Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

This deserves its own thread.

Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

NRA sauce for extra salt.

Love it, but no pro-gun ruling survives the Ninth Circuit. Could go to the Supreme Court, though.

If you need 30 rounds to hit the deer you suck and shouldn't be out there to begin with.

The Second Amendment has never been about hunting.

Funny given the counter claim has always been hunting is legal so high capacity magazines should also be legal.

More bullets are not going to help the bedwetting guntards. I am talking about the paranoid I need a gun because the world is coming to get me people. They could have 1000 round clips and it would not help them.

Deadlier toys to slaughter innocents!

nobody ever claimed that it does take 30 rounds to hit a deer.

No one has made that argument.

Who the hell ever made that ridiculous claim?

Help them what?

Not wet themselves when danger comes along. Hit their target in a real life shooting situation. Not kill their friends, family, and innocent bystanders instead of someone actually threatening them. Grow a brain. Stop being such a sniveling little coward. Be a decent human being.

Pick one, or two, or all of them. Remember, you did ask.

I don't care for high capacity magazines. I'm fine with the standard capacity ones*.




* Actually, for ARs at least, I prefer the low capacity 20 round magazines.

Everyone of these cases does just that.

Well than it should be easy to show us multiple cases than......

It's not. about. hunting.
It's never been. about. hunting.

oh you mean like hood-rats do when they commit drive-by shootings? Trump's people for you, no surprise there!

totally agree! Less bulky, less likely to jam, easier for boneheads like me who suck at math to count total rounds when dealing with hundreds/thousands of rounds like when running an army qualification range for example.

Poodle agrees!

How?

Uh...no. And no case makes that claim.

It's a standard dismissal: "You don't need X to hunt deer." But no one on the gun rights side is making the argument about hunting, because that isn't what it's about.

The 2nd Amendment *isn't* about hunting. Things like the magazine ban do not pertain to hunting at all.

True.

They pertain to other things.

yes, magazine capacity has everything to do with "using the proper tool for the job" as they say. You as a law abiding citizen should have the option of defending yourself with the most efficient tools legally available. Bad guys often work with other bad guys and even if acting alone they don't stand still when shot or shot at. Also bad guys don't magically stop trying to harm you just because they are shot with one bullet. Even if it takes ten seconds to expire that's ten seconds worth of harming you. Just the reality of human physiology.

Every adult citizen, except those prohibited via due process, should be able to purchase the same tools used by civilian law enforcement to defend themselves. When it comes to defensive tools, "law enforcement exemptions" are the height of governmental hypocrisy.

Why?

Why should the availability of a tool to law enforcement be the metric of its' availability to the public?

I'm not a cop but I would say because criminals generally attack cops with the same weapons they attack civilians. So if the cops need X weapons because criminals need Y weapons then civilians should be allowed to use X weapons. If civilians have to wait for the cops to come rescue them using X weapons why not let the civilians have X weapons themselves?

That said I am in full support of mandatory training for every weapon you purchase as a civilian. This does not infringe upon your right to bear arms! You can buy any gun made, but you have to prove that you know how to operate said weapon.

I have a standard driver's license which allows me to drive my VW Jetta (which I fucking BTW) but not an 18 wheeler - this makes sense.

You're missing an important, but fundamental, word that I believe answers your question. Civilian. Civilian law enforcement. It's a concept and tradition we inherited from y'all.

Could work for me if you are going to say that people have to follow the same training and testing requirements, along with reporting of any discharges.

I report my discharges to my doctor - they usually give me medicine to clear it right up! But yes I see what you are saying however it would be tough enforcing that for people target shooting or hunting. But yes if you live in an urban or otherwise populated area and you discharge rounds you should be required to call the cops because they will be responding soon to the general area anyway, and it would be nice to know who and why and what the circumstances were behind the rounds being discharged to save them valuable time and resources and possibly save lives in the process as they delve into their response.

Discharging a round was a HUGE issue in the military even in combat zones.