Cali High-Cap Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

Observe & Report said:
You're still wrong. Read the actual law contained in the order I posted and not some random shit you googled up. I even quoted it for you earlier in the thread. You obviously have never seen it. Here is a relevant quote for you to ignore again:


It didn't matter when you bought the mag, that is what "regardless of the date the magazine was acquired" means. The next paragraph orders you to remove them from the state, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, or turn them in to law enforcement for destruction.
Click to expand...
Maybe he's working from a Russian translation.
 
Fogdog said:
That said, we need better gun regulations, not larger gun magazines.
Click to expand...
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.

B. Are 10 Rounds Always Enough?
If a law-abiding, responsible citizen in California decides that a handgun or rifle with a magazine larger than 10 rounds is the best choice for defending her hearth and home, may the State deny the choice, declare the magazine a “nuisance,” and jail the citizen for the crime of possession? The Attorney General says that is what voters want in hopes of preventing a rare, but horrible, mass shooting. The plaintiffs, who are also citizens and residents of California, say that while the goal of preventing mass shootings is laudable, banning the acquisition and possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is an unconstitutional experiment that poorly fits the goal. From a public policy perspective, the choices are difficult and complicated. People may cede liberty to their government in exchange for the promise of safety. Or government may gain compliance from its people by forcibly disarming all.13
Click to expand...
Paragraph continues but RIU shitcode truncated it:
In the United States, the Second Amendment takes the legislative experiment off the table.14 Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. “An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.” Silveira, 312 at 1091
Click to expand...
 
Observe & Report said:
You're still wrong. Read the actual law contained in the order I posted and not some random shit you googled up. I even quoted it for you earlier in the thread. You obviously have never seen it. Here is a relevant quote for you to ignore again:


It didn't matter when you bought the mag, that is what "regardless of the date the magazine was acquired" means. The next paragraph orders you to remove them from the state, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, or turn them in to law enforcement for destruction.
Click to expand...

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 bongsmilie

Seriously though, what am I missing? You guys just trolling @TacoMac ?
 
Last edited:
Observe & Report said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
travisw said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Observe & Report said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fogdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
Observe & Report said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Fogdog said:
Taco isn't always wrong but when he is he seems unable to back track and just digs in deeper.

That said, we need better gun regulations, not larger gun magazines.
Click to expand...


th
 
Moses Mobetta said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Rob Roy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not if we took the approach you use in your utopia. How would that work again ?
 
Fogdog said:
"sigh," I like that petulant bitchy complaint. Too funny. So, what part of the following portion of text extracted from that law do you not understand?

commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine,
regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by
Click to expand...
I forget why I use to value his opinion somewhat.
 
londonfog said:
Not if we took the approach you use in your utopia. How would that work again ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rob Roy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top