9th Circuit Ends California Ban on High-Capacity Magazines

En banc will reverse this decision.

the supreme Court has made it clear that the states have some discretion to make gun laws

A 10-round limit on magazines is perfectly reasonable and does not violate the second amendment

 

Such is opinion, not fact.

The discretion is quite limited.

If such is truly the case, then why do such limits not exist for law enforcement and military personnel? Why is ten rounds of ammunition per magazine considered acceptable for private individuals, but wholly inadequate for others?

 

Because it's the job of police to stop criminals, therefore they get better toys

Get over it

 

No doubt all the people with high capacity magazines will immediately turn in their magazines and comply with whatever other decree from
Left Wing Marxists

 

except for the banning of all semi-automatic weapons, magazine size limits is the best way to reduce the carnage from mass-shootings.

 

What-if's don't mean crap, dude.

 

En banc will reverse this decision.

meanwhile the supreme court has no appetite for more gun cases

 

So you are voting Trump?

 

No. I'm not a one issue voter.

 

Constitutional rights are not subject to the basis of "need" or one being required to prove that their exercising of a constitutional right is legitimate. Therefore the argument on the part of yourself is invalid.

Try again. Why do such limits not exist for law enforcement and military personnel? Why is ten rounds of ammunition per magazine considered acceptable for private individuals, but wholly inadequate for others?

 

Mass shootings will continue so long as firearms exist, and there are individuals who are willing to do such. Attempting to restrict the type of firearms available will produce no measurable, legitimate good. Only those who have no understanding of firearms would choose to believe such nonsense. Mass shootings can be successfully committed with any number of modern firearms currently available on the private market.

 

Military personnel can have machine guns... civilians only those that are 35 years old or older

I guess there is a difference

 

Good Lord. If the 9th Circuit ruled that, then the 4th Circuit shouldn't have any trouble knocking down Virginia's 1 handgun a month law.

 

But they’re so much easier and deadlier with assault weapons.

 

Irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

 

Even if such were truly a legitimate claim, such is still not a rational, legitimate reason to attempt to limit the constitutional rights of the people. The united state supreme court has said as much in the Heller and McDonald rulings when they held the number of murders committed with handguns was still not a legitimate reason to prohibit the private ownership and use of handguns.

 

Sure you are. If you are not voting for Trump you are voting for misery.

 

With "logic" like that, who can resist? Forget your political positions, just bow before Trump!

 

Dude - I was way more comfortable when Obama was in office. Made more money and worried less about social unrest.
So I'll just go with the fact that you don't know ****.

 

We don't allow personal ownership of bombs, or chemical weapons because they are weapons of mass destruction ... it just depends on
how many people the reader wan't to identify as a "mass killing".

 

Such weapons are not comparable, nor in any way similar, to firearms. Therefore the comparison is invalid. If such cannot be understood on the part of the one making the comparison, they have no business being engaged in the discussion. Unlike such weapons, firearms, regardless of type, are capable of being used for all legal and legitimate purposes, be it sports, hunting, personal defense, or some other type of use.

If there were legitimate ways of utilizing explosive devices for such purposes, and thus making their misuse exceedingly rare, perhaps such a comparison would be valid. But such is not the case, therefore the comparison holds no legitimacy.

 

nonsense.

we ban semi-auto guns, mass shootings will become rare.

 

Prove the above claim to be factually correct. Go and show that mass shootings cannot be successfully committed with any other type of firearm except for semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines.

 

mass shootings went down significantly in Britain after they passed strong gun laws

as did murders

 

And during the same time period, murders committed with firearms were on the decrease in the united states even without such firearm-related restrictions being implemented.

The united states is not the nation of Britain, and thus cannot be compared as if they were substitution goods. They are not.

Even if the above assessment on the part of yourself were factually correct, it still would change nothing. The united state supreme court has stated, in absolute terms, that the criminal misuse of firearms is not a legitimate reason to interfere with the legal ownership and use of firearms. This was decided in the Heller ruling and reaffirmed in the McDonald ruling. No amount of mass shootings can ever change that precedent, or otherwise authorize congress to disregard the rulings.