# Large-capacity gun magazine possession law on pause while Supreme Court petitioned



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

"A federal appeals court has agreed to put on hold a law that makes it illegal to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 bullets, to see if the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case."









						Large-capacity gun magazine possession law on pause while Supreme Court petitioned
					

Possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets won't be enforced for now despite the 9th Circuit upholding California law




					www.sandiegouniontribune.com
				




Those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures have been disappointed in the past when this conservative High Court refused to grant _cert_ to challenges to such bans.

And even if the Court agreed to hear the case, will those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures be again disappointed when the justices determine to narrowly consider only the possession provision of the law, leaving in place the prohibition to sell, manufacture, or buy large-capacity magazines, similar to the narrow determination in the New York may issue carry permit provision now under review.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures have been disappointed in the past when this conservative High Court refused to grant _cert_ to challenges to such bans.


Says the known liar.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "A federal appeals court has agreed to put on hold a law that makes it illegal to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 bullets, to see if the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had. 
If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.


----------



## daveman (Dec 23, 2021)




----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 23, 2021)

You can swap 10 round magazines pretty quick.

Might even make you more careful with your aim.


----------



## okfine (Dec 23, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.
> If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.


Iran? Where are you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can swap 10 round magazines pretty quick.
> Might even make you more careful with your aim.


You can also go to chrch one a month.
Might make you pay better attention.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.


George Washington, unquestionably, would have been delighted at the propect of each of his potential miliamen, and all of his frontier families, having an AR15 above their transom and a dozen or so loaded 30-rd magazines in their cartridge box.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You can also go to chrch one a month.
> Might make you pay better attention.



You jest, but it's so true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You jest, but it's so true.


And if forced by the government, its an infringement.


----------



## 1srelluc (Dec 23, 2021)

I wonder if MagPul can flood CA with 20-30 rounders during those 150 days.


----------



## Vrenn (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "A federal appeals court has agreed to put on hold a law that makes it illegal to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 bullets, to see if the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Already, two district courts have thrown out the 10 round mag max.  But they have allowed 15 rounds using Heller V.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Says the known liar.


It is a fact that conservatives have been frustrated with the Court’s refusal to hear certain cases, such as AWBs.









						Supreme Court declines to hear host of gun rights cases
					

The justices declined to take up the contentious matter of gun rights in the United States.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




Consequently, you’re the liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.
> If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.


Both ignorant and wrong.

Another rightwing liar chimes in – having nothing to do with the thread premise.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And if forced by the government, its an infringement.


Wrong.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise; and until the Court rules, there is no ‘infringement.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Already, two district courts have thrown out the 10 round mag max.  But they have allowed 15 rounds using Heller V.


This makes no sense and has nothing to do with the thread topic.

The topic is will the Supreme Court frustrate and disappoint conservatives once again by either refusing to hear the case or if they hear the case, rule only narrowly concerning the possession provision.


----------



## Flash (Dec 23, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.
> If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.


The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment means to be well provisioned like having standard capacity magazines.

By the way, in the _Miller_ case the Supreme Court stated that the Second protected weapons in common use by the military. Miller was found guilty because the Court (erroneously) determined that his short barreled shotgun was not used by the military. They were used in WWI.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise;


Like...  the TX abortion law.
Glad you agree.
Why don't you ever mention this to those whining and crying about the unvconstitutionalitu of said law?
I mean, other than the fact you're a liar?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a fact that conservatives have been frustrated...


You intentional failure to understand I was addressing you, not what you said..
Nothing here changes the fact you are a known liar.
Except the fact you intentionally misunderstood what I said, of course.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And if forced by the government, its an infringement.



"The National Firearms Act of 1934" restricts a lot of things.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> "The National Firearms Act of 1934" restricts a lot of things.


How is that relevant to what you said?


----------



## Batcat (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can swap 10 round magazines pretty quick.
> 
> Might even make you more careful with your aim.


True. It doesn’t take much time to swap a magazine.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> How is that relevant to what you said?




You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."

And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."

They can put magazines greater than 10 rounds under the NFA. They won't be banned, just like many fully auto weapons aren't banned. You'll just have to fill out paperwork.

So it's not an infringement if done that way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."
> 
> And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."
> 
> ...


Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.


----------



## daveman (Dec 23, 2021)

Anyone who wants you disarmed intends to harm you.  This is undeniable.  But USMB leftists will idiotically deny it anyway.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’
> 
> Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.



I will say though, that banning large magazines isn't going to do much, if anything.

Banning rifles won't either.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I will say though, that banning large magazines isn't going to do much, if anything.
> 
> Banning rifles won't either.


Correct.

Banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles and carbines is pointless – in no manner addressing the issue of gun crime and violence.

But however pointless and ineffective such bans are, they are not un-Constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."
> And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."
> They can put magazines greater than 10 rounds under the NFA.


And that - an necessary, ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - would be an infringement.
Just like a limit on the number of days per (timeframe) you can go to church.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’


Just like Texas banning abortions after 6 weeks.
Glad you agree.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I will say though, that banning large magazines isn't going to do much, if anything.
> Banning rifles won't either.


And thus, doing so is "ineffective".


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise; and until the Court rules, there is no ‘infringement.’


Bullshit. Any act not laid out within the confines of the Constitution would be unconstitutional until ruled otherwise.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures have been disappointed in the past when this conservative High Court refused to grant _cert_ to challenges to such bans.



True but one shouldn't draw any predictions or conclusions about what the Court might or would decide if it were to hear a case.  What's the status of Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban?  SCOTUS denied cert on that appeal . . .



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And even if the Court agreed to hear the case, will those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures be again disappointed when the justices determine to narrowly consider only the possession provision of the law, leaving in place the prohibition to sell, manufacture, or buy large-capacity magazines, similar to the narrow determination in the New York may issue carry permit provision now under review.



In the circuit court decisions upholding bans on either assault weapons or standard magazines or both, the various lower federal court's all used a determination process *they* invented.

That "two-step" approach is dead after the arguments in _NYSRPA v Bruen_; it's a forgone conclusion (by all parties), that SCOTUS will invalidate the _"circuit judge two-step"_ and demand "*text, informed by history and tradition*" be the only acceptable standard to apply the 2ndA to a challenged gun control law.

When that mandate comes down, there will be dozens of appeals filed and rehearings granted rechallenging hundreds of gun control laws and that will impact thousands of other laws.

Christ, there are still _*entire*_ state gun control schemes that rely on a single court decision that then rest on _already_ invalid "collective right"reasoning (_Burton v Sills_ in NJ and _Hickman v Block_ in CA).

Your cute, dismissive little "_those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures_" is a laughable characterization formed by an uninformed mind.  Actually, if it goes like it should, within a year or two over 75% of gun control laws on the books _now_, will be struck down by direct decision.

.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This makes no sense and has nothing to do with the thread topic.
> 
> The topic is will the Supreme Court frustrate and disappoint conservatives once again by either refusing to hear the case or if they hear the case, rule only narrowly concerning the possession provision.



Given the oral arguments in _NTSRPA v Bruen_, the SCOTUS will enforce "*text, informed by history and tradition*" as the ONLY acceptable process to apply the 2nd Amendment to decide the constitutionality of a gun control law.

The SCOTUS will be able to take a vacation, there will be very few cases appealed to them in the first couple years after that mandate.

All the work will be done in the lower federal courts, addressing the appeals of hundreds of old decisions and setting them aside and then rehearing them using the true criteria and reversing those decisions, striking down laws that are often many decades old.

It will be an absolutely glorious time for those of us who are, hostile to *un*_constitutional_ firearm regulatory measures (which means most gun control laws).


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’



The lower federal courts that have sustained the bans have, under the first step of their interpretive doctrine, determined that those laws constitute an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.  The first step's inquiry is, does the law impact conduct that is protected by the 2nd Amendment?

When they move to the second step (which is only used if the first step is affirmed, yes the law _does_ impact conduct that is protected by the RKBA) the court then decides if there is enough of a public interest to give the government a pass, permitting the court to hold that the law is an allowable constitutional violation (rational basis test).

Yes, it *is* bullshit which is why the "circuit judge two-step" will be negated and dismantled.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.



They have already been held to impact conduct protected by the 2nd Amendment.  

All SCOTUS will be doing is invalidating the use of the second step which allows judges to subjectively make policy decisions divorced from the Constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 24, 2021)

Abatis said:


> True but one shouldn't draw any predictions or conclusions about what the Court might or would decide if it were to hear a case.


His "prediction" is bait.
He's trolling.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Bullshit. Any act not laid out within the confines of the Constitution would be unconstitutional until ruled otherwise.


At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

“Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See _United States v. Lopez_, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); _United States v. Harris_, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.”





__





						UNITED STATES v. MORRISON
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like Texas banning abortions after 6 weeks.
> Glad you agree.


Thread topic:

Will the Supreme Court hear the case?

If so, will the Court rule on the possession provision only, leaving in place the ban on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines?

And will conservatives again be frustrated by a Supreme Court seemingly unwilling to hear challenges at the core of the Second Amendment?

What say you?


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant and wrong.
> 
> “Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See _United States v. Lopez_, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); _United States v. Harris_, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.”
> 
> ...


That applies narrowly to Congressional acts, not to enumerated rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Given the oral arguments in _NTSRPA v Bruen_, the SCOTUS will enforce "*text, informed by history and tradition*" as the ONLY acceptable process to apply the 2nd Amendment to decide the constitutionality of a gun control law.
> 
> The SCOTUS will be able to take a vacation, there will be very few cases appealed to them in the first couple years after that mandate.
> 
> All the work will be done in the lower federal courts, addressing the appeals of hundreds of old decisions and setting them aside and then rehearing them using the true criteria and reversing those decisions, striking down laws that are often many decades old.


We’ll take this as you believe the Court won’t hear the case.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Abatis said:


> It will be an absolutely glorious time for those of us who are, hostile to *un*_constitutional_ firearm regulatory measures (which means most gun control laws).


Wrong.

Again, the doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that acts of government are Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.

Consequently, as a fact of law, AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating – or infringing upon – the Second Amendment.

The wrongheaded notion that such measures are ‘un-Constitutional’ is an example of the aspirational/political second amendment, which was addressed in another thread, and not the topic of this discussion.

Last, conservatives will likely remain frustrated with the Court’s Second Amendment rulings – or the lack thereof – even if AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are eventually overturned, the justices allowing to stand certain firearm regulatory measures such as permit requirements, concealed carry permits, background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on firearms in sensitive locations such as police stations and schools.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> That applies narrowly to Congressional acts, not to enumerated rights.


All government at all levels.

Otherwise, dig up Chief Justice Rehnquist and argue with him about it.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All government at all levels.
> 
> Otherwise, dig up Chief Justice Rehnquist and argue with him about it.


Wrong, if that presumption were taken at face value there would be no challenges.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The lower federal courts that have sustained the bans have, under the first step of their interpretive doctrine, determined that those laws constitute an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.  The first step's inquiry is, does the law impact conduct that is protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> When they move to the second step (which is only used if the first step is affirmed, yes the law _does_ impact conduct that is protected by the RKBA) the court then decides if there is enough of a public interest to give the government a pass, permitting the court to hold that the law is an allowable constitutional violation (rational basis test).
> 
> ...


There is no consensus among the lower courts as to the constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans.

For example, in 2017 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s magazine ban as Constitutional.

Absent consensus among the appellate courts – or absent a ruling by the Supreme Court – banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "A federal appeals court has agreed to put on hold a law that makes it illegal to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 bullets, to see if the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no consensus among the lower courts as to the constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans.
> 
> For example, in 2017 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s magazine ban as Constitutional.
> 
> Absent consensus among the appellate courts – or absent a ruling by the Supreme Court – banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’


If the ban adds undue burden to the free exercise of the 2nd is most certainly is an infringement.  States have not shown such bans not to be a burden or in fact even an effective measure to assauge their petty fears.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."
> 
> And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."
> 
> ...


Machine guns manufactured after 1986 are banned which makes the ones available for purchase horrifyingly expensive.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Machine guns manufactured after 1986 are banned which makes the ones available for purchase horrifyingly expensive.


But neither un-Constitutional nor an infringement.

As to the thread topic:

Do you believe the Court will hear the case?

And if so, will the ruling be narrow or expansive.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Abatis said:


> True but one shouldn't draw any predictions or conclusions about what the Court might or would decide if it were to hear a case. What's the status of Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban? SCOTUS denied cert on that appeal . .


“The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday to the advocates’ request to stay the possession part of the law for 150 days to allow time for the writ of certiorari to be filed. If the petition is filed during that period, the stay will be extended until the high court makes a determination on whether it will consider the case.” _ibid_

This is a relatively short period of time – a matter of months, not years.

Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But neither un-Constitutional nor an infringement.
> 
> As to the thread topic:
> 
> ...


A ban is an infringement.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> the ban adds undue burden


In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.

The Supreme Court may eventually address the ‘if’ – until that ruling, therefore, high-capacity magazine bans do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right, they are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, and do not violate the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> A ban is an infringement.


See post #50.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.
> 
> The Supreme Court may eventually address the ‘if’ – until that ruling, therefore, high-capacity magazine bans do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right, they are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, and do not violate the Second Amendment.


These bans cannot be proven they are capable of achieving what they intend, that creates the undue burden.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> See post #50.


See post #44. There is no reason to ban so called high-capacity magazines.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> See post #44. There is no reason to ban so called high-capacity magazines.


That's not an argument. Repeating a claim is not an argument for that claim. You would lose the court case in about 30 seconds.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not an argument. Repeating a claim is not an argument for that claim. You would lose the court case in about 30 seconds.


Is there any evidence this ban would reduce gun violence? I have not seen any. How then could it not be an infringement on law abiding citizens? That's a dangerous path you folks want walk, limiting the rights of all based solely on what criminals might do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Is there any evidence this ban would reduce gun violence?


Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing  more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.

Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing  more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.
> 
> Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.


That's not evidence, merely sad conjecture. Worse, it's based on the assumption that murderers are going to obey this particular law while ignoring murder laws. Seems pretty silly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> See post #44. There is no reason to ban so called high-capacity magazines.


Non sequitur – no one said there was.

But that’s not what the thread is about.

The tread asks whether or not the Court will hear the case; and if it does, how narrow or expansive will the ruling be.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> These bans cannot be proven they are capable of achieving what they intend, that creates the undue burden.


In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Non sequitur – no one said there was.
> 
> But that’s not what the thread is about.
> 
> The tread asks whether or not the Court will hear the case; and if it does, how narrow or expansive will the ruling be.


The thread is about high-capasity magazines I posted a video showing there is no significant load and fire time between those with less than 10 rounds and more. Arguments to banning them is useless and unconstitutional.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your subjective, personal opinion – not as a fact of law.


Not really, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. There is also the matter of enforcement. The potential for abuse far outweighs any possible benefit.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not an argument. Repeating a claim is not an argument for that claim. You would lose the court case in about 30 seconds.


Its video proof by a professional that shows magazine size has no significant effect on load and fire times and there are a ton more that reinforces the argument. Sorry but feelings don't win cases, actual evidence does and I provided that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The thread is about high-capasity magazines I posted a video showing there is no significant load and fire time between those with less than 10 rounds and more. Arguments to banning them is useless and unconstitutional.


And yet shootings involving high capacity mags have more deaths. 

So, we can go with your little bit of theater and your specious appeals to emotion, or we can go with the data.

Easy call. 


"Shootings involving high-capacity magazines have more fatalities and injuries than those that do not. In mass shootings between 2009 and 2018, events that involved high-capacity magazines had 2x as many deaths and 14x as many injuries."









						Prohibit High-Capacity Magazines | Everytown
					

Nine states and D.C. have enacted high-capacity magazine bans. Congress and the remaining states should also ban them to reduce gun violence in America.




					www.everytown.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Its video proof


It's only proof of what he can do. Nothing  else. Sorry. The data trumps your little bit of preconditioned theater.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Dec 24, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can swap 10 round magazines pretty quick.
> 
> Might even make you more careful with your aim.


Just ask Nicholas Cruz


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Dec 24, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> "The National Firearms Act of 1934" restricts a lot of things.


What does it restrict?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Dec 24, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You said "And if forced by the government, its an infringement."
> 
> And I said, "A lot of things are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934."
> 
> ...


A right can't be taxed.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’
> 
> Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.


your premise is a lie


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’
> 
> Should the Supreme Court rule that that high-capacity magazine bans are un-Constitutional, then and only then would the enforcement of the ban manifest as an infringement.


30 round magazines are normal capacity, not high capacity.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 24, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.
> If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing  more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.
> 
> Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.




Wrong.....magazine capacity is not the factor.....the gun free status of the location is the factor........the shootings you will point out later were all in gun free zones.....where the attacker was left alone....

Sandy Hook..... the shooter picked Sandy Hook because of the 3 schools in town, it was the only one with no police officer on site......and the shooting could have been done with pistols or shotguns...

Killed in Sandy Hook....26.

Virginia Tech with 2 pistols....32.

Parkland.....the shooter was not stopped by the police...who did not enter the building....

Killed in Parkland...17

Luby's cafe, 2 pistols....24.

Virginia Tech....32.

Pulse Night Club...50 killed in a gun free zone...the only one with a gun, an off duty police officer working the front door, ran away to get help....leaving everyone in the club helpless.....this shooting, like the others, could have been done with pistols or shotguns....

The range for these shootings was well under 30 yards......making the rifle arbitrary....

The only shooting where the rifle was important was the Las Vegas shooting....where he was firing at 400 yards from a concealed and fortified position.....into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....who had limited ability to disperse when the attack began......

You don't know what you are talking about.......


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing  more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.
> 
> Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.




Wrong....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

*I.*

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 
========
*In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. 

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========*

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. 


*LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

 There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. 

*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. 


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*
*
--------
*
We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

 LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

 Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


 For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1). 

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

 Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011. 

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

 Specifically, we searched for 

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession, 

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine, 

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident, 

(4) the types of guns possessed, 

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident, 

(6) the number of rounds fired,

 (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter. 

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

 We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


 Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper. 

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds. 

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents. 

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines. 

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents. 

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children. 

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded. 

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

 If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

 On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading. 

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing  more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.
> 
> Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.




A simple idea that is just that.....simple....and not based in facts, truth or reality.....just another bid to attack the ability to keep and own a gun for self defense....since banning anything over 10 rounds would make large numbers of regular rifles and pistols illegal....since they have magazines over 10 rounds....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just the circumstantial evidence of reducing capacity,forcing  more reloads and forcing someone to carry more clips.
> 
> Theidea is that fewer people would die, in a mass shooting. A simple idea.




Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Kazan, Russia school shooting....semi-automatic shotgun 5 + 1 or 7 +1 capacity...9 killed, 23 injured



Perm, Russia school shooting.... 4 + 1 capacity, 6 killed, 43 injured



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine doesn't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....





-Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



-Kazan, Russia school shooting....semi-automatic shotgun 5 + 1 or 7 +1 capacity...9 killed, 23 injured



-Perm, Russia school shooting.... 4 + 1 capacity, 6 killed, 43 injured





-Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



-Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.

What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The thread is about high-capasity magazines I posted a video showing there is no significant load and fire time between those with less than 10 rounds and more. Arguments to banning them is useless and unconstitutional.



The ban isn't useless...and the anti-gunners know this....by banning anything over 10 rounds, they essentially make rifles and pistols that take magazines that hold more than 10 rounds illegal......first, because the owners of a glock 19 wouldn't be able to use the gun because its regular magazines hold 15-19 rounds....

And second.......from banning 10 round magazines they would quickly move to the argument that any gun holding any magazine could hold more than 10 rounds at any time...so they all must be banned because magazine size is variable.......


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet shootings involving high capacity mags have more deaths.
> 
> So, we can go with your little bit of theater and your specious appeals to emotion, or we can go with the data.
> 
> ...




Wrong......as I have shown already........pump action shotguns and pistols have killed more people than AR-15s....the location, and not having a good guy with a gun shooting at the attacker determines how many die...not the magazine.....you doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet shootings involving high capacity mags have more deaths.
> 
> So, we can go with your little bit of theater and your specious appeals to emotion, or we can go with the data.
> 
> ...




It wasn't the weapon or the magazines, you doofus......it was the gun free zone location that allowed the killing......as the distances involved were too short to matter with a rifle.......and the magazine capacity didn't matter.......pistols or shotguns could produce the same numbers and have....


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet shootings involving high capacity mags have more deaths.
> 
> So, we can go with your little bit of theater and your specious appeals to emotion, or we can go with the data.
> 
> ...


I will refer you to the video again, proof that magazine capacity has no noticeable effect on fire times.   You may want to get that comprehension problem looked at.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> I will refer you to the video again, proof that magazine capacity has no noticeable effect on fire times.   You may want to get that comprehension problem looked at.


Sorry, your staged bit of theater does not trump the data, for any rational person.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, your staged bit of theater does not trump the data, for any rational person.




Not data....lies.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, your staged bit of theater does not trump the data, for any rational person.


So you get magazines with more than a 10 round capacity banned causing people with criminal intent to start carrying more magazines and as the video made by a professional proves magazine capacity makes little difference. 
There is the issue that criminals won't follow the ban anyway so basically the ban only  applies to law abiding citizens. Either your ignorant and actually believe magazine capacity matters and criminals follow the law  or this whole bullshit argument is about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet shootings involving high capacity mags have more deaths.
> 
> So, we can go with your little bit of theater and your specious appeals to emotion, or we can go with the data.
> 
> ...


What an absolute crock of shit. Picking an arbitrary number of rounds that just happens to be less than the standard number of rounds for the vast majority of modern handguns. Tossing in the scary yet rarely used in crimes 'assault' weapons only adds to the stupidity. It has less to do with capacity and more to do with the popularity of most modern weapons.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We’ll take this as you believe the Court won’t hear the case.


No . . .  My argument is SCOTUS won't need to hear the case.

If SCOTUS mandates "*text, informed by history and tradition*" is the only process allowed for a court to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged law, then all these cases in all the lower courts that have sustained laws using the two-step judge empowering process, will be challenged, set-aside, reheard and reversed . . . Without any further action by SCOTUS.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that acts of government are Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.
> 
> Consequently, as a fact of law, AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating – or infringing upon – the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...



None of that jabberwocky addresses anything I said.  And as far as your "aspirational 2nd Amendment" turd of a thread, I replied a few times in that thread, taking your theory apart and you were apparently incapable of responding to my challenges and just chose to run away.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no consensus among the lower courts as to the constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans.
> 
> For example, in 2017 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s magazine ban as Constitutional.



Oh Jeez . . .  You aren't really citing _Kolbe v Hogan_ are you?   The panel decision first ruled the bans were unconstitutional and strict scrutiny was demanded to be applied to challenged laws.  That was appealed and the en banc 4th reversed, using some of the stupidest, most ridiculous reasoning known to man:

"we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach."​
Yeah, hang your hat on that BS. . . .



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Absent consensus among the appellate courts – or absent a ruling by the Supreme Court – banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’



Have you even read the decisions you are pontificating on?  Here again, in _Duncan v Bonta_, the case your OP is about, the 3 judge panel held the law was unconstitutional just like Maryland's in _Kolbe_, the panel was appealed and the en banc court reversed and gave you your win.

The _Duncan_ en banc court did not dispute the panel's general conclusion that the magazine law offended the RKBA but the en banc court, using that BS two-step, decided the law only minimally impacted the 2nd Amendment right so intermediate scrutiny could be applied and like magic, the law, even though it implicated the 2ndA, was allowable . . .  The Duncan court explains the process:

"We first ask “if the challenged law affects conduct that is protected by the Second Amendment.”  Id.  If not, then the law is constitutional, and our analysis ends.  Id.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  law  implicates  the  Second Amendment, we next choose and apply an appropriate level of  scrutiny.    Id.  at  784.    Ten  of  our  sister  circuits  have adopted  a  substantially  similar  two-step  test. "​
On page 3 the summary of the en banc _Duncan_ decision says:


"The  court  assumed, without  deciding,  that  California’s  law  implicates  the Second Amendment,  and  joining  its  sister  circuits, determined  that  intermediate  scrutiny  applied because  the ban  imposed  only  a  minimal burden on  the  core  Second Amendment  right  to  keep  and bear  arms.    Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held that section 32310 was a  reasonable  fit  for  the important  government  interest  of reducing gun violence. "​​
Do you understand that if the two-step process (entirely a product of the lower federal courts, invented and employed for the *singular purpose* to allow them to ignore SCOTUS) is squashed by SCOTUS in _NYSRPA_, all these decisions get their bells unrung and remain in their respective Circuits?

The en banc _Duncan_ decision will be infirm, improperly decided on invalid judicial reasoning, it will be re-challenged in the 9th, set aside by the 9th, reheard by the 9th and reversed by the 9th, reinvigorating the 9th's _Duncan_ panel decision rendering the magazine law unconstitutional . . .  *ALL WITHOUT EVER REACHING SCOTUS?*

Do you hear me now?


----------



## Abatis (Dec 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday to the advocates’ request to stay the possession part of the law for 150 days to allow time for the writ of certiorari to be filed. If the petition is filed during that period, the stay will be extended until the high court makes a determination on whether it will consider the case.” _ibid_
> 
> This is a relatively short period of time – a matter of months, not years.



Which means, if the appeal is filed, the ban on possession of high-cap mags can not be enforced, and given the decision by SCOTUS in NYSRPA is expected in June of 2022, the stay will probably be moot well before SCOTUS ever holds a conference on _Duncan_.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?



SCOTUS doesn't need grant cert in 150 days, the petition for writ of certiorari needs to be *filed* with the Court in 150 days.  Once the appeal is accepted by the SCOTUS clerk, the 150 day hard expiration on the stay evaporates and the stay on the mag ban's enforcement is extended indefinitely until the Court denies the writ of certiorari.  

I would assume if the Court takes the case, the stay would convert to an abeyance of _Duncan_, but as I said, it's more likely _Duncan_ is forced to be set-aside shortly after _NYSRPA_ is handed down in June of '22.

Essentially there is no extended magazine possession ban in California right now and there won't be for quite a while . . .


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 24, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.
> If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.


That is a lie and nowhere does it say that.
Another very poor justification for you pop guns. You're as mad as a hatter.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “The 9th Circuit agreed . . .



Just as a point of information, _Duncan_ (hi-cap mags) isn't the only case the 9th has essentially suspended.

_Rupp v Bonta_ (assault weapon ban) is being held in abeyance until SCOTUS decides_ NYSRPA:_


_"_The panel unanimously believes that resolution of this appeal may be impacted by any opinion of the Supreme Court in _N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen"_​​
And then_ Miller v Bonta, _(another assault weapon ban appeal) is being held in abeyance until the 9th finally decides _Rupp_.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> So you get magazines with more than a 10 round capacity banned causing people with criminal intent to start carrying more magazines and as the video made by a professional proves magazine capacity makes little difference.
> There is the issue that criminals won't follow the ban anyway so basically the ban only  applies to law abiding citizens. Either your ignorant and actually believe magazine capacity matters and criminals follow the law  or this whole bullshit argument is about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.


Oops, you forgot the important part: fewer injuries and deaths,in mass casualty events.

Dude, you are not going to put words in "just the right order" and make the facts evaporate. So you can stop trying now. 

You can say "I would rather be able to carry 11 rounds in my weapon than reduce mass casualty deaths,", or you can put on a transparent song and dance to avoid admitting this. I see you have made that choice.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you forgot the important part: fewer injuries and deaths,in mass casualty events.
> 
> Dude, you are not going to put words in "just the right order" and make the facts evaporate. So you can stop trying now.
> 
> You can say "I would rather be able to carry 11 rounds in my weapon than reduce mass casualty deaths,", or you can put on a transparent song and dance to avoid admitting this. I see you have made that choice.




Wrong.....you, of course, are not telling the truth......

I posted attacks where shotguns and pistols were used that killed more people than AR-15s and other rifles.......and the other attacks, except for Vegas, could easily have substituted pistols and shotguns for the AR-15 and achieved the same number of deaths...

It wasn't the rifle or the magazine...it was the gun free location that allowed the killer free reign to kill before someone with a gun stopped them.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you forgot the important part: fewer injuries and deaths,in mass casualty events.
> 
> Dude, you are not going to put words in "just the right order" and make the facts evaporate. So you can stop trying now.
> 
> You can say "I would rather be able to carry 11 rounds in my weapon than reduce mass casualty deaths,", or you can put on a transparent song and dance to avoid admitting this. I see you have made that choice.


That comprehension problem again. I'll say it again magazine size has no significant impact on fire time so the stats you posted don't mean shit. Criminals will ignore the law or just carry more magazines. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand. Your ban only effects law abiding citizens which is an infringement on a Constitutional right.  It's like arguing with a retarded rock.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 25, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> That comprehension problem again. I'll say it again magazine size has no significant impact on fire time so the stats you posted don't mean shit. Criminals will ignore the law or just carry more magazines. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand. Your ban only effects law abiding citizens which is an infringement on a Constitutional right.  It's like arguing with a retarded rock.




LIke any leftist they are lying and trolling....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> That comprehension problem again. I'll say it again magazine size has no significant impact on fire time so the stats you posted don't mean shit. Criminals will ignore the law or just carry more magazines. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand. Your ban only effects law abiding citizens which is an infringement on a Constitutional right.  It's like arguing with a retarded rock.


Oh,sorry, your divine declarations and staged theater youtube videos do not trump the data. Or maybe you didn't understand the first 3 times.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh,sorry, your divine declarations and staged theater youtube videos do not trump the data. Or maybe you didn't understand the first 3 times.


A Law Enforcement Officer produced that video so I would call him a subject matter expert.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> A Law Enforcement Officer produced that video so I would call him a subject matter expert.


And yet law enforcement has long supported high capacity magazine bans.

So I guess my 10s of 1000s of cops trump your one cop. 

Also,  his staged theater does not trump the data.

You're not making any progress.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Thread topic:


Fact remains:
You believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that acts of government are Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.


So, again, you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> SCOTUS doesn't need grant cert in 150 days


No one said they did.

Currently the appellate courts are in agreement with the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions.

As such it is likely the Supreme Court will continue to refuse to hear such a case until there’s disagreement among the appellate courts.

The same is true concerning AWBs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> No . . .  My argument is SCOTUS won't need to hear the case.
> 
> If SCOTUS mandates "*text, informed by history and tradition*" is the only process allowed for a court to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged law, then all these cases in all the lower courts that have sustained laws using the two-step judge empowering process, will be challenged, set-aside, reheard and reversed . . . Without any further action by SCOTUS.


‘If.’

A distinction without a difference.

Whether the Court hears a ban case or instructs the lower courts how to evaluate firearm regulations, absent the Court’s involvement, the bans will remain in place.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 26, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Not really, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. There is also the matter of enforcement. The potential for abuse far outweighs any possible benefit.


You’re entitled to your personal, subject opinion – provided you understand it's devoid of legal merit. 

Needless to say, if a law you supported was subject to a court challenge, you’d be an aggressive advocate of the doctrine of presumed constitutionality.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> your premise is a lie


Laws banning high-capacity magazines are not an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to their constitutionality.

Likewise, waiting periods and background checks are not an ‘infringement.’

License and permit requirements are not an ‘infringement.’

Prohibiting firearms in schools and police stations is not an ‘infringement.’

Should the Supreme Court rule that any of the above are un-Constitutional, it’s at that point a firearm regulatory measure becomes an infringement.


----------



## Rogue AI (Dec 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re entitled to your personal, subject opinion – provided you understand it's devoid of legal merit.
> 
> Needless to say, if a law you supported was subject to a court challenge, you’d be an aggressive advocate of the doctrine of presumed constitutionality.


You are simply being silly.  If all anyone had to do to make a case for Constitutionality they would cite Renquist.  Did the liberals do so during Heller?  Did Texas do so during their abortion briefing with the Supreme Court?  No, they did not.

Of course my argument has merit, you simply don't like it.  Very different things.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws banning high-capacity magazines are not an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to their constitutionality.


Just like the TX abortion law that bans abortions after 6 weeks is constitutional, because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to its constitutionality.
Glad you agree.
Funny how you can't muster up the intellectual honesty to admit it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws banning high-capacity magazines are not an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to their constitutionality.
> 
> Likewise, waiting periods and background checks are not an ‘infringement.’
> 
> ...


if it restricts me getting one thats called an infringement,,

so once again your premise is a lie,,


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 26, 2021)

And their argument falls apart at every turn....

Let's limit the number of words an author can use for political tracts.....for novels......and before they can write anything, they have to get a government permit, and take a test, and pay a licensing fee  .... a test that would make sure they knew all of the laws on Libel.  If they fail that test, they don't get the permit to write........


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Those hostile to *Constitutional firearm regulatory measures*


Oxymorons


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant and wrong.
> 
> “Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See _United States v. Lopez_, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); _United States v. Harris_, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.”
> 
> ...


Based on that argument, ALL federal gun laws are presumed unconstitutional immediately.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 28, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said they did.



Uhhhhhh, . . .  What response did you expect to elicit from me by asking: "Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?"

You had a reason for asking it, didn't you? 

Take note; this is a chance for you to demonstrate that you recognize your question above was, in context, nonsensical and now understand what *I was saying in post 32* and are ready to answer my question:

"What's the status of Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban?  SCOTUS denied cert on that appeal . . ."​


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Currently the appellate courts are in agreement with the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions. . . .  The same is true concerning AWBs.



True. they all (excepting the 4th Circuit in _Kolbe_) agree that those laws implicate actions protected by the 2nd Amendment which means that those lower courts have determined those laws, _on their face / as applied_, *violate the 2nd Amendment*.

That is indisputable fact because those lower courts then move to the second step of their process, undertaking various interest balancing tests to discern the degree of violation.  I say indisputable fact because the second step of their process can only be begun _after_ those lower courts have recognized the challenged laws implicate the RKBA, as secured by the 2ndA. 

These lower courts, through this two-step process *that they invented*, then find ways to decide that the violations are only minimal burdens on the right to keep and bear arms, which is the illegitimate legal justification _*why *the laws were sustained_.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As such it is likely the Supreme Court will continue to refuse to hear such a case until there’s disagreement among the appellate courts.



No, these courts employing this bullshit two-step process _guarantees_ the Court is going to slap them down because the Supreme Court already excluded and will reaffirm that the core protection of the constitutionally enumerated RKBA, should not be subjected to such interest-balancing tests, see _Heller_ (quoted below*).

That is why I argue that overruling / invalidation of these lower courts will not come by any direct cert appeal and decision by SCOTUS on any of these AW or LCM ban cases; it will be included in the Supreme Court's ruling in _NYSRPA v Bruen_ (did you listen to the oral argument?)

_NYSRPA_ will result in a deluge of rehearings in these Circuits and reversals of all these AW and LCM bans . . .   Just like the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was already written and filed in the 7th Circuit immediately after _Heller_ was handed down, (which subsequently became _McDonald)_ there will be a tsunami hitting these Circuits immediately following _NYSRPA _. . .



*
"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10.​​After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. _QED_.​​We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.​​We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See _National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie_, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views.​​The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."​
.


----------

