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

[Rigby5]

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

But it is likely they know more about modern society than we do, because our experiences make us prejudices and discriminatory. We make assumptions based on what we are told, instead of historic knowledge. People do not change. Human nature, rights, corruption, etc., all never change. If you incorrectly believe people have changed somehow, so that society should now be different, then what are you going to do 20 years later when society either changes again or proves you wrong in the first place?

Look at what you are saying.
Honest citizens with arms prevent millions of crimes every year.
So then to prevent 50 people a year being shot by some lunatic, you would make guns illegal and cause millions of additional murders, rapes, and robberies to succeed.

In a democratic republic, gun control amounts to treason. Either you trust the general public, or you don't. And if you do not trust them with a gun, why in the world would you trust them with a vote?

 

[Rigby5]

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, it is clear from what the founder wrote, that they correctly identifies central government as the greatest threat to individuals.
England proved that.
The founders were forced to fight and die because of a corrupt central government.
The states refused to join into a central government for many years.
It was not until 1786 that they finally got states to sign onto a strong federal government, and that was only AFTER the Bill of Rights were written to ensure a limited federal government and the ability to rebel against any abuses.

As for insurrection dogma, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
It is the basis for our entire country.
And it is proof that the founders were absolutely convinced in insurrection dogma.
In fact, anyone who does not believe in insurrection in the face of abuse, is essentially a traitor to the democratic republic.

Are you actually willing to claim that a government that tortures at Guantanamo, invades innocent countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., is NOT a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Clearly our current government is already extremely corrupt and in violation of the Rule of Law.

 

[Flash]

[.

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

 

[JusticeHammer]

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

It would be a deranged libtard shooting.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That can happen with any firearm.

I’m with you...

Why should someone involved in a mass killing have to reload?

Why should innocent Americans die because they only had 10 shots at a home invader?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I don't ever recall a court ruling stating the obvious in this manner (see the bolded text below)

A federal judge on Friday declared unconstitutional a key provision of California’s Proposition 63 that banned possession of high-capacity gun magazines often used in mass shootings, ensuring that the voter-approved prohibition will remain tied up in court for some time to come.

San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in his 86-page decision, upholding a lawsuit against the proposed ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, that such a statute “hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe.”

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he wrote.

• Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢
• Read more articles like this by subscribing to the San Francisco Chronicle

California will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a history of upholding gun-control laws, and experts expect the matter to eventually wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement Friday that he is contemplating his next move.

California will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a history of upholding gun-control laws, and experts expect the matter to eventually wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement Friday that he is contemplating his next move.

“We are committed to defending California’s common sense gun laws — we are reviewing the decision and will evaluate next steps,” Becerra wrote.

Voters approved Prop. 63 in 2016 — a proposal assembled by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, following a particularly bloody 2015 highlighted by two terrorists killing 14 people and wounding 17 in a San Bernardino rampage.

A 2000 law had already made it illegal for Californians to buy or sell magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges, but it allowed people who already owned them to keep them. Prop. 63, among other provisions which tightened ammo regulations, went a step further by requiring anyone who owned such magazines to turn them in, remake them to comply with the law, or send them out of state.

That aspect of the law never has taken effect, though. The National Rifle Association sued to overturn it and Benitez’s ruling on Friday ensures that this part of the law will remain ineffective unless there is a countermanding court ruling in the case.

The magazine restriction was due to take effect in July 2017, but Benitez had issued a statewide injunction against it two days before its start date.

In his Friday ruling, the judge cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and, he said, would have been more effective if they’d had higher-capacity gun magazines. He wrote that although mass shootings are “tragic,” they are far less prevalent than robberies, aggravated assaults and homicides in homes — and those more common crimes sometimes require maximum firepower because “unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late.

“The size limit (on magazines) directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self,” he wrote.

The NRA released a statement Friday hailing the decision as “huge win for gun owners” and a “landmark recognition of what courts have too often treated as a disfavored right.”

The NRA predicted in the statement that the ruling will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit court, but added that “the thoroughness of Judge Benitez’s analysis should give Second Amendment supporters the best possible chance for success in appellate proceedings.”​

Prop. 63: Federal judge declares California's ban on high-capacity gun magazines unconstitutional

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How nice for you.

How long untill the spree starts?

When are you going to cut off your dick to prevent rape?

Ah, the tried and true "argument of the extremes".

Not applicable in this case sadly. No one is asking him to mutilate himself.

You're demanding people give up things that they have no history of nor plans to commit crimes with.

You don't get to dictate what people need.

Lmao @ "need".

The LA riots showed that Korean grocers needed high capacity magazines.
The Katrina looting also showed that.
The people who actually need them the least are the police and military, since no one has ever attacked the police, and the military in this country has not been attacked since 1812.
The people who are attacked all the time are the average citizens.

Nonsense.

During hearings conducted by the district court reviewing the constitutionality of the Colorado magazine capacity measure, no witness opposed to the measure was able to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of the claim that magazines limited to 15 rounds diminish the ability of an individual to defend himself from attack (see: Colorado Outfitters Association et al v. Hickenlooper).

Laws restricting magazine capacity are pointless, and I’m glad to see the California measure invalidated by the district court – but the ‘argument’ that absent a 17 or 30 round magazine gunowners are incapable of defending themselves is ridiculous and idiotic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Oh Boy!

Now you can go out and shoot 'em up without worrying about running out of ammo.

Right, because liberty means being able to shoot as many people as possible should you decide to.

Something else that never gets mentioned is how much of a pain they are to load.

How nice for you.

How long untill the spree starts?

I don't.

They are for wannabe Rambo nut-jobs.

Please, show me the constitutional right to high capacity magazines.

Ah, the tried and true "argument of the extremes".

Not applicable in this case sadly. No one is asking him to mutilate himself.

Lmao @ "need".

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

Delusions of grandeur.

the usual traitors and liars have spoken. Come take them.

it will be easy to take, once it jams I will just use it to bitch slap you for being stupid enough to use a high capacity magazine

Must something wrong with the 20 or so I have, they never jam. But I've noticed the more desperate you filthy scum get the more you just lie away. You are pathetic useless garbage.

as I said to at the start, only amateurs would use a large capacity magazine.

why am I not surprised a Rambo wannbe like you would have a bunch. What a rube!

That's right lying troll, keep spewing. Military all over the world use large capacity magazines. Dont you care how stupid you look?

Actually, your false comparison fallacy makes you the only stupid one.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

They had just overthrown a government that they perceived was tyrannical, and you don’t think that had any bearing on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You have to be a moron to believe that case law protects our liberty. For the last 250 years, all it has done is erode our liberty.

The Constitution has been a poor defense of liberty.

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

Wrong again. The Founders stated in quite explicite terms that an armed populace was the best defense against a tyrannical government.

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.

Why would there be anything in Second Amendment jurisprudence that authorizes defense against tyranny? Jurisprudence is the tool of oppression.

 

[miketx]

the usual traitors and liars have spoken. Come take them.

it will be easy to take, once it jams I will just use it to bitch slap you for being stupid enough to use a high capacity magazine

Must something wrong with the 20 or so I have, they never jam. But I've noticed the more desperate you filthy scum get the more you just lie away. You are pathetic useless garbage.

as I said to at the start, only amateurs would use a large capacity magazine.

why am I not surprised a Rambo wannbe like you would have a bunch. What a rube!

That's right lying troll, keep spewing. Military all over the world use large capacity magazines. Dont you care how stupid you look?

Actually, your false comparison fallacy makes you the only stupid one.

So the military doesn't use those types of magazines?
You are so full crap and lies you smell.

 

[Flash]

The military switched over from 20 rounders to 30 rounders in the 1970s. Almost 50 years of use.

That is the standard issue magazine of every M-16 variant, including the M-4.

I use a ten rounder for range use because it doesn't get in the way of bench shooting.

I use 20 rounders when I shoot my retro rifles. Gotta keep it real.

I have hundreds of them but the only time I use 30 rounders is when I shoot my Class III F-A M-16.

I was in the Marines from 1988 to 2009, never once used a 30 round magazine. That includes 13 times of qualifying on the Rifle range with the M16A2.

One of the reasons I don't usually bother to respond to you is because you are often confused about everything.

In this case you are either lying or you were in a backwards unit.

The 30 rd magazine has been around since the early 1970s. Some were even used in Vietnam. Some training and rear units still using the M-16A1 may have been using up existing 20 rd mags stock but by the time the M16-A2 was issued in 1983 to the Marines and in 1986 to the Army it was all 30 rd mags.

 

[Flash]

I

A federal judge on Friday declared unconstitutional a key provision of California’s Proposition 63 that banned possession of high-capacity gun magazines often used in mass shootings, ensuring that the voter-approved prohibition will remain tied up in court for some time to come.

l​

The two biggest "mass killings" in the US have been with airplanes and fertilizer.

Most shootings in the US are done with stolen or illegal handguns in the big city shitholes by minorities, druggies, gang bangers and common street thugs.​

 

[rightwinger]

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

That can happen with any firearm.

I’m with you...

Why should someone involved in a mass killing have to reload?

Didn't watch the video did you ?

I’m with you brother

Why should someone have to stop killing just to reload?

 

[miketx]

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

That can happen with any firearm.

I’m with you...

Why should someone involved in a mass killing have to reload?

Didn't watch the video did you ?

I’m with you brother

Why should someone have to stop killing just to reload?

If they are killing liberals who cares?

 

[rightwinger]

People need 30 round magazines

What if you miss the first 29 shots?

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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 used in todays federal court system stemming from the Heller V DC decision. And it appears that the quasi agreed upon number is at least 15 and any less than that doesn't meet the Heller Test. Read the ruling that we are talking about and you will see the Court use the term Heller Test and mention the number 15. And say that the number 10 does not meet the criteria of the Heller Test. Since it's been in at least 2 federal court cases, guess what, it's become law. There IS a Heller Firearms Test now.