9th Circuit Ends California Ban on High-Capacity Magazines

and since Heller they have rejected EVERY single AWB case and handgun case.

every...single...one.

the message? "states have the discretion to regulate firearms"

 

Does such ultimately serve to change what the rulings in Heller and McDonald were?

The McDonald ruling confirms the discretion is not unlimited, and a total prohibition on an entire class of firearms, especially firearms that are in common use for legitimate purposes, is unconstitutional no matter what rationality may be used to attempt the prohibition.

Keep that in mind. Semi-automatic firearms qualify as being in common use through the sheer millions that are privately owned, and the fact they have existed for over a century. There is not a single standard under which they can be considered as being anything except in common use.

 

and yet the supreme court has rejected EVERY single AWB case.

take a hint, bro

 

The need for large capacity magazines is now clear to most people as democratic politicians enable mobs of anarchists.

 

Doe such serve to negate the Heller and McDonald rulings? Does their inaction serve to erase when they held, in absolute terms, the second amendment of the united states constitution protects and applies to all implements that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the ratification of the second amendment?

 

oh so the purpose of high-capacity magazines is to commit mass-murder against peaceful black protestors?

 

AWBs do not violate Heller.

if they did, supreme court would take one of these cases and rule so

 

Actually, that may be nice for second amendment types. Make sure to elect the anti-gun candidates into office so that one of them makes it their personal mission to bring it to the highest court.

 

Rioters are not peaceful protestors. Looters are not peaceful protestors. Those who are engaged in any type of violence against others are not peaceful protestors.

Peaceful protestors do not set fire to occupied structures, or otherwise forcibly prevent the free movement of traffic on public right of ways.

 

What police?

 

oh so now you support mass-murder against protestors who engage in passive non-violent resistance?

 

Violent anarchists are not peaceful protesters. And does it matter what the skin color is of violent anarchists?

 

most protests and protestors are peaceful and non-violent

 

No, since Republicans made sure he didn't get one.

What he did instead was called Operation Chokepoint.

 

The text of the Heller ruling says otherwise. And since the united state supreme court has final say, the opinion on the part of yourself is factually incorrect, as well as meaningless.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg should die of her cancer, and be replaced by a justice who aligns with the conservative or originalist ideology, such will indeed be the case. At the moment the court is simply biding its time before it decides to take up such a case and rule on the matter.

 

Shooting someone who is armed with a molotov cocktail is not murder. It is nothing more than self defense.

 

How many bullets in a magazine are Constitutionally protected.

 

my opinion is of more value than yours, and more accurate.

 

99.99999% of protestors had no molotov cocktail.

thanks for playing

 

99.99999% of people with 50 round magazines never commit crimes.

Thanks for playing.

 

so you're saying molotov cocktails should be legal?

 

I don't care about peaceful protests. I care about having sufficient firepower if I or my family are subject to a violent criminal attack.

 

When was owning a molotov cocktail made illegal?

 

10 rounds isn't enough?

LOL!!!!!!! who you fighting against, the Russian army???

 

What of the ones who did? What of the ones who were armed with other weapons and engaged in violence against others?