Federal appeals court strikes down California's ban on high-capacity magazines, says restrictions violate 2nd Amendment The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down California’s ban on high-capacity magazines on the basis that its restrictions violate the Second Amendment -- noting that it would criminalize half the magazines in the U.S. The state’s law bans possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) that hold more than 10 rounds. The court’s three-judge panel said that while the law has a “laudable goal of reducing gun violence,” it must also comply with the Constitution. “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today,” the majority in the 2-1 ruling stated. Oh hell yes. Already called my local gun store. They said, "Hang on. California might take this to the SCOTUS." I hope California is stupid enough to do just that. 10 round clips suck !!!
Just playing devil's advocate . . . Some may argue that, if you can't defend yourself with 10 shots, then you probably shouldn't own an automatic weapon.
Mine is a semi automatic. Can't get full auto here. To which would respond... Who the hell are you to put limitations on my ability to defend my family, home. property, livestock, etc ??
I'm not gonna get crazy and go out and buy a couple of 40 round "banana" clips. That a bit much. I used to have 20 round clips, then the State outlawed them. Had to sell them to a buddy of mine in Arizona. Now I have to see if I can get them back.
You didn't understand his point. Do you bitch about having to get a driver's license, too? Just curious.
I understood it just fine. And I stand by my answer. In theory, one shot can end a threat. So you would outlaw any semi automatic ?? Single round weapons only ?? And if you get that, you'd come back and tell me how many rounds I can own at any given time ?? No thanks.
You absolutely missed my point. We're not talking about knocking the fuzz off of a gnat's balls from 1200 yards out. In order to be deemed a realistic threat to you, your family, your property and/or livestock, the threat has to be in close proximity to you -and- exhibiting hostile intentions. Typically, this would be inside your home (probably in the same room) or attempting to get inside your home. I couldn't care less if your weapon is fully automatic, semi-automatic or single shot. If you can't put a person in the same room down with 10 rounds . . . you shouldn't own a firearm.
The slippery slope argument isn't valid. Never has been. In an age where a lunatic can end multiple lives in mere seconds....limiting the average persons ability to acquire and use high capacity clips and the weapons they can be used is just makes sense. If today's world is what you think the architects of the Constitution envisioned when they wrote 2A or anything else you're only fooling yourself. The thing they were most proud of when writing it is that they left behind a framework that could be adapted and changed for future generations. I am a gun owner and collector. But the fight against sensible gun laws makes absolutely no sense to me.
Just to add some thoughts to this conversation... Most handguns today start at around 10 rounds. The most popular selling handguns typically have 15. The ten round capacity limit on rifles is an argument that is more nuanced than simply counting bullets or arguing over stopping an intruder. For starters, most home invasions have multiple intruders. Unless you are able to clearly see in the dark and have the shooting ability of an expert marksman that can hit a quickly moving target the size of a large cantaloupe, one shot per intruder is not a reasonable assumption. Proper firearm technique is taught by starting and finishing at center mass, where it takes more than one shot to immediately stop an intruder. If you can accurately center mass two .45 rounds at close range the likelihood of stopping a violent intruder is solid, but the recommendation for any caliber is 4 rounds. So now you have a situation where if you give yourself the benefit of the doubt in missing 1 out of 5 shots, you still need 5 rounds to immobilize one intruder. Add two more individuals and 15 rounds becomes the bare minimum for home protection. And ultimately, we're talking about protecting the people that we love from people that are intent on harming them. I'm not a fan of being told just how much brass I'm allowed to have for the purposes of protecting my family. I disagree with this. Law is typically argued on precedent and we are in an era where law is actually being written from the bench by partisan judges (both sides of the aisle) when it fails to be enacted by the proper bodies of government. If you can set the precedent to limit rifles to 10 round capacity it does open the door up to do it for handguns as well. There is already a push to limit the amount of ammunition you can buy so if you set a number on magazines the argument for limits on ammo becomes more valid. We've talked about this previously and we both agree on sensible gun regulation. We just disagree on what is constitutional, reasonable, and sensible.
And blindly firing a few extended mags from an AK-47 would be a better solution to this far fetched problem you laid out? Let's be honest...unless you have some trained mercenaries invading your home in the middle of the night....firing one bullet at a would be intruder or intruders is probably enough to make them run off. Firing 3 or 4 rounds from your Glock-19....whether they hit the intruders or your chandelier is highly likely to achieve the result you want. Nor am I. As a, mostly, law abiding citizen for the majority of my life and someone who has zero intentions to shoot another person unless I absolutely have to....I should be allowed to purchase as many guns and bullets as I want and can afford. However....if laws can be put in place that deter or completely halt a would be idiot from causing harm to innocent bystanders....I'm likely for it if it makes sense and doesn't stop me from protecting my family. Limiting high capacity mags....doesn't prevent me from protecting my family. That's like saying lowering the speed limit on a certain road from 70 to 55 opens the door to lower it to 40. Theoretically….it's correct. But that's probably not why the original change was made. The rhetoric of liberals wanting to take all the guns away is tired. Granted...there are some who want to do exactly that. But they are a minority. And taking away all the guns or all the bullets has ZERO chance of ever occurring. That's why the slippery slope argument is moot. It's an argument that is brought up far too often and redirects the conversation away from meaningful change. And I'm all for limiting how much ammo you can buy and magazine restrictions. Because gun and ammo manufacturers need to be taken to task over their role in American violence. They are far too protected and far too powerful in this country. Yet every time there is a mass shooting or talk of gun control...they profit. Constitutional is debatable because we can't always look at the constitution as an ironclad document. As for what's reasonable and sensible....I'm for limiting innocent people dying and making laws the same for every state. Cut the head off the snake first and tell the NRA to completely fuck off. Remove the shield that protects gun manufacturers and manipulates right wing gun owners. Aggressively target illegal gun owners and the entities that provide them with guns. Outlaw gun trade shows. That one bothers me because I've attended so many...and purchased firearms at them. We gotta stop pretending guns aren't a problem in this country. We own something like 120 guns for every 100 citizens...which last I looked was triple that of the closest country. And then we land in the top 20 in homicide rates alongside countries we should be far more civilized than. Highest suicide by gun rate. Top 20 in accidental gun related deaths....which is a positive I guess because it means we are better trained. Guns are a problem. Our relationship with guns are a problem. Our laws are a problem. Our lack of solutions is a major problem. We don't do enough to correct the problem...and far too many people get defensive when we try.
If it eliminates a potential threat to my loved ones, yes. But ultimately, I choose to defend my home with a handgun and a shotgun because my wife is more capable with both of those methods. I'd prefer not to deal with the hope of intruders running at the sound of the first gun shot. My preference is to be capable of defending my home with my chosen method. It does depending on the situation. We could go back and forth on hypotheticals all day but that would be pointless because we both have a certain perspective on this. However, it cannot be argued that 10 rounds is sufficient to protect your family in every possible scenario, because it is logically fallible. This is your opinion and we've had this conversation before so I understand your point of view. I'll simply refer to my original post as your opinion doesn't change that point and we can agree to disagree. This would equate to going after law abiding citizens rights because you have an argument with the company's they support through purchase. I cannot agree with that on any level. Agreed, but when reasonable changes cannot be made that would improve the document without circumventing one of the bedrock rights to the citizens it was written for, the fallback should always be to go with the original document and what the intention of the framers was in that moment, IMO. I too am for removing firearms from criminals and increased funding for law enforcement to do so. As for making them universal across the states - I cannot side with circumventing state's rights. However, concealed carry is a situation that there should be a federal fallback on for owners so that they can either continue to carry concealed in other states or have the right to carry openly in all 50. I have no problem with replacing the NRA with another 2A lobby that is not beholden to gun manufacturers. My only other point would be that all lobbies need removed and until there is legislation that does that I cannot single out the NRA as the only one for removal as it's the only viable option for legal gun owners to continue to hold a seat at the table with the rest of the money washers in DC. I have extended thoughts and potential solutions for that - Instituting a federal license to purchase firearms that any seller, whether private or retail, has to check the validity of before selling a firearm to any citizen would go a long way to removing the issues that I have seen at gun shows. Those penalties need to be income crippling and strip the rights of the seller to own or sell firearms ever again. A federal database to show whether or not someone owns a license would be made available and every citizen over the age of 18 would have a chance to apply for a license (the 21 and over for handguns would still apply). Upon the return of a clean background check you would be licensed. Your license would be rescinded for reasons such as arrests/convictions for violent crimes, PFAs, diagnosis of mental disorder, and of course the list would include things that would fall under that type of umbrella. If you owned a firearm at the time you lost your license you would be able to either sell the firearm back to the state or pay the state to keep your firearms until the issue was reviewed and resolved. We have problems in this country that lead to gun deaths that have absolutely nothing to do with the firearms themselves and instead of trying to cure those ails we find ways to coddle fragility. We can outlaw guns across this nation and it will do nothing to correct the course that we are currently heading in. All it would do is create more vulnerable people. I have zero interest in taking guns away from law abiding gun owners and the same amount of interest in limiting that right through laws like the one that started this conversation. I am interested in taking guns and criminals that want to use them out of any opportunity to harm anyone. No one should have to live in fear of being hurt by another human being, nor should they have the right to defend themselves from that threat removed.
I've been firing guns for over 50 years and I'm no slouch....and I'm more capable with both those methods as well. I'd venture to guess the average shooter is. That kinda side steps the point though. The chances of an intruder fleeing at the sound of gun shot are very real and very high. You're right. If Seal Team 6 ever decides to invade my home....I'm gonna need more than 10 rounds. Agreeing to disagree is part of the issue though. Not for us because we aren't lawmakers. But we are voters. And while I have as much respect for you as one can have for a person they've never met in person before....I can't respect this argument. Because it's a mindset that won't ever allow for changes. I support those same companies through purchase....so I'm attacking myself here. How those companies operate...the amount of money they throw at politicians...should be scrutinized a lot more than it currently is. You can hit them where it hurts without preventing a law abiding American from owning a gun and the ammo to fire that gun. Even when the intentions of the framers are archaic as viewed in modern lenses? The framers of the constitution saw the right of a rural farmer or random city land owner to protect themselves and their family/house/land as very important. Do you think they also envisioned a country where there are literally more guns than citizens? Or where kids were gunned down inside their own schools? Or random bullets could come through your window at any moment because you were just unlucky enough to be born poor and have to grow up on the south or west side of Chicago? The Constitution, as written, didn't allow women or blacks to vote. It allowed and, if interpreted a certain way, actually protected slavery. It had to be changed to fix that. And if the Constitution, as written, stands in the way of changes that make every day life in the modern world safer for all...it should be changed. Not changed so a regular law abiding citizen is punished...but to stop the would be law breakers. And that is 100% possible. There was a time in my life that I was a diehard, adamant defender of states rights. But there was also a time in this countries history that states rights were necessary due to how this country was founded and operated. There was a time that a state was truly a state. They aren't anymore. States operate and exist off the federal government in so many ways. Not all of them good...not all of them necessary. But that's what the machine has become. It's not circumventing rights...it's aligning them. If a criminal in Illinois can take a 25 min car ride across a state border and acquire a weapon he couldn't get in his own state in order to commit a crime...we have an issue. If a assault rifle is legal in one state or one county and not in another...we have another problem. It doesn't make sense. Taxes (as in much fewer of them), abortion, guns, driving laws, and a host of other things should be the same state to state, ocean to ocean. In a world where fewer and fewer people die in the same town or state they were born in....states rights have begun to make less sense. And the disparity in taxes you pay in one place or another has a detrimental effect on economies across the country. But that's another conversation. States rights, like 2A, is just another one of those things we cling to because it sounds good and it sounds American and Patriotic. But it stopped making sense a while ago. If I had the power to change just one thing...I'd remove all lobbies, execute the lobbyists, and outlaw political action committees. I wasn't really attempting to single out just one...they all need to go. I'd be onboard with this. That's a logical, and sensible, solution. How do you remove guns from would be criminals without a law abiding citizen being someway affected at all? It simply isn't possible. And yes there are more underlying problems. Huge ones. Mental health, poverty, organized and unorganized crime, illegal immigration, border security, so on. A lot of issues. But you have to either start somewhere...do something....or just continue to argue and do nothing while people die. I've said this before on these boards... A man once tried to board an airplane with a bomb in his shoe. He failed his objective. But to this day there are some extreme measures we all have to take in order to board an airplane including removing our shoes and so on. Democrats bend over backwards to pass laws when minorities or people of alternative lifestyles or abused, offended, neglected, or harassed. There are new laws passed on automobiles, children's toys, food code, and other things whenever something is determined to be a danger. How many mass shootings have there been in the past 10 years? And how many meaningful changes via laws and guns during that time? No one blinks when so many of these laws are made. But bring up a law about guns.....and there are a million reports and youtube videos all about how the left is coming after your guns. It's disgusting and it's wrong.
Agreed. It was actually meant to bring it back to my original point, which is that I don't want to have to lean on probables to defend my family if I need to. I'd prefer someone ran at the first shot, but if they didn't I want the ability to resolve the situation fully with no harm coming to my loved ones. I too enjoy hyperbole. But I'll stick with my original point and we can agree to disagree. While I agree with this sentiment, it simply doesn't apply here. There are many, many ways to approach gun legislation that doesn't include setting legal precedent on one type of firearm that opens up the legal door to do so with another. I agree with this sentence, but I disagree with the method that you proposed. I don't have a lot of solutions to offer on that, but I will say that looking at whether or not gun manufacturers should be allowed to sell both domestically and internationally could be a place to start. No, but at the same time there is a failure at the local level to properly address many of these issues. Removing the right to bear arms will not change the living conditions that many of these people face, therefore the method of terror may change but the systemic issues causing them will remain. We should probably start a thread at some point that discusses ways to improve those situations with some realistic ideas. It was also wrote in a manner that opened up the door for the types of changes that followed, including making it so that all of those individuals that were once summarily dismissed as second class citizens now have the same right to own and carry firearms as the original framers. It was not a perfect document but it is, IMO, the very best ever written to include the type of rights and chances to improve on those rights that every man, woman and child deserve. I think we can make positive changes to gun laws that don't need any changes to the second amendment. I agree, but I have seen very few opinions that I agree with on this particular subject. And it basically comes back to the gatekeepers of information and what opinions they want people to focus on. And we are seeing the affects of how poorly it will be managed and how much our life will be changed on the local level if we continue to let the federal government be the determining factor in our day to day lives. What works for one major metropolis does not work for another, one suburb for another, rural for another, and so on. That's why having a federal database like I suggested where license holders can purchase and sellers can check would make a huge difference. If you're licensed with a home address in Illinois and you try to purchase a firearm that is illegal in your state while visiting PA there would be an immediate avenue for legal recourse. We can table that for another day, but there's some I agree and some I disagree in there. We can agree to disagree on this. I appreciate that, because it is something that I have honestly poured a lot of thought into over the years and have even considered pitching to my senate and house reps at both the state and federal level. You have to start by actually enforcing the laws on the books. You have to follow that by an increased law enforcement presence. And you have to follow that up with proper firearm education on safety and laws that is mandatory whether you intend to own a firearm or not. There's also the ability to properly track crime, and in an age where information is readily available it is flat out criminal that states and the fed cannot be at the very head of this when it comes to sharing and organizing information.
I know this is going to sound a bit off, but you never had an inalienable right as a citizen of the United States to wear bomb shoes, so while I get the point that you are making there is a difference there that should be pointed out, now matter how ridiculous it sounds. Firearms were already illegal to carry on planes for a reason, but you can still have weapons shipped or towed with you through the air. The overall point you're making is a fair point and good for the kind of discussion that needs to be had. We do make necessary changes to protect each other and as one big unhappy family we are willing to make those changes knowing that they are for the greater good. Part of the reason you get videos like the youtube ones you mention has to do with people feeling like they need to make a counter-narrative to the ones that they are force fed everyday. I don't agree with most of the nonsense I see/read when it comes to Republican talking points on 2A. However, there are always two sides to the coin so I seek out the truth in both and try to find the areas where there are several other options that are not being discussed. Without question, the biggest reason there will not be change on a lot of the bigger issues that need to be discussed rationally is that they are too big of a political playing card for either side to make real concessions on. Which means that the media will never report honestly on either side because they are basically playing the same game for different reasons. The actual people with good intentions and the willingness to compromise will never be heard because they don't increase the profit margin or strengthen the power positions of the people that already have both to the point of no reproach. We've discussed this topic at least two occasions prior to this one and there has probably been more thought and detail put into those discussions than FOX or CNN has included in any of their segments in the last 15 years. That's a problem, but I do appreciate that not everyone has closed their mind off to having actual discussions on it so maybe there's still a chance that we'll see some actual movement from both sides before we become fertilizer.
