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

Well, this is a kick in the pants for all the folks in the great : How many is enough debate?

The usual statement is that I only carry a J frame and 5 is enough. I don't go into dangerous areas, etc. etc. If you carry more, you are a paranoid, commando, wannabee nutso.

So when the courts use our own rhetoric against us - wah, wah.

It would seem that we put forward a reasonable restriction and OOPs - antis believe it.

 

If I'm not mistaken, this ban also banned the grandfathered mags in that area (county?).

 

I don't think we have to worry about it in the remaining free states. The zones controlled by the Stalinists probably have a real problem though.

 

The state law does not ban possession and use of the mags legally possessed in 2000; the city law 9.44.050 does.

 

1. It's CALIFORNIA (and presumably, the 9th Circus).
2. There's virtually NO support for such things except in other fascist cesspools, like New York and New Jersey.

There is pretty much ***ZERO*** chance of any such thing happening in Ohio ANY time in the foreseeable future.

Drawing generalized conclusions from what happens in California is like trying to do the same thing from North Korea.

 

Our population has been diluted with 100 million people in 35 years who are alien to all this country was built on. 3-4 million are being added yearly, I don't care how vocal gun owners are they will accomplish their mission of having so many groups here none we be a majority. You can see it played out in Iraq and Libya. Here they must use a more subtle approach

 

.

California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland I believe.
.

 

Um, Peruta, Richards? Both in the last month. My sheriff is currently experiencing apoplexy. Those of us in the PRK (**********) may be getting concealed carry permits within a year, possibly much sooner. I don't think that a mag ban has made it to the supremes since Heller and Macdonald. Now that it's incorporated against the states, it's likely that federal courts are going to have to take this up now.

 

Isnt that what youre doing...?.... drawing generalized conclusions?!?!

Seriously, lose the low road comments. It does nothing but encourage divisiveness.

United we stand......

 

Makes me glad I have multiple 30 & 50 rd. mags for my 10/22 and some 40 rd bananas for my AK along with a couple of the drum mags.

 

IT seems that the new tactic of anti gun legislators is to not attack the guns themselves but to attack the magazines. CT allows you to keep your standard capacity mags but you can only have the one inside the gun if you are carrying it, You cannot carry a mag over 10 rounds as a spare.

They also know it hurts the used gun market. Many stores around here will no longer buy used guns with standard mags as they do not want to have to hunt down low capacity mags (if they are even available) so they can sell the gun.

The worst part about this whole law is watching the off duty cops in the gun stores buying full capacity mags with smiles on their faces because they are an exempted class.

If this takes hold nationwide it will basically be the end of the semi auto as the laws will be constantly amended to lower the allowed mag capacity until all that is legal are 2 round mags.

 

The only guns I own with "large capacity" magazines as standard are guns that I own as collectibles or for civilian marksmanship type matches. For my M1 carbine I have 30 and 15 round as-issued magazines, and a 10 round and two 5 round magazines for hunting or convenience shooting from the bench.

I don't accept the practical effect of barring law abiding citizens from owning standard capacity magazines for defensive guns or for collectible military guns. It will have zero impact on criminals (except some anti-gunners see gun owners as more dangerous than criminals anyway).

Eugene Volokh (law prof, UCLA) weighed in the subject at Volokh Conspiracy law blog ("blawg") with "Are laws limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds constitutional?" 6 Mar 2014.

On the decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) that the ban on magazines over 10 rounds "applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment” is legally correct. He does point out that the issue of whether it is a good law is seperate from whether it is allowed under the SCOTUS acceptance of reasonable regulation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/06/are-laws-limiting-magazine-capacity-to-10-rounds-constitutional/

My not so humble opinion is that we should remember SCOTUS has allowed as Constitutional some really sucky crap: in Dredd Scott a free person of color was not a Constitutional person, in Cruickshank the Bill of Rights could be violated by the KKK or the states because the BoR only applied to Congress; SCOTUS ruled that criticizing the government in wartime was akin to falsely shouting fire in a theatre to cause a panic.

SCOTUS ruled that the Virginia 1924 Sterilization Act was Constitutional. However. the repeal of the sterilization act was also Constitutional. The fact a bad law passes Constitutional challenge does not mean it is a good law that must be allowed to stand. An UnConstitutional law cannot be allowed to stand period, but as a law it could be good or bad. The fact a bad law passes Constitutional challenge does not mean it is above challenge as a bad law. That is why the NRA works in the legislature more than it works in the courts, to keep bad gun laws from being passed in the first place whether they may stand Constitutional challenge or not.

 

So the plaintiff were not allowed to present this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YmF2ULnlhA

 

Representatives Mary Lou Marzian (D-34) and Jim Wayne (D-35) tried that 'stuff' here in Kentucky. It didn't go anywhere, if it happened in another state...it might have passed.


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/2/kentucky-louisville-legislators-launch-a-vicious-attack-on-our-second-amendment-rights.aspx?s=&st=10481&ps=



"If this legislation is passed and enacted into law, the following changes will occur to firearm laws in Kentucky:

You will be mandated to register with the state police your lawfully possessed handguns and certain semi-automatic rifles, and could be subject to unknown fees (taxes) to cover the cost of implementing a gun registration scheme.
You will be forced to register any magazine that holds more than seven rounds.
You will be subject to a background investigation and a fee (gun tax) for the private transfer of firearms between family and friends.
You will be victimized by an unconstitutional mandatory storage requirement for all firearms in your home."

The complete bill

http://www.nraila.org/media/10873958/ky_omnibus_firearms_bill.pdf


.

 

That leaves FORTY FIVE others.

Those are PRECISELY the states where one would expect that to happen, PRECISELY because those are the states where such attitudes predominate.

It's like wailing and rending ones garments in fear of not being able to get bacon at your local Denney's because you can't buy gin and pork rinds in Qom. The people in those states got what the VOTED for. In Ohio we DIDN'T vote for that, and we DIDN'T get it.

 

...based on observed reality, in appropriate context.

One can quite easily predict what will happen in New York or California, based on what's happened in the past in... New York or California. Making predictions of what will happen in Ohio or Mississippi based on what happens in Maryland? Not so much.

I make no secret of my feelings regarding such places, based not JUST on fascistic gun controls, but MUCH, MUCH MORE besides. To do otherwise would be as dishonest as Chuck Schumer lying about his real intentions for gun owners.

 

We cannot ignore what happens in New York just because we don't live there:

According to what I have read, from H. L. Mencken, "The Uplifters Try It Again", Baltimore Sun, 30 Nov 1925, ( http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-25.html ) through Adam Winkler, "Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control", The New Republic, 19 Dec 2012, ( http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111266/franklin-roosevelt-the-father-gun-control# ), New York crusaders feel duty bound to impose the Sullivan Act on the rest of the nation, the federal Second Amendment and state RKBA provisions be darnned.

 

"Ignore" it? No.

Change it? Not really. Not being a member of ACORN or the SEIU, I'm not much into vote fraud. I [thankfully] don't live in those places, and therefore can't legally vote either for or against candidates or ballot initiatives there.

I pay attention to domestic policy in North Korea and Iran too. I can't change it. I CAN reject it here in Ohio.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. While I regret that, we're still at least a few weeks away from that here.

I promise not to vote for any candidates here who support either labor camps OR gun control.

 

You are never going to successfully eliminate magazines greater than 10rds successfully. It is a metal box with a spring in it and there are millions of them (non-serialized and non-dated) already in existence. Like most other gun control laws, it will put the peacable citizens who want to obey the law at a disadvantage while doing nothing to slow down the non-peacable ones.

 

You'd have to wonder whether that wasn't the intent from the start.

You will ALWAYS see FAR more visceral animosity towards law abiding gun owners from the other side than you will EVER see towards violent felons.

 

It seems like it to me that tax paying productive citizens are the enemy of the govt being punished for having a bigger house making money, having a business etc and the parasites are coddled

 

Aside from all the rest, I don't believe there's a specific "right" to own hi-cap mags.
The title of this thread is a bit off.
Denis

 

What IS a "hi-cap mag"?

You can never define the right without defining what it covers.

 

The judge obviously doesn't understand the Second Amendment....that is pretty sad

The Supreme Court has already ruled about in common use with the military....so we have the right to use what ever the military uses....they use 30 round mags.

To say the Second Amendment is about self protection is ridiculous....absolutely and utterly ridiculous. The Amendment is pretty darn clear, it is about securing a free state. That means enemies of a free state, foreign and domestic. It isn't about hunting. It isn't about protection against street thugs. It is about being able to put up a concerted resistance to threats to the freedom of the US people.

 

Military also uses nuclear missiles.
No "right" to possession there.

I agree with the stupidity of that court ruling, just don't believe there's a specific "right" to a hi-cap mag.
Denis