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

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2011
77,326
37,337
"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."


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.
 
"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."


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.
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.
 
shaun-king-follow-ashaunking-guns-are-the-ultimate-phallic-symbol-19645707.png
 
I wonder if MagPul can flood CA with 20-30 rounders during those 150 days. ;)
 
"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."


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.

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

Forum List

Back
Top