Citizens suing California over 30 round magazine ban...it's about time.

[jknowgood]

did you have help moving those goal posts?....lets go back to what you said about the reason one buys a gun or ammo....."To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern".....i have never heard or read a gun owner saying thats why they bought their guns,but i have seen anti gunners say this,like you just did.....now as for what you just said....why the hell do you think gun manufacturers would donate to the NRA?.....

Take Sandy Hook. A bad guy kills and the NRA uses hysteria marketing to convince the weak minded that the government is going to take away their guns. Gun sales skyrocket. Who wins?

How many gun manufacturers pay for NRA membership when you buy their weapon?

Pepe Le Pew and his cohorts become millionaires from a non-profit. Pretty sweet!

thats not what you said in the beginning was it?.....no one buys a gun because they are thinking of enriching the manufactures or the NRA....just admit you dont own any guns and are against them be truthful ..........

No you know the truth. Pepe Le Pew and his cohorts want to be VERY rich and use hysteria to do it. Kinda sounds like a religion.

The same way Obama got gay marriage?

Obama got rich from Gay marriage?

No, but he used hysteria to get it passed, even California voted against it. But Obama did get rich being president, you know. Used to be the enemy you your kind.

 

[Wyatt earp]

did you have help moving those goal posts?....lets go back to what you said about the reason one buys a gun or ammo....."To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern".....i have never heard or read a gun owner saying thats why they bought their guns,but i have seen anti gunners say this,like you just did.....now as for what you just said....why the hell do you think gun manufacturers would donate to the NRA?.....

Take Sandy Hook. A bad guy kills and the NRA uses hysteria marketing to convince the weak minded that the government is going to take away their guns. Gun sales skyrocket. Who wins?

How many gun manufacturers pay for NRA membership when you buy their weapon?

Pepe Le Pew and his cohorts become millionaires from a non-profit. Pretty sweet!

It isn't hysteria.....hilary had a plan to use the courts to attack gun makers, and the 4th circuit court of appeals just ruled that military style weapons are not protected by the second amendment....and since bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns, lever action rifles and 6 shot revolvers...as well as most modern pistols use a magazine, and have been used in the military......that is an attack on the right to own guns that is serious and imminent.......

Sure it was, but the issue is 30 round magazines.

The issue could be a 454 vs a 153 , both will do the job..its not up to you or the government what someone "needs"

I'm simply asking the need. Nobody, so far, has come up with a logical answer.

Your question is stupid, if some one ask me "why do I have a need for three pick up trucks?"


My answer "go fuck your self "




.

 

[jknowgood]

It isn't hysteria.....hilary had a plan to use the courts to attack gun makers, and the 4th circuit court of appeals just ruled that military style weapons are not protected by the second amendment....and since bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns, lever action rifles and 6 shot revolvers...as well as most modern pistols use a magazine, and have been used in the military......that is an attack on the right to own guns that is serious and imminent.......

Sure it was, but the issue is 30 round magazines.

The issue could be a 454 vs a 153 , both will do the job..its not up to you or the government what someone "needs"

I'm simply asking why to need. Nobody, so far, has come up with a logical answer.

Why not? I may need it. A law abiding citizen.

That's not an answer, it's a trade-off of logic.

Yeah last words of a law abiding citizen fighting off you Looney violent liberal protesters. If only I had one more bullet.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

Kinda like planned parenthood murdering more babies increases profits? Especially those black babies, they make a killing off them, you know? The innocent that don't have a choice to life? Because of cowards, like yourself.

Three percent of Planned Parenthood's business is abortions, while 100% of the NRA's business is focused on selling guns.

If only 3 % is abortions, then why are you against defunding planned parenthood for abortions?

Because of Republicans, not everyone can afford healthcare.

So obamacare is a failure?

The issue was deregulation of the HMO act.

 

[bodecea]

That IS the point. Why would one NEED to have a 30 round magazine that is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading?

Why do you need to have a Television?

I don't, but it's nice to have, and it isn't designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading.

A gun isn't either...it is designed to make it easier for the user to survive being violently attacked.

...or when violently attacking.....

That isn't the concern...I worry about the good guys stopping the bad guys...since the bad guys will get guns no matter what the law is.....good guys will not disobey the law, and will be the only ones affected by a gun or magazine ban...

Of course that's not your concern....that's how you roll.

 

[jknowgood]

Kinda like planned parenthood murdering more babies increases profits? Especially those black babies, they make a killing off them, you know? The innocent that don't have a choice to life? Because of cowards, like yourself.

Three percent of Planned Parenthood's business is abortions, while 100% of the NRA's business is focused on selling guns.

If only 3 % is abortions, then why are you against defunding planned parenthood for abortions?

Because of Republicans, not everyone can afford healthcare.

So obamacare is a failure?

The issue was deregulation of the HMO act.

So, your saying obamacare was a failure? Yes or no?

 

[2aguy]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

Kinda like planned parenthood murdering more babies increases profits? Especially those black babies, they make a killing off them, you know? The innocent that don't have a choice to life? Because of cowards, like yourself.

Three percent of Planned Parenthood's business is abortions, while 100% of the NRA's business is focused on selling guns.

The NRA doesn't sell guns...the protect the 2nd Amendment....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

That's not the point... is it?

That IS the point. Why would one NEED to have a 30 round magazine that is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading?

Why do you need to have a Television?

I don't, but it's nice to have, and it isn't designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading.

So you only have a 12 " Television right?



.

 

[2aguy]

Why do you need to have a Television?

I don't, but it's nice to have, and it isn't designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading.

A gun isn't either...it is designed to make it easier for the user to survive being violently attacked.

...or when violently attacking.....

That isn't the concern...I worry about the good guys stopping the bad guys...since the bad guys will get guns no matter what the law is.....good guys will not disobey the law, and will be the only ones affected by a gun or magazine ban...

Of course that's not your concern....that's how you roll.

Yes...I am more concerned with good people protecting their families....and not with punishing law abiding people who want to own guns......that is how I roll......

I also want criminals who actually use guns illegally to go to jail for 30 years...that is also how I roll.....

 

[2aguy]

Me either but its better to have it than need it and not have it.

A thirty round magazine is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading. That's it, no other reason.

No...it is designed to help save the life of the user....defending himself against attack and protecting his family...it allows them to do so without having to change a magazine more times than they might have to with fewer bullets......that is important because if you are injured in a fight, the adrenalin and injury may make it harder to switch out magazines...

Criminals can get whatever magazines they want and can rape rob and murder with illegal guns and magazines.....

Civilians who have to defend themselves and their families...may face more than one attacker and those attackers may be armed with their own guns.......so again...the 30 round magazine allows a good person to defend themselves and their families......

A well trained individual with a Glock can't do the same?

A rifle has advantages over a pistol....one, you can add a light and better opticals for shooting in dark and low light....like in a dark house.....the AR-15 is also very easy to shoot for all sized people..while a pistol is not as easy to shoot and to hit your target.....

The 3 points of contact that you have with a rifle means you can control the rifle better.....

And you can get Glocks with 30 round magazines......

And that is the point...anti gunners specifically state that they want 10 round magazines because they know that most modern hand guns can hold 15 or more rounds in their magazines....by insisting on 10 rounds, they ban those pistols......

That is the only reason they are pushing the 30 round magazine limit....

Then, when the next mass shooter uses 10 round magazines.....the anti gunners will go back for those...insisting that no one needs a military style pistol for self defense.....


The Sandy Hook shooter changed magazines several times...making a 30 round magazine unnecessary for his killings...and the Santa Barbara Shooter used California legal, 10 round magazines for his shootings........

There is no rational, logical reason to ban 30 round magazines for normal people.....

If you want to stop criminals from using them....add a 30 year sentence for using a 30 round magazine in a crime.....

So not even the bad guys NEED a 30 round magazine.

No.....but if they want them they will get them.....

The law abiding citizen....needs a 30 round magazine for self defense, competition, collecting and hunting....

 

[2aguy]

I don't have to justify it. That's why it's called a right. I have it because I can. Deal with it

The justification is the same as the need for big trucks and fast cars. I asked you why you NEED it.

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that nobody is under any obligation to justify his “need” to exercise a right. That's an important defining characteristic of a right, that one is allowed to exercise it without having to show any need or justification for doing so,and without having to seek permission from anyone, least of all from government.

The burden is entirely on those such as you, who would deny the exercise of a right, to prove that such a denial is necessary and justifiable.

I didn't think that gun attachments were a 'right?'

Again, I'm not asking for a justification, I'm asking for a need to have a 30 round magazine that was designed and engineered to kill a number of people without reloading.

We told you....

Self defense.....competition, hunting, collecting.......

Especially self defense...where you might be injured at the start of the attack, where you might face more than one armed attackers, and reloading while injured will be a problem...a 30 round magazine allows a wounded civilian to defend themselves without having to change magazines as often.....

And since they are in Common Use....they are protected by the 2nd Amendment......

If you are injured, firing a rifle etc. is much more difficult than a hand gun. What if you are out? Are you going to carry a rifle everywhere you go? I carry almost everywhere and nobody knows.

Please define what you think 'common use' means.

Actually, no.....a pistol is more difficult than an AR-15 to shoot one handed...you can always brace a rifle in the crook of your elbow....

And to the 30 round magazine...not having to change your magazine during a fight, because you have enough ammo.....is important especially if you are injured...since your small muscle function is going to go out the window due to your adrenaline rush....or you may have an injured hand.....

You carry a pistol for walking around... a rifle at home or during a riot, or a civil disturbance....like after a Tornado or hurricane where access to the police may be limited.....or if you live in a remote area where you don't have immediate access to police.....for example, on the U.S. border, or while you are hiking in a national forest......

All legitimate reasons to have a rifle...with a 30 round magazine....

 

[2aguy]

I don't have to justify it. That's why it's called a right. I have it because I can. Deal with it

The justification is the same as the need for big trucks and fast cars. I asked you why you NEED it.

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that nobody is under any obligation to justify his “need” to exercise a right. That's an important defining characteristic of a right, that one is allowed to exercise it without having to show any need or justification for doing so,and without having to seek permission from anyone, least of all from government.

The burden is entirely on those such as you, who would deny the exercise of a right, to prove that such a denial is necessary and justifiable.

I didn't think that gun attachments were a 'right?'

Again, I'm not asking for a justification, I'm asking for a need to have a 30 round magazine that was designed and engineered to kill a number of people without reloading.

We told you....

Self defense.....competition, hunting, collecting.......

Especially self defense...where you might be injured at the start of the attack, where you might face more than one armed attackers, and reloading while injured will be a problem...a 30 round magazine allows a wounded civilian to defend themselves without having to change magazines as often.....

And since they are in Common Use....they are protected by the 2nd Amendment......

If you are injured, firing a rifle etc. is much more difficult than a hand gun. What if you are out? Are you going to carry a rifle everywhere you go? I carry almost everywhere and nobody knows.

Please define what you think 'common use' means.

To start with...

from Heller..

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

---
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

-----

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

----


The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
-----

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

And In Common Use would apply to magazine fed rifles since they are the most popular civilian style rifles......

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/06/look-like-media-told-truth-ar-15s/

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.

 

[2aguy]

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

Kinda like planned parenthood murdering more babies increases profits? Especially those black babies, they make a killing off them, you know? The innocent that don't have a choice to life? Because of cowards, like yourself.

Three percent of Planned Parenthood's business is abortions, while 100% of the NRA's business is focused on selling guns.

If only 3 % is abortions, then why are you against defunding planned parenthood for abortions?

Because of Republicans, not everyone can afford healthcare.

No...that was obamacare......he raised premiums to the point people couldn't afford them and he increased deductibles to the point no one could afford to actually use obamacare for healthcare....

 

[2aguy]

And more points on 30 round magazines.....

--the anti gunners say they want 10 round magazines and no more......because they know that will render 10s of thousands of pistols...if not more, unusable by their owners...since they hold 15 - 18 rounds...as standard magazines..... so the gun you bought is now useless, unless the manufacturer changes out their entire supply chain to make 10 round magazines...and the icing on the cake of the anti gunners...if you, as a law abiding gun owner are caught with more than 10 rounds...you will be convicted of a felony.....lose your gun rights forever, go to jail, be forced to pay a massive fine, lawyers fees, you will lose your job...and won't be able to get a decent job after that.....for your magazine..which was legal up to the point they signed a law that made it illegal.....and you never used your gun to actually commit a crime.......

That is why they are going after 30 round magazines....

--if you study actual combat.....there is another reason good guys need 30 round magazines.....the adrenaline dump you get in the middle of a violent attack against you or your family, all by itself effects your small muscle control.....so even if you are not injured, changing a magazine in the middle of a fight is a problem...especially if you have to try to do it in the face of people actually shooting at you, or trying to hit you with a knife or a club....

--Also....when you are attacked, it will be at the time and place the criminal wants....so if you are attacked by ambush..which is more than likely, and you have to scramble to get your gun.....having to grab not only the gun, but a spare magazine to give you a total of 20 rounds divided into 2 magazines...is a risk you shouldn't be forced to make.......a 30 round magazine in your rifle...or a 15-18 round magazine in your pistol.....gives you a better chance of surviving than one, 10 round magazine, if you can't secure extra magazines before you have to go through your house to save your family,

There is no rational reason to ban 30 round magazines for law abiding people....

If you want.....pass a law that gives a 30 year sentence for criminals who use 30 round magazines in crimes....actual crimes.....then you get what you allegedly say you want.....punishing the criminal use of 30 round magazines....and we get our 2nd Amendment Right left alone....

 

[mdk]

Good. The whole idea of a magazine ban is silly.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm simply asking the need. Nobody, so far, has come up with a logical answer.

And nobody is under any obligation to do so. One doesn't have to show a “need” to be entitled to exercise a right. That is a defining characteristic of a right.

The burden is entirely on one who wishes to deny a right, to prove the need for that denial.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because of Republicans, not everyone can afford healthcare.

Republicans are not to blame for the ObamaCare scam. Your side is completely to blame for that,and for all the problems that it has created.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I also want criminals who actually use guns illegally to go to jail for 30 years...that is also how I roll.....

In the absence of any significant justifying or mitigating factors, I want any criminal who, in the course of committing a crime, uses deadly force or a credible threat of deadly force, to either be sent to prison for life, with no possibility of parole, or else put to death. Society does not need to have such subhuman filth ever set free to commit further crimes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

-----

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

----

·
·
·​

And In Common Use would apply to magazine fed rifles since they are the most popular civilian style rifles......

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.

As flawed as the Miller ruling was, I think that it sets a precedent that would be interesting, if applied to modern times. In that ruling, the court held that it was only weapons that were suitable for use in connection with a militia that were protected under the Second Amendment. Jack Miller's conviction for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines was reinstated, because the court stated that it has not been called to its attention that such an instrument had any military application. Had anyone been present to competently argue Miller's side, it would surely have been pointed out that such a weapon was, at that time, among those issued to our soldiers, and on that basis, the court would, in order to be otherwise consistent, have had to rule that Mr. Miller did, in fact, have a right to possess it.

The most common standard issued arms to our soldiers today are true assault rifles, capable of both semiautomatic and either fully-automatic or burst fire modes. Our corrupt government absolutely refuses to allow common citizens to possess any such weapons manufactured after 1986, and imposes severe restrictions on the possess and transfer of such weapons made before that date. The fraudulently-designated “assault weapons” are targeted for bans and restrictions on the basis of their cosmetic resemblance to true assault rifles.

By the precedent set by the Miller ruling, it is the true assault rifles—comparable to those issued to our soldiers—that we most have the right to possess.