Trigger happy Yanks

[DonDeeHippy]

California ends ban on high capacity gun magazines

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals throws out California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying the law violates the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear firearms. Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel’s majority that “even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster”.

Holly crap one state that tries to pass just a small bit of restraint gets their law rebuked...
Ohh course it's people's right to have a gun that can shoot 20-30 victims a minute, wouldnt want to slow that down by pausing 10 seconds to change clips.

 

[johnsmith]

how does limiting the capacity of the magazine infringe on ones right to bear arms?

 

[SethBullock]

how does limiting the capacity of the magazine infringe on ones right to bear arms?

I am home from work and by far too tired to try to look up the judge's opinion and read it all. I'll leave it to you guys if you want to. I am going to take a guess that it boils down to the definition of "arms". The 2nd says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I am guessing that a magazine is regarded as an integral part of the "arm" just like the sights and trigger and other working parts of a firearm. So when you ban a certain part like that, you are unconstitutionally infringing on the right. That's my guess.

 

[DonDeeHippy]

I am home from work and by far too tired to try to look up the judge's opinion and read it all. I'll leave it to you guys if you want to. I am going to take a guess that it boils down to the definition of "arms". The 2nd says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I am guessing that a magazine is regarded as an integral part of the "arm" just like the sights and trigger and other working parts of a firearm. So when you ban a certain part like that, you are unconstitutionally infringing on the right. That's my guess.

A clip that holds 5-10 bullets instead of 20-30 bullets won't change how a rifle operates will it ?
That's like saying putting a speed limiter on a vehicle is the same as taking away its wheels or motor.....
you are forgiven though as you just got of work

 

[MilesAway]

how does limiting the capacity of the magazine infringe on ones right to bear arms?

Well you're not one of em so how the fuck would you know?

 

[MilesAway]

A clip that holds 5-10 bullets instead of 20-30 bullets won't change how a rifle operates will it ?
That's like saying putting a speed limiter on a vehicle is the same as taking away its wheels or motor.....
you are forgiven though as you just got of work

Grossly inept comparison

 

[DreamRyderX]

Ask an American woman who has a semi-automatic firearm specifically for self-defense; "how many rounds do you need to defend yourself, your friends, & your loved ones"?

Don't be surprised if you hear her acceptably honest answer; "As many as it takes........"!

The government has no Right to tell her, or any other American Citizen, how many rounds of ammunition they are "allowed" to carry in their Constitutionally protected firearm.

Americans know that, especially during times like the present, a first responder's resources will probably be severely limited at best, so an American's life & safety are ultimately in their own hands...............it's called personal responsibility.

The "Right of Self-Defense" is an unalienable Right, not a permission 'granted' by any US government, subject to removal at their pleasure or whim.......it's not a benefit or a privilege......free people, living in a free country have "Rights" -- Their "Right to Freedom & Liberty"!

Benefits & Privileges are what prisoners & convicts have........

 

[DreamRyderX]

 

[SethBullock]

A clip that holds 5-10 bullets instead of 20-30 bullets won't change how a rifle operates will it ?
That's like saying putting a speed limiter on a vehicle is the same as taking away its wheels or motor.....
you are forgiven though as you just got of work

I'm just taking a guess at the legal reasoning.

Here's the problem .... If it is constitutionally permissible to limit the magazine capacity to 5 or 10 rounds, then it would be constitutionally permissible to limit the capacity of any firearm to anything, down to even 1 round. A 5 or 6 shot revolver could be outlawed. A double barrel shotgun could be outlawed. Restrictions such as those would constitute an infringement on the right.

 

[DreamRyderX]

..

If it is constitutionally permissible to limit the magazine capacity to 5 or 10 rounds, then it would be constitutionally permissible to limit the capacity of any firearm to anything, down to even 1 round. A 5 or 6 shot revolver could be outlawed. A double barrel shotgun could be outlawed. Restrictions such as those would constitute an infringement on the right.

SPOT ON!!!.............

..

 

[DonDeeHippy]

that would be fine if there wasn't so many murders ,mass shooting, suicide etc etc from these firearms.....

 

[johnsmith]

I am home from work and by far too tired to try to look up the judge's opinion and read it all. I'll leave it to you guys if you want to. I am going to take a guess that it boils down to the definition of "arms". The 2nd says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I am guessing that a magazine is regarded as an integral part of the "arm" just like the sights and trigger and other working parts of a firearm. So when you ban a certain part like that, you are unconstitutionally infringing on the right. That's my guess.

thanks for the answer but I still don't see it. A gun works just as well with one bullet (which is how flintlock guns worked when the right was written) as it does with 50 bullets. There is no way the forefathers could have foreseen, and therefore meant that law to apply to, guns that shoot high capacity magazines.

 

[johnsmith]

Well you're not one of em so how the fuck would you know?

hence the question .....

this must be one of the few times you're sober

 

[DonDeeHippy]

I'm just taking a guess at the legal reasoning.

Here's the problem .... If it is constitutionally permissible to limit the magazine capacity to 5 or 10 rounds, then it would be constitutionally permissible to limit the capacity of any firearm to anything, down to even 1 round. A 5 or 6 shot revolver could be outlawed. A double barrel shotgun could be outlawed. Restrictions such as those would constitute an infringement on the right.

but that isn't what the law is, it is just banning high round magazines, so anything with more than 10 rounds, to me ,even that sounds high, if you can't defend yourself or go hunting with a rifle with 10 rounds then you really need a license and some practice, also it's not banning you have 10 magazines to reload.....
so your 5-6 revolvers and shotgun are unaffected...
so again USA just shows how crazy it really is....

 

[SethBullock]

thanks for the answer but I still don't see it. A gun works just as well with one bullet (which is how flintlock guns worked when the right was written) as it does with 50 bullets. There is no way the forefathers could have foreseen, and therefore meant that law to apply to, guns that shoot high capacity magazines.

Regardless, the Constitution says what it says. There is a mechanism for amending the Constitution.

 

[SethBullock]

but that isn't what the law is, it is just banning high round magazines, so anything with more than 10 rounds, to me ,even that sounds high, if you can't defend yourself or go hunting with a rifle with 10 rounds then you really need a license and some practice, also it's not banning you have 10 magazines to reload.....
so your 5-6 revolvers and shotgun are unaffected...
so again USA just shows how crazy it really is....

If it was constitutional to limit the capacity of a firearm, it could be limited to anything, Don.

Rather than attempt to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, there is a mechanism for amending the Constitution.

 

[DonDeeHippy]

If it was constitutional to limit the capacity of a firearm, it could be limited to anything, Don.

Rather than attempt to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, there is a mechanism for amending the Constitution.

I'm sure the victims and their families of the next mass shooting will be relieved that the shooter is constitutionally in his rights to kill them ...
Even the smallest attempt to control Mass killings in USA are squashed, you have to wonder why.....

Tell me Seth do you personally think that it is infringing your rights to be told you cant have a rifle even a military style semi automatic with more than 10 rounds in a magazine.....
Don;t worry about your fear of them lowering the amount again and changing laws again.... that is not the question.....we already can see your thinking about that...

 

[johnsmith]

Rather than attempt to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, there is a mechanism for amending the Constitution.

which is corrupted by the money big business and the NRA throw at it.

 

[DreamRyderX]

If it was constitutional to limit the capacity of a firearm, it could be limited to anything, Don.

Rather than attempt to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, there is a mechanism for amending the Constitution.

which is corrupted by the money big business and the NRA throw at it.

Well Johnny......it's either deal with the status quo, or find a way to modify the Law, to make each & every American's Constitutional Right to Keep & Bear Arms more palatable to you, via a Constitutional Amendment process.....

This way you can feel more comfortable about how Americans live in their own country, from the comfort of your country.......& never the twain shall meet.

I can't imagine how it must feel to be perpetually fixated with a "Nanny State Syndrome"............always having the insatiable & intoxicating need to tell people everywhere in the world, that you know far better how they must live their lives, than they do.

 

[johnsmith]

Well Johnny......it's either deal with the status quo, or find a way to modify the Law, to make each & every American's Constitutional Right to Keep & Bear Arms more palatable to you, via a Constitutional Amendment process.....

no, it's neither. I can sit here, safely in the knowledge that I am unlikely to come across some nutter with a gun when i go out here in my home town, whilst criticizing the USA and it's deeply flawed system