Yep. The direction being taken is an explosion of gun ownership. Ammo in defensive calibers is currently unavailable for purchase as is the case with AR-15s and the like.
Nah - you can find whatever you want, you just have to pay a bit more than a year ago. Millions of guns and - what - billions of rounds of ammo sold since the 1st of the year has the anti-gun left furious - both because it happened, and because they know they can't do a damned thing about it.
The usual outlets I buy from were out of 9mm, .45, 5.56, etc. when I tried to order this week. Not that I don't have some set aside for emergency use.
The answer is a large number of mass shootings have happened in Australia post 1996. Tell me more though about how people can pick up guns and kill their families, yet are incapable of taking the gun outside to shoot strangers.
Not trusting Robert's it might if the needed judges refused to take up the case and the lower court stands. There are four judges that don't believe Robert's will side with then so they refused a few gun cases this year. I wonder how RBG is doing?
The message is four judges don't trust roberts This whole topic is silly. Nobody is giving up any magazines regardless of capacity.
Even back when Scalia was still on the supreme Court, they rejected assault weapon ban cases. literally the same court that ruled on Heller also said we don't want to hear assault weapon ban cases. Their message was pretty damn clear
The 9th overturned this because if they didn't it would go to scotus and be found unconstitutional nationwide. So for the time being californias crappy gun laws may be regressing. Whats cool (and part of the ruling) is that in light of the existing standard cap mags over the years, the benitez stay brought in at least a million, and likely more mags into california. Like the AR rifle, they are in common use-down the road its going to get harder and harder to enforce anti gun legislation. Nationwide, the trend is towards more gun freedoms, not less.
My guess is because they know they can't overturn this ruling (on Constitutional grounds), but they're not yet ready to see that decision apply nationwide. If I remember the rules correctly, the liberal wing has enough votes to deny cert to anything they like, or I guess don't like, as the case may be.
Except such a ban would be wholly unsuccessful to someone intent to cause mass casualties. First, magazine changes can be made extremely quick with just a little bit of training and practice. Second, magazines are a couple of pieces of plastic and a spring. Incredibly easy to make with just the smallest bit of skill. Finally, there are tens if not hundreds of millions of larger (than 10) magazines in circulation. Banning those retroactively would violate ex-post facto, so they're not going anywhere. In short, your conclusion is wishful thinking. And that's ignoring the virtual certainty that your initial hypothesis is, in fact, false.
In the nation of Australia, since the Port Arthur incident, there have been a total of fourteen incidents that meet the minimum number of deaths to constitute a mass killing by united states standards, meaning there are at least four deaths in the same incident. There are another thirteen incidents that were one victim short of meeting the minimum number needed to constitute a mass killing. Taken together, there is twenty seven incidents of multiple individuals being murdered in the same violent incident, since the Port Arthur incident. More than one incident a year. Even if only the incidents with four or more victims are counted, that still amounts to a rate of more than one every two years. By comparison, in the twenty four years prior to the Port Arthur incident, there were nineteen incidents of mass killings. Meaning the overall difference is extremely minor in comparison.