9th Circuit Declares CA Magazine Ban Violates 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Jestsayin, Aug 14, 2020.

  1. Jestsayin

    Jestsayin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    16,798
    Likes Received:
    17,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting news. Thank you Alan Gottlieb and the second amendment foundation.
    Snip,
    In a move that could ultimately have legal ramifications nationwide, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a California law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, ruling that the state law violates the Second Amendment rights of residents.

    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/08/14/9th-circuit-mag-ban-2a/
     
  2. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marxists burning down their cities did more for the 2A than the NRA ever could.

    As I always say, the best way to defeat leftists is to let them implement their ideas.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2020
  3. Jestsayin

    Jestsayin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    16,798
    Likes Received:
    17,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very well said. Let those *******s try and take away the guns from 50-100 million gun owners.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2020
    vman12 likes this.
  4. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like my magazines like I like my women. The more times I can shoot at once the better.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2020
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  5. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state of California is in a unique predicament with this particular case. If they apply for an en banc ruling by the full ninth circuit court of appeals, there is the possibility of the previous ruling being overturned. But to do so would open the door for the plaintiffs to appeal the case to the higher courts, where it could very well be heard, just as the case against the state of New York was not long ago. Meaning the case could potentially go all the way to the united state supreme court, which has the potential to not only take up the case, but rule against the state, just as it did against the city of Chicago in the McDonald ruling. If such happens, all magazine restrictions in the entire country will be declared unconstitutional simultaneously, and no state or city will ever be able to implement such proposals again. No one will ever be able to support such proposals again, as they will be as unconstitutional as discriminating against homosexual marriage.

    The only way for the matter to truly be "won" by supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions, is if they choose to accept this present loss, and take no further action that could have national implications. They must either give up their firearm-related restrictions, or earn the condemnation of all supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions for setting their plans back by decades with a ruling that would apply nationally.

    If such were to happen, once magazine limitations are declared unconstitutional, prohibitions of so-called "assault weapons" that use such magazines could very well be the next to go.

    The state of California can either accept its loss, or it can risk everything and potentially lose everything for everyone with similar firearm-related restrictions on the books.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good news. There is zero logic behind the unconstitutional law and the number of rounds was random at best. I think they came up with "10" from watching the movie Spinal Tap.

    Unfortunately, we still have laws that make a detachable magazine illegal on certain guns.
     
    Rucker61 likes this.
  7. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Denver said 20. Colorado said 15. California insisted on 10. New York State tried 7. Oregon state Democrats have introduced a bill for 5.

    Arbitrary and capricious? Nah....
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  8. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would the 5 round limit make revolvers illegal?
     
  9. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think if you filled one cylinder with a permanent lead plug you'd be okay.
     
  10. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thus making that one cylinder as useless as the law itself! :)
     
    557 and Rucker61 like this.
  11. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The one flaw I see in your argument is that you overlook that ammunition manufacturers nay take note of this ruling & begin suing other jurisdictions w/ similar restrictions. Are you just saying it would be better to have these restrictions picked away, one at a time, rather than potentially (probably) all lost at once?

    And perhaps some states/municipalities will win there cases, right? But then couldn't the ammo. manufacturer appeal the ruling, potentially to eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court, anyway?
     

Share This Page