Another loss in court - will we lose the right to standard capacity magazines?

No comment

This is 'plaintiffs did not provide evidence they were likely to prevail on the merits, injunction denied'.

So, it will go to trial.

Sorry, I don't know all the details, but it sounds like they're going about it the wrong way. They need to hit the "governmental common use" angle. I should clarify... the court appears to be going the wrong way and should look at the case law that looks at "common use". "Average use" or "average shootings" shouldn't apply because every shooting is different just as every adversary is different. The court obviously doesn't look at the intended function of the 2nd Amendment to keep .gov scared of "we the people", otherwise this should've been a pro-2A decision.

This won't be over by a long shot, but by the time it reaches the SCOTUS, will we even have Justices that know what they're doing? We've been winning cases on very thin margins as it is.

I do not know any specifics about this case, but on the surface it makes me think Alan Gura's (sp?) oft repeated theme that our legal battles relating to the RKBA need to strategically planned out with great care.

Not a huge deal in California. Large cap mags were grandfathered but you cannot buy new large caps. So you could only keep hi-caps if you owned them before the law changed.

Goodness y'all are all so depressing. Fight darn it.

Attached is today's opinion.

From Calguns, the legal team here posts

... our office is filing A Motion for Emergency Relief with the Ninth Circuit tonight seeking a temporary stay of enforcement pending resolution of the Appeal. If that is denied, our office will file a similar emergency motion tomorrow with the SCOTUS Justice that oversees such motions in the 9th Circuit (Justice Kennedy).

Click to expand...

Sadly, by the time this hits SCOTUS so many states may have banned "Hi-capacity" 30 round mags that they may not be common anymore.

Click to expand...

The quoted text below is what I was referring to. Sorry, just kind of had to post and run earlier. Should've given better context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the decision Librarian, I'll check it out later today.

The 9th Circus Court is hardly a venue I would expect any significant relief in.

Sadly, by the time this hits SCOTUS so many states may have banned "Hi-capacity" 30 round mags that they may not be common anymore.

Click to expand...

I'd say this is a GROSS overstatement of current trends.

I think the most telling part is the way they reason it. He ruled that because of the average amount of shots fired by a defending citizen it is not a burden on the 2A... well, by virtue that should mean it's a burden on the shooting criminal! I think we'd find that that is not the case. If the effect is not there, then this "justified public interest" stuff is not true.

It was the same in the case of the voting regulations that were removed a year or two ago over southern states. They were in place to assure that states didn't undermine the civil rights act by changing voting requirements and places, etc to prevent people of color from voting. Well the SCOTUS struck it down when it was shown that southern states now have a HIGHER voting participation rate than your dyed in blue liberal northern state. The effect was not there, the justification null and void.

If they can't prove that the legislation effects CRIMINALS, then their justification against CITIZENS is just BS. A magazine out of the hands of a citizen is exactly that, citizen /= criminal. You will never make a hunk of metal and plastic so rare that is has any measurable effect on the havoc a criminal intent of doing harm can inflict. What they really want is to disarm the citizen so they're more compliant, that's it.

Public safety seems to be a reoccurring justification for these hicap mag and AW bans.

That was the same reason the 2nd district court gave when they allowed the ban in CT.

District court judges must be reading each others decisions.

Looks like we are gaining ground with concealed carry and losing ground with hicap mags and "AW" in district courts.

By this logic, police should not be exempt since the average number of shots fired by police in an armed confrontation is about 3.

It is amazing to me, but sadly not surprising that people get duped by the notion that limiting how many rounds a gun holds will somehow make them safer; all reasonable evidence to the contrary.

The first magazine restriction was passed as part of California's assault weapons ban in 1989. I'm not aware of a single successful challenge to a magazine ban in the 25 years since that first ban.

Also don't dismiss the 9th circuit as completely anti gun, they just overturned San Francisco's may issue concealed carry law.

Are we going to lose the right to own standard 30 round magazines?

Click to expand...

If you live in a state where the majority of voters are against them.
.

Sam1911 said:

I'd say this is a GROSS overstatement of current trends.

Click to expand...

^^^I agree. Seems the sentiment for gun ownership has turned more to a positive direction lately than in the past. While Korneyforney may be an exception, more folks own guns, shoot them regularly and speak strongly and openly in favor of the 2nd Amendment than ever before. Much of this is because a part of our population has become better educated about firearms, their safety and the advantages of ownership.

buck460XVR said:

^^^I agree. Seems the sentiment for gun ownership has turned more to a positive direction lately than in the past. While Korneyforney may be an exception, more folks own guns, shoot them regularly and speak strongly and openly in favor of the 2nd Amendment than ever before. Much of this is because a part of our population has become better educated about firearms, their safety and the advantages of ownership.

Click to expand...

Definitely agreed. Here in Chicago I've actually noticed a slow, but positive change as well. Especially among the younger generations, which from my experience show a lot more interest than the older generations. I think this is also further helped by the large migration of people to Chicago from rural areas.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths that year.

Maybe it's time we started a campaign against drunk drivers "for the public safety." After all, there's no Constitutional guarantee and certainly no reason for it at all.

Righto. The average car driver on a freeway cruises between 10 & 75 mph. Therefore no vehicle should be made that can accelerate past 80 mph. This leaves a 5 mph cushion on max. Car drivers should also be asked if the majority of their driving is on surface streets (LA highways for example) or Interstates. Urban/suburban drivers have no need for cars that will go faster than 50 mph under those conditions, according to averages. To help drivers adapt to these new! and better! rules, they will be allowed only so many gas station stops per month. This should assist in drivers actually slowing for school zones, too.

Hey, you get a freebee with all mags: ten plus one!

Some needs to get the law makers in on the fact that the laws include them.

Interesting times - the curse of the end days,

Specifically regarding mag capacity the only win in court that comes to mind is NY SAFE act and 7 rounds in a 10 round mag. Did I miss others related to mags?

Regarding conceal carry and basic ownership we've done better.

We haven't lost a magazine battle yet in IL, although the opposition keeps trying. There's one "legislator" who introduces a mag / "assault" weapon ban every single session. If I knew his name off hand, I wouldn't mention it so he got any pub at all.

Chicago and a couple other budding people's republics ban mags over a certain limit, but it's not statewide. Also I believe the new CC law stops them from banning standard cap mags in handguns, even in Chicago.

Wouldn't a city ban be redundant? California passed the mag limit in 2000.