Cali High-Cap Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The high capacity law in California, in my opinion was a political knee-jerk reaction and not much about any real effort at regulating guns. What CAN be done in the short term is study the problem looking for solutions that aren't draconian "takes yer gunz away" laws. The Republicans and Russia's NRA have been squelching the NIH from even studying the problem, leaving the matter up to fascist goons in law enforcement to decide what to do.

So, let's get started funding research into a system of knowledge-based recommendations to put into the hands of lawmakers that have validity and thought put into them.

Without waiting for that, there are common sense actions that could be taken such as:

Tighten and fund gun background checks that give time and resources to do an adequate check on EVERY gun sale.
Require guns be kept in locked safes with ammunition stored somewhere else.
Require all new guns be registered before delivery to a registered owner who is by law responsible for damages by that weapon even if it is stolen.
New guns to be restricted in capacity and any modifications to that gun to accept high volume magazines will be considered a serious offense.

Gun nuts react to such a list by saying the cops will be breaking down doors to do gun inspections. That's not necessary but if a gun hurts somebody, the gun owner had better be able to prove it was stored according to regulations and show how the safe was broken into. This is just a suggestion of what I think could be done. As I said earlier, I'd like to see the US use Canada's system as a model for our own.

I understood that Canada was limiting hand guns by making them very hard to justify purchasing and transporting them. I think that if a gun is stolen, the owner had better be able to show he had it stored properly or be liable for damages if that gun hurts somebody. I don't have a problem with stiffer regulations on hand guns but think that mindlessly banning them isn't necessary. I do think that the stakeholders in the gun industry including gun owners should pay for enforcement of these laws. Maybe not all but a large portion through taxes, registration fees and, perhaps, pay for a form of insurance that settles damages when people are harmed by guns.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insightful answer. And yes pretty much exactly what Canada has now with the new legislation being debated to pretty much ban handguns for the general public, and renewed registration that was canceled by the last goverment, and a few other things. The gun registry did allow, and still does, warrantless search of storage of restricted weapons as well here.
 
Aeroknow

Aeroknow

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
Ive bought extra magazines also. Makes it easy to put rounds on a target.
What are cartridges? Lols
Click to expand...
I have a few for my socom16 and other m1a’s but a 20rd would be nice, i aint gonna lie.
I just googled and looks like the very same Judge ordered a halt to sales of high capacity magazines yesterday.
Bummer for me but i’ll be alright. Saving lives is a little more important than me having just a little bit more fun blowing shit up. It will probably save me some money when we go shooting. It costs allot to pop off shit loads of .308’s in 10rd’ers and 20rd’s at a time would go quick as fuck also.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
there's no reason to have more than ten rounds in any magazine of any weapon....if you can't kill an animal to eat with ten rounds, starve. if you can't put an intruder down with ten rounds, you suck and a thousand rounds wouldn't be enough...
if you want them for fun, tough shit, your fun can be turned into a way to kill a shitload of people quickly, find something else fun to do....
simple as that...any argument is basically arguing for making mass murder easy....are you crazy enough to want to make mass murder easy?
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
this is like watching kids on the playground...one kid wants all the toys, so he goes and takes them...then the teachers come and put him in the corner, and hand all the toys back out....so he not only doesn't get what he wants, he gets punished for his behavior, too....and all the other kids hate him.
these guys can't take being able to own weapons, with reasonable magazine capacity, no unneeded fully automatic functions, and no armor piercing ammunition...they want all that shit...and when the teacher finally comes and put's them in the corner, some of them are going to try to fight back...and they...THEY will force the government into much more drastic measures...and they're too stupid to see this. no one will support them, no one will hide them, no one wants them around...and no one will lift one finger to help them when the day comes...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
there's no reason to have more than ten rounds in any magazine of any weapon....if you can't kill an animal to eat with ten rounds, starve. if you can't put an intruder down with ten rounds, you suck and a thousand rounds wouldn't be enough...
if you want them for fun, tough shit, your fun can be turned into a way to kill a shitload of people quickly, find something else fun to do....
simple as that...any argument is basically arguing for making mass murder easy....are you crazy enough to want to make mass murder easy?
Click to expand...
I can agree with the gun nuts on one this one issue.

If we are going to make it easy for nearly everybody to arm themselves with high capacity, high power killing machines then it makes no sense to deprive peaceable people from owning them. With everything but a nuclear bomb easily purchased in Nevada and Arizona, anybody who wants one can have them. Only the law abiding people in CA would be affected by this law.

I'm not saying the effort isn't worthwhile but the judge's ruling wasn't wrong.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I can agree with the gun nuts on one this one issue.

If we are going to make it easy for nearly everybody to arm themselves with high capacity, high power killing machines then it makes no sense to deprive peaceable people from owning them. With everything but a nuclear bomb easily purchased in Nevada and Arizona, anybody who wants one can have them. Only the law abiding people in CA would be affected by this law.

I'm not saying the effort isn't worthwhile but the judge's ruling wasn't wrong.
Click to expand...
nope...not takin the bait.. the whole thing is stupid, and i'm not arguing about stupid shit....argue with someone else...
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I can agree with the gun nuts on one this one issue.

If we are going to make it easy for nearly everybody to arm themselves with high capacity, high power killing machines then it makes no sense to deprive peaceable people from owning them. With everything but a nuclear bomb easily purchased in Nevada and Arizona, anybody who wants one can have them. Only the law abiding people in CA would be affected by this law.

I'm not saying the effort isn't worthwhile but the judge's ruling wasn't wrong.
Click to expand...
come back to us.
Some shit we just don't need. No need for either to have.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

regulate- control or supervise, control or maintain.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
come back to us.
Some shit we just don't need. No need for either to have.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

regulate- control or supervise, control or maintain.
Click to expand...
Totally agree that the SCOTUS is conveniently ignoring the "well regulated" portion of the second. I want to see regulations, better yet a WELL regulated militia. We now have a SCOTUS that is stacked against what you and I want. It's going to take a new amendment to end their bullshit.

I'm saying that I can see the point of gun nuts when we have an unregulated gun environment. Not that I agree it makes them any more safe, just that in a totally unregulated environment, why push regulations onto just a few people?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
there's no reason to have more than ten rounds in any magazine of any weapon....if you can't kill an animal to eat with ten rounds, starve. if you can't put an intruder down with ten rounds, you suck and a thousand rounds wouldn't be enough...
if you want them for fun, tough shit, your fun can be turned into a way to kill a shitload of people quickly, find something else fun to do....
simple as that...any argument is basically arguing for making mass murder easy....are you crazy enough to want to make mass murder easy?
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top