CA high capacity magazine ban just struck down

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by MisterMcCool, Aug 14, 2020.

  1. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    14,607
    3,759
    113
    I heard this on the radio and Google confirmed it. California’s ban on high capacity magazines has been overturned.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
    OLD Ron, towboater, primer1 and 5 others like this.

  2. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    3,174
    2,639
    113
    Again?
    Hopefully it will stick this time..
     
    locutus and Rifling82 like this.
  3. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,597
    2,324
    113
    Here's the Second Amendment Foundation's take on the ruling.


    Second Amendment Foundation Hails Court Ruling in California Magazine Limit Case @ SAF.org.


    The case is: Duncan v. Becerra (Calif. State Attorney Gen'l).

    Here is the original complaint: Duncan v Becerra, #17-56081.

    Here is a video from the April 2 court proceedings on the case: click @ ca9.uscourts.gov.

    Here is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion: click @ ca9.uscourts.gov, published 8/14/2020.

    The case was decided by: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three-judge panel, holding that California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs) violates the Second Amendment. Opinion written by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

    IMO, it's all but certain California will be sufficiently livid to appeal this to SCOTUS. And, if SCOTUS has the lack of backbone it's shown recently, it's all but certain SCOTUS will "punt" and let the ruling stand. (Not wanting to "dirty" their hands with something so mundane as the RKBA, of course. :mad:)

    Would love to see SCOTUS take the darned thing, and then decide capacity limits, feature limits, type/size/caliber limits and other restrictions and impediments having zero to do with an individual's specific criminal status (in a specific case) are all the same as this and, thus, flatly unconstitutional. There aren't unicorns, however, and SCOTUS doesn't have one (a spine), at least whenever it involves the RKBA.

    Still, a "win" for liberty and the citizens of that benighted state out West.
     
    boatme98, Ghost1958 and bluez like this.
  4. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,494
    9,843
    113
    So the judge supposed that Bazookas and grenades are probably protected as well. Interesting, I wonder if there is a limit on leathality that he would say we must "stop here?"

    If the the right to keep and bear arms was, in fact, unlimited, there would be nothing from preventing your Muslim neighbor, next door, from experimenting with making cheap ammonium nitrate bombs in his basement, with the protection of the law and complete blessing of the courts. Sometimes, we need to be careful what we wish for.

    I am not thinking this ruling is something to get overly excited about, it may not last.
     
  5. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,597
    2,324
    113
    Judges are political animals, and altogether too human, when considering their judgments. All the more so, when it comes to something like this that impacts the ability of "the little guy" to hold his own against big bad, wayward hired staff.

    Indeed.

    There'll be folks abusing their liberty the moment all get it. Much the same as abusing availability of knives or anything else.

    The 2A's prohibition on fiddling by the hired staff says nothing about limits. About the only limitation or impediment that exists is the sort of thing that we've been stuck with for a long time, the length of time of which is often considered the authorizing legitimacy, instead of finding any underlying essential legitimacy in the first place for a limit.


    My own thought is, when it comes to the degree of lethality of arms being kosher or not, acceptable or not, is basically this: anything directed, targeted and reasonably local in its effects (ie, a bullet, an arrow, a cannon or similar gun) is something that amounts to arms that can be relatively easily controlled. By comparison, a bomb of any sort isn't that, where one essentially has no control over how far the blast goes, and whether untargeted innocents get struck. I'd like to think that if any justification could be floated that'd be an acceptable justification, it'd be that. Based on controllability. Hell, right now, we've essentially got the lowest bar possible: that it's lethal, that "if it saves one life," and that we've had such infringing encroachment on the books for awhile thus it must be justifiable.

    Of course, SCOTUS won't touch the thing. Not in its present make-up.
     
    bluez likes this.
  6. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,129
    2,893
    113
    I think the mag capacity is overstated and overhyped on both sides.
    But of course I support dropping this symbolic regulation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2020
  7. RaySendero

    RaySendero Well-Known Member

    377
    267
    63
    Chainfire if that's what "your" neighbor is like,
    maybe you should move!
     
  8. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,429
    4,826
    113
    There is no question the RTKABA is unlimited. Every single regulation ever written has to rely on stuff not in the 2A which mentions no limits anywhere. but made up things that simply trade liberty for safety.

    And we know what the founding fathers thought of that.
     
    MisterMcCool likes this.
  9. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,597
    2,324
    113
    Actually, as with nearly everything else in this world, there IS nothing actually preventing such a thing from occurring.

    Plenty of statutory "crimes" can be crafted. With fertilizer components, occasionally there are people who'll abuse the liberty and the product to attempt to harm others. Just like most anything else. Which doesn't hardly make others criminals who have nothing to do with such people and who don't attempt any such thing.

    Far better, instead of criminalizing the product's possession or making of it, is to criminalize actions. You're found to have attempted some actual violent act? You get held accountable. Caught ahead of time, if possible. Hammered into the dust for the act, if caught. Yes, yes, yes ... after the fact, in some cases. But that's the price of being free.

    As you say: be careful what you wish for. Freedom isn't all that resilient, when faced with the criminalization of everything. That's the path to dictatorial fascism, right there. Thankfully, something only a few People around the world have heartily rejected.
     
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  10. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,284
    6,984
    113
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/08/15/draft-n2574418



    [​IMG]

    J.A. Adande
    @jadande

    How can high-capacity gun magazines be covered by the second amendment when they didn’t exist when the second amendment was written?

    [​IMG]


    The New York Times
    @nytimes
    California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines violates the 2nd Amendment, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday. In a split decision, a 3-judge panel said that magazines that hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition are “protected arms.” https://nyti.ms/341wz9m
     
  11. towboater

    towboater Well-Known Member

    6,414
    3,506
    113
    Some will say that it is ok to ban this, and to ban that. Then one day when their favorite type of firearm gets banned. They will get upset and cry about the 2nd amendment being destroyed.
     
  12. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,729
    7,732
    113
    Screen Shot 2020-08-15 at 8.44.15 AM.png


    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...nees-san-franscisco-california-climate-change

    "...Lawrence VanDyke lost the election in 2014, only to become, this year, President Donald Trump's 10th appointee to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the powerful and reliably pro-environment Western appellate court that has handed Trump's administration a string of defeats on important environmental cases and earned the president's scorn. He has called the court's rulings "a disgrace."

    VanDyke's seat brings to 13 the number of Republican appointees on a 29-judge court, leaving the GOP just two seats shy of a majority as Trump campaigns for a second term and touts his focus on appointing conservatives to the nation's appellate courts. ...EOQ

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...nk-you-notes-to-1600-pennsylvania-ave-n793961

    "...You can thank President Donald J. Trump for that decision Friday because it was one of his appointees who authored the majority opinion...."EOQ
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
    bluez and towboater like this.
  13. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,597
    2,324
    113
    Respectfully ...

    It's problematic in this one, key sense: The "symbolism" is that it's okay to screw with the RKBA however one wants, if only someone puts it to paper and euphemistically calls it "law."

    In itself, it's just one "little" infringement. But it's indicative that infringement is allowed, despite the prohibition in the Constitution.

    There are hundreds. They've all been crafted because "the powers that be" crafted them. Not because they're lawful. Not because it's allowable. But because they could.

    Toweringly dangerous, because of that.

    'Cause it could be any other key liberty, abused like that.

    Imagine if the same crap was done with access to legal counsel, to know the charges, to have a speedy trial, and to have an ostensibly "independent" judiciary involved in trying the accusations and ensuring it's done at lest somewhat fairly. It could easily become one big Guantánamo, for everyone. And what's stopping them doing it? Only the desire to do so. Thankfully, right now "they" don't want to. But unconstitutional sidestepping like what's done with "large" capacity magazines shows how easy obliterating the constitutional rule of law actually is, if only they attempt it.

    Caution is due.
     
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  14. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,429
    4,826
    113
    Ah yes. But the Muslim neighbor must then be aware that his non muslim neighbor can be assembling 50 bmgs and stock piling mortars as well.

    See how well freedom works rather than nanny state milksop.
     
    MisterMcCool, towboater and CMAB2SA like this.
  15. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,129
    2,893
    113
    Understood. I don’t want to pee on a hot thread. JMO.
     
  16. woodlander

    woodlander Active Member Lifetime Supporter

    212
    205
    43
    The second amendment does not specify that only weapons in common use at the time shall be protected. If it did, we wouldn't be able to have guns that use smokeless powder. All auto-loaders would be banned. No revolvers. Nothing that used modern cartridges - muzzle loaders would rule. Fortunately, the Founders were smart enough to just say "Arms", which is all inclusive.
     
    bluez, G66enigma and Ghost1958 like this.
  17. F4U

    F4U Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,358
    1,887
    113
    Chain, the antifa thugs are currently throwing molotov cocktails at cops, not to far removed from grenades. One throws shrapnel, one fire, the radius of destruction is different but the basic principle is the same. Cannon were privately owned in the 19th century, more primitive, but not much different than a bazooka. Most frontier stockades had at a minimum a couple of 2 or 3 pound swivel guns mounted on the walls. These were not government establishments, but trading posts, and other private property establishments.

    The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not hunting, or protecting your property, nobody of that era could imagine anybody objecting to those things. The purpose was so you and your neighbors could protect you and the rest of the country from an out of control gov't. This was a totally new concept, no previous government had ever been based on the limiting of government power. Thus it says "arms" because they knew there would be improvements in firearms, and they knew that human nature at its basest tries to accumulate power at the expense of the weak, and they knew that the people had to be as well armed as the gov't to prevent unconstitutional power grabs. This is the part no longer taught since the soviet inspired and controlled students of the mid to late 60s became the proffessers of the late 70s, and the politicians of the early 90s till today and beyond. Remember Krustchef banging his shoe on the podium at the UN in the 50s, he wasn't lying, they have destroyed us from the inside, it just took 40 years longer than he thought it would.

    At the time the constitution was written all arms had a military use, they assumed that would always be true, and it actually is, although there are glaring mismatches now that did not exist then.

    As for your fictional Muslim neighbor, maybe he has some stumps in back 40 that are in the way when he plows, so he wishes to be rid of them, dynamite used to be a usual way to do that. If he wants to blow up a bus station, we have laws against murder, with the death penalty, if that doesn't deter him, making fertilizer illegal won't either. Hell, a can of black powder, a 6 inch pipe nipple, 2 end caps and some fuse and I could ruin a lot of peoples day. I had 2 older neighbors (late teens) when I was a kid back in the 70s that ruined their day doing that. One lost his hand, the other his life, a serious jihadi wouldn't blink at that, should I not be able to shoot my cap and ball pistols so as to protect us from idiot neighbors? Where is the line?

    I do however agree that this ruling may not last, there are a LOT of idiot activist judges out there who may strike it down.
     
    primer1, ellis36, bluez and 2 others like this.
  18. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,284
    6,984
    113
    Such is why ESPN's talking heads should stick to sports.
     
  19. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    3,174
    2,639
    113
    Sir agree with your post but allow me to suggest a different nuance here.
    These Judges are not "idiots".. they know exactly what they are doing is wrong and unlawful.. but they are so immersed in legislating from the bench they dont care.

    They are acting as enemies of the republic with full malice of forethought.
     
    primer1, Gatoragn and woodlander like this.