I sure hope so but the 9th circuit has a lousy record. I don't have any but I hate to lose the rights.
The 9th Circuit rules in our favor!
- Thread starter Rastoff
- Start date
Benchrest1
Member
I don't know, but will lifting the ban allow us to use 20 and 30 round mags in our AR's?
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 31,091
Don't celebrate too much - I'm POSITIVE they are working on a different approach to the same means as we speak! The very sad part is that so many Americans are so brainwashed they actually think they are "doing good" by these "feel good - do nothing" unconstitutional laws. Little do they realize they are actually "loading the gun that will eventually shoot them in the foot"!
The smart ones KNOW exactly what they are doing but the majority of he "followers" are nothing more than "useful idiots" I'm sad to say. One day they might wake up and wonder how we got where they are taking us......
The smart ones KNOW exactly what they are doing but the majority of he "followers" are nothing more than "useful idiots" I'm sad to say. One day they might wake up and wonder how we got where they are taking us......
The same thing with "Assault Weapons" bans. More people are killed with hand/feet and wooden things like sticks/lumber/bats etc, than rifles. People will use what they have. We need to limit brick purchases to one per person, per month. No one needs more than one brick. A downed tree should be considered an arsenal.
Erich
Member
Circuit split as of today, compliments of the Third:
3rd Circuit Federal Appeals Court Says Large-Capacity Magazine Bans Are OK – Reason.com
(Is that a Mak mag filled with blanks?)
3rd Circuit Federal Appeals Court Says Large-Capacity Magazine Bans Are OK – Reason.com
(Is that a Mak mag filled with blanks?)
Good news! Onward.
Yeah, good news only if Roberts doesn't decide to flip again and go anti on us.
bushmaster1313
Member
IMHO: (A) the Supreme Court does not want to hear a magazine case and (B) those in favor of protecting the Second Amendment should steer clear of this issue at the Supreme Court for the time being.
(A) The Supreme Court has shown no interest in taking up a Second amendment case in the past decade. There is no reason I like for why a magazine case would get heard.
(B) There are two reasons we do not want this magazine case at the Supreme Court. First, the current make-up of the Court is not majority gun-friendly. With one more originalist appointment the make-up would be a solid majority in favor of the 2A. Sometimes its good to be patient. Second, whether we like it or not, reasonable minds can differ about whether a "large capacity" magazine is protected by the Constitution. A person with an AR-15 and a satchel of 10 round magazines is certainly capable of exercising their right to keep and bear arms. A decision in this magazine case could easily go the "wrong" way and have far reaching negative consequences for the 2A.
(A) The Supreme Court has shown no interest in taking up a Second amendment case in the past decade. There is no reason I like for why a magazine case would get heard.
(B) There are two reasons we do not want this magazine case at the Supreme Court. First, the current make-up of the Court is not majority gun-friendly. With one more originalist appointment the make-up would be a solid majority in favor of the 2A. Sometimes its good to be patient. Second, whether we like it or not, reasonable minds can differ about whether a "large capacity" magazine is protected by the Constitution. A person with an AR-15 and a satchel of 10 round magazines is certainly capable of exercising their right to keep and bear arms. A decision in this magazine case could easily go the "wrong" way and have far reaching negative consequences for the 2A.
Last edited:
bushmaster1313
Member
Petition for en banc hearing by the Ninth Circuit was filed by California in the California magazine case on August 28, 2020
Copy of the en banc petition here
Therefore, there is no mandate coming soon from the Ninth Circuit.
Copy of the en banc petition here
Therefore, there is no mandate coming soon from the Ninth Circuit.
Last edited:
Exactly! Should the SCOTUS take up this issue and deem magazine capacity limits constitutional, we could see limits of 5 or fewer rounds in a magazine by states linking magazine capacity to hunting laws that limit the number of rounds.
And if things go south this Nov, you think SCOTUS will be more gun friendly, considering retirements?
HorizontalMike
US Veteran
Wow, if that will be the case then my 8rd moon-clips/magazines for my 627PC, or 7rd moon-clips/magazines for my 686+ will end up being illegal as well!... /s
I would venture to opine that moon-clips will be argued in court to be the legal equivalent to a rifle/pistol magazine, at some point in the future...
Wow, if that will be the case then my 8rd moon-clips/magazines for my 627PC, or 7rd moon-clips/magazines for my 686+ will end up being illegal as well!... /s
I would venture to opine that moon-clips will be argued in court to be the legal equivalent to a rifle/pistol magazine, at some point in the future...
Except, so far, legislation has only involved detachable magazines. Fixed box, tubular (except for extension tubes), and revolvers have been exempt.
Without getting political, whether your Personal firearms are/could be affected or not is not the issue. It’s the concept of any additional limitations on firearm ownership that should concern us all. We are all in this together, 30 round mag or 3 round moon clip.
HorizontalMike
US Veteran
I agree, "...so far..." IMO, stranger things have already been argued/passed in our past... such as "a pistol grip" equals "assault" weapon/rifle...etc. Also, differentiating between one trigger pull and one discharge, when both revolvers and pistols meet that criteria... Moon-clips can/could be defined as "removable" aka "detachable" reloading devices...
Not arguing here, just being a bit fearful of our future 2nd Amendment rights defined.
Last edited:
Oh, I agree 110%! It's the slippery slope of limiting or banning just one or two things, for the safety of everyone... for now... but then later, the restrictions expand.
There is a good video just out that discusses the 17 states that are supporting California's appeal - many of these states do not currently have limitations on mag capacity, but since they are supporting Cal's efforts they may be indicating that they will also be putting in limitations in the future. It's a video you should watch IMHO - your state may on this list.
Pete99004
17 STATES SUPPORTING CA'S MAG BAN!!! - YouTube
Pete99004
17 STATES SUPPORTING CA'S MAG BAN!!! - YouTube
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
Yes, people need to pay attention and take action in their own states.
However, what this really tells me is there are 32 states that don't support CA's mag ban. That should speak louder than the minority that do support it.
