary manner.
One thing I'm for is that private gun owners continue to use their guns on themselves. Suicide is tragic but better that they go out clean.
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
Maybe bullets should cost $10,000.00 each. This would eliminate a whole bunch of stuff. Buy all the guns you want, just remember the cost of ammo is high.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You'd need guns (loaded with bullets) to enforce any law mandating the price of bullets.
High likelihood that a lucrative black market in ammo would be created.
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
OK you got me, I've been looking for a career change.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Not if we took the approach you use in your utopia. How would that work again ?
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
I forget why I use to value his opinion somewhat.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
All the world would agree not to shoot each other ..... Shazam, no more guns, it’s that simple jeesh.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Actually the laws of supply and demand work in most scenarios whether heavily controlled by "authority" or not, utopia or dystopia.
For instance if you were in jail, (for stealing oranges) you'd be able to barter your math tutoring skills for a higher price, if a G.E.D. was a requisite to earlier release.
I'm sure you'd agree when desired goods and services are made "illegal" that the result is often a lucrative black market. If you don't believe me dig up Al Capone or ask Pablo Escobar.
If oranges were made illegal, you'd still be able to get some good "sinsemilla citrus" but of course the price would be unnaturally skewed upward as a result of the illegality.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
So your utopia could do nothing for guns. Makes for a problem in your utopia.
I'm good on the oranges. I received a little over 1/2 bushel. Made orange juice and beer. Gave the rest to some elderly neighbors
Last edited:
londonfog
Well-Known Member
We would also just politely ask each other to not carry a gun. If someone does we can politely request that he/she equip only one bullet. Everyone would agree with these terms in Rob Roy World