California AG Seeks Further Review of Ruling in Magazine Case

[bushmaster1313]

Large capacity magazines is the last issue we want the Supreme Court to hear at this time.

Whether you like it or not, reasonable minds can differ over whether the Constitution protects 30 round magazines, and a bad ruling on this issue by the Supreme Court would have devastating ramifications in the future.

 

[Dudedog]

Large capacity magazines is the last issue we want the Supreme Court to hear at this time.

I don't see how a "bad" ruling could make things worse, other than we will have exhausted our final option in the courts.
If SCOTUS says mag bans are legal and your State does not have them that does not create one in your state. It would let your State pass one, but as things are right now they can anyway.

 

[GEM]

Besides the pragmatic issue, having a court decision that limits gun ownership to a mild, constrained self-defense oriented weapons panoply guts the defense against tyranny interpretation of the Second Amendment. Most of the negative court cases focus on the higher capacity magazines, and military styled semiauto modern sporting assault weapons (haha - so many terms) NOT being necessary for self-defense. A SW Model 10 in competent hands would do.

Look at how many 5 is enough debates we have. Now, acknowledging a J frame is a pragmatic carry gun for certain dress and accepting its limitations in extreme incidents is one thing. However, we've had plenty of folks denounce those who carry a higher cap gun and extra mag as nuts. Similarly with the rifles, gun world folks like Zumbo and Metcalf denounced them as weapons of war for nuts. So let's make it official.

Mas has pointed out in some cases how prosecutors have brought up carrying an extra mag says you are nuts and premeditated to kill.

No need for an official SCOTUS case bolstering that viewpoint.

 

[LiveLife]

Look at how many 5 is enough debates we have.

Once you factor multiple threats, "5 is enough" argument goes out the window as justice Benitez stated in Duncan v Becerra when he ruled larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban by CA unconstitutional as it would create "lethal pause" for the defender even against a single attacker when defensive weapon runs out of ammunition and defender needs to reload.

And defense against multiple threats is a growing reality for many.

As to modern types of firearm that did not exist during the colonial times (Including ammunition storage devices [magazines] already called "Arms" by courts), I look forward to SCOTUS speak and rule the same as modern types of speech/communication that did not exist during the colonial times are also protected by the First Amendment (And well argued by Kavanaugh in Heller 2 dissent for "modern" semi-auto firearms like AR15s).

 

[GEM]

Of course, SCOTUS needs a 5/4 majority as now we have a 4/4 and they have to take a case. Then the 5 have to manipulate around Roberts who will attempt to block them and use his vote on other cases to coerce them.

 

[LiveLife]

Of course, SCOTUS needs a 5/4 majority as now we have a 4/4 and they have to take a case. Then the 5 have to manipulate around Roberts who will attempt to block them and use his vote on other cases to coerce them.

And if we end up with 6/3 majority?

Would they agree to hear Duncan v Becerra? < Staying on topic >

 

[GEM]

Who knows? I'd settle for a decisive 5/4. Roberts hurt us so badly, that no one who supports guns rights should ever talk well of the man.

We are all into speculation now, me too. We really don't like that, so maybe we should chill on this.

 

[Metal God]

Large capacity magazines is the last issue we want the Supreme Court to hear at this time.

How about in about 3 weeks or so . Might be a good time , in fact the more gun cases we get to the SCOTUS in the next year may be best if there's going to be some court packing .