Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....

[Rustic]

People need 30 round magazines

What if you miss the first 29 shots?

Magazine capacity is a personal thing, none of your fucking business

 

[Crepitus]

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

Your statement is false.

No, it's not.

 

[james bond]

People need 30 round magazines

What if you miss the first 29 shots?

If you are that bad a shot, then you need to go practice at the target range and not drink so much strong coffee beforehand. Generally, magazine capacity is to have an advantage in combat situations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So now we know where the limit of the Heller Test is. It's 15.

I must have missed this - when did the USSC rule on this, and in what decision?

Stop trolling. It's an unwritten ruling....

Ah. The USSC has -not- ruled on the size of magazines protected by the 2nd.
Why do you have to lie to make a point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

Your statement is false.

No, it's not.

It is, and you cannot prove otherwise.

 

[Blues Man]

You now have the liberty to shoot up a classroom full of first graders

Moron.

While the second protects the right of ownership and carrying of firearms it does not protect or even imply that anyone has the right to discharge a firearm.

Any time a person uses a firearm for self defense that use has to be justified.

 

[Blues Man]

only amateurs would use a large capacity magazine. They jam way more often and it takes only a couple seconds to change a magazine if you know what you are doing.

But 20 and 30 round mags aren't large capacity. They are and always have been standard sizes

 

[Blues Man]

Up to 30 Shots Fired In Squad-Sized Home Invasion In Texas

You know the ban wouldn't apply to police officers..

Of course not. The State should have no limitations on its potential for violence.

How else you gonna keep the proles in line?

Wait, so you're upset that the criminals wouldn't out gun the cops?

No. Why do you insist every gun owner is a potential criminal?

Why do you want law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves?

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

 

[Blues Man]

The way the founders wanted it, is that you do NOT ever want a mercenary police force or military that are working for pay.
Why?
Because those that work for pay will always do what those who pay them tell them to do.
And that is always corrupt.

So there should be no paid police or military force.
Instead, all citizens should have mandatory, universal training in High School, and that would end the need for a paid police force or military.
We instead would rely on citizen soldiers, as the founders wanted.

And in which case, clearly there would be no need for laws against high capacity magazines.

Founders did not know jack shit about modern societies

People don't change

 

[rightwinger]

This is a great ruling. Commie California's high capacity magazine ban has been overturned by the court.

It is about time Liberty prevailed after all this silly oppressive Libtard SJW bullshit.

The Legal Definition of what is Prohibited under California Penal Code 32310. Under Penal Code 32310(a), it is a crime if any person: manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine.

"Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Wrong.

‘Liberty’ has nothing to do with magazine capacity – or guns, for that matter.

Our liberty is protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, not guns.

Guns are for individual self-defense from crime – not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence that authorizes insurrectionist dogma – the Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had created.

No, they intended the Second to authorize the destruction of the tyranny which would destroy the Constitution and Republic. They quite clearly said so.

At least make a token effort to keep up.

That’s strange
It says something about well regulated militias
It is the Constitution that destroys tyranny

 

[rightwinger]

The way the founders wanted it, is that you do NOT ever want a mercenary police force or military that are working for pay.
Why?
Because those that work for pay will always do what those who pay them tell them to do.
And that is always corrupt.

So there should be no paid police or military force.
Instead, all citizens should have mandatory, universal training in High School, and that would end the need for a paid police force or military.
We instead would rely on citizen soldiers, as the founders wanted.

And in which case, clearly there would be no need for laws against high capacity magazines.

Founders did not know jack shit about modern societies

People don't change

They sure do

People today recognize the equality of blacks, women and native Americans

 

[Blues Man]

The way the founders wanted it, is that you do NOT ever want a mercenary police force or military that are working for pay.
Why?
Because those that work for pay will always do what those who pay them tell them to do.
And that is always corrupt.

So there should be no paid police or military force.
Instead, all citizens should have mandatory, universal training in High School, and that would end the need for a paid police force or military.
We instead would rely on citizen soldiers, as the founders wanted.

And in which case, clearly there would be no need for laws against high capacity magazines.

Founders did not know jack shit about modern societies

People don't change

They sure do

People today recognize the equality of blacks, women and native Americans

SOme people

SOme people did back then too.

 

[rightwinger]

The way the founders wanted it, is that you do NOT ever want a mercenary police force or military that are working for pay.
Why?
Because those that work for pay will always do what those who pay them tell them to do.
And that is always corrupt.

So there should be no paid police or military force.
Instead, all citizens should have mandatory, universal training in High School, and that would end the need for a paid police force or military.
We instead would rely on citizen soldiers, as the founders wanted.

And in which case, clearly there would be no need for laws against high capacity magazines.

Founders did not know jack shit about modern societies

People don't change

They sure do

People today recognize the equality of blacks, women and native Americans

SOme people

SOme people did back then too.

Name some founders who advocated equal rights for women, blacks or Indians

 

[Flash]

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

 

[Pilot1]

I live in a very "safe" area in an affluent suburb. However, we do have home invasions, car jackings, robberies, and the occasional drug related crime. When these crimes occur there are often multiple attackers as criminals are cowards and don't like resistance nor bad odds. You try to put rounds on target, effectively and make every one count in a life threatening situation with multiple attackers whom are also armed. See what happens. You will be glad you had a standard capacity magazine of 15 rounds or more in those situations. Why limit only the law abiding?

 

[Blues Man]

The way the founders wanted it, is that you do NOT ever want a mercenary police force or military that are working for pay.
Why?
Because those that work for pay will always do what those who pay them tell them to do.
And that is always corrupt.

So there should be no paid police or military force.
Instead, all citizens should have mandatory, universal training in High School, and that would end the need for a paid police force or military.
We instead would rely on citizen soldiers, as the founders wanted.

And in which case, clearly there would be no need for laws against high capacity magazines.

Founders did not know jack shit about modern societies

People don't change

They sure do

People today recognize the equality of blacks, women and native Americans

SOme people

SOme people did back then too.

Name some founders who advocated equal rights for women, blacks or Indians

So you're saying that only the founders thoughts mattered?
It's obvious that some people thought slavery was wrong because we ended it.

 

[Crepitus]

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

Your statement is false.

No, it's not.

It is, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Sure I can, here let me Google that for you.

 

[Crepitus]

You know the ban wouldn't apply to police officers..

Of course not. The State should have no limitations on its potential for violence.

How else you gonna keep the proles in line?

Wait, so you're upset that the criminals wouldn't out gun the cops?

No. Why do you insist every gun owner is a potential criminal?

Why do you want law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves?

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

 

[Blues Man]

Of course not. The State should have no limitations on its potential for violence.

How else you gonna keep the proles in line?

Wait, so you're upset that the criminals wouldn't out gun the cops?

No. Why do you insist every gun owner is a potential criminal?

Why do you want law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves?

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

Your statement is false.

No, it's not.

It is, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Sure I can, here let me Google that for you.

"Look it up" does not prove your claim .
Thus, my statement stands: your claim is false and you cannot prove otherwise.