• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Court Upholds Decision to Block California’s Magazine Ban

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of California’s restriction on the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.

Hopefully we will see more and more decisions like this as more and more Trump judges take seats on the benches
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of California’s restriction on the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.

Hopefully we will see more and more decisions like this as more and more Trump judges take seats on the benches
Click to expand...

Now here comes a call for an en banc court to overturn this decision like with saw in Kolbe v Hogan.
 
Rucker61 said:
Now here comes a call for an en banc court to overturn this decision like with saw in Kolbe v Hogan.
Click to expand...

its hard to justify that stupid law-trying to turn people into criminals if they don't turn in stuff they never used illegally and originally bought legally-maybe from the federal government
 
TurtleDude said:
its hard to justify that stupid law-trying to turn people into criminals if they don't turn in stuff they never used illegally and originally bought legally-maybe from the federal government
Click to expand...

I thought it was hard to justify an AWB after conceding that AR-15s and 30 round magazines were "in common use for lawful purposes" by calling the AR-15 a weapon of war, or to make people feel safer even without being safer.
 
Well, the truly butt-hurt Liberal gun-haters can always take it to the Trump Supreme Court.

:mrgreen:
 
I am glad to see this but I do support some forms of magazine limits. There is not reasonable need for police or civilians to own magazines in the 100 round capacity.
 
Chillfolks said:
I am glad to see this but I do support some forms of magazine limits. There is not reasonable need for police or civilians to own magazines in the 100 round capacity.
Click to expand...

Any limit would be based on the same Constitutionality - if 100 round magazines can be banned, so can 30 and 12.
 
Chillfolks said:
I am glad to see this but I do support some forms of magazine limits. There is not reasonable need for police or civilians to own magazines in the 100 round capacity.
Click to expand...
If I keep and bear firearms for the purpose and intent specified in the 2nd Amendment, then it is ABSOLUTELY prudent for me to have 100 round drum magazines for my weapons should there ever be a need to employ those weapons in the defense of the free state.
 
VanceMack said:
If I keep and bear firearms for the purpose and intent specified in the 2nd Amendment, then it is ABSOLUTELY prudent for me to have 100 round drum magazines for my weapons should there ever be a need to employ those weapons in the defense of the free state.
Click to expand...


Cool story John J. I still disagree and will support any law banning the 100 round magazine.
 
Chillfolks said:
Cool story John J. I still disagree and will support any law banning the 100 round magazine.
Click to expand...
You may feel free to support it...but your position is in opposition to the Constitution...and especially due to the written intent.
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of California’s restriction on the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.

Hopefully we will see more and more decisions like this as more and more Trump judges take seats on the benches
Click to expand...

A step in the right direction for this bat**** crazy anti-gun state.
Poor little leftwing Becerra is probably peeing his pants over this decision.
 
VanceMack said:
You may feel free to support it...but your position is in opposition to the Constitution...and especially due to the written intent.
Click to expand...


As long as we agree that each is free to support their own opinions that's good enough for me.
 
Chillfolks said:
As long as we agree that each is free to support their own opinions that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...
I think kicking and stomping feet and shrieking NOOOOO....wouldnt be very effective.
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of California’s restriction on the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.

Hopefully we will see more and more decisions like this as more and more Trump judges take seats on the benches
Click to expand...

the irony here is that once trump gets done with this country.. I might just need to use my firearms to protect myself from the government.
 
jaeger19 said:
the irony here is that once trump gets done with this country.. I might just need to use my firearms to protect myself from the government.
Click to expand...
its funny how many liberals call Trump a dictator and yet want to ban citizens from having guns
 
jaeger19 said:
the irony here is that once trump gets done with this country.. I might just need to use my firearms to protect myself from the government.
Click to expand...
Interesting...because of Trump...what are you afraid of? What scenario do you see that might require you to use your firearms to protect yourself from the government?
 
VanceMack said:
Interesting...because of Trump...what are you afraid of? What scenario do you see that might require you to use your firearms to protect yourself from the government?
Click to expand...

yeah and its liberals on this site who have made the following claims

1) Trump supports need to be implanted with "chips" so their whereabouts be tracked

2) the Fifth amendment shouldn't apply to Trump supporters and NRA members

for years left-wingers have tried to suppress the first amendment-such as shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses to gun banners trying to prevent the NRA from advocating people be armed for self defense. Most conservatives support individual rights rather than collectivism.
 
Chillfolks said:
I am glad to see this but I do support some forms of magazine limits. There is not reasonable need for police or civilians to own magazines in the 100 round capacity.
Click to expand...

once you concede the government should be able to draw a line arbitrarily, you have a hard time opposing nonsense like 10 round limits. but you sort of redeem yourself by linking what private citizens can own with what civilian police can use
 
Chillfolks said:
Cool story John J. I still disagree and will support any law banning the 100 round magazine.
Click to expand...

why? how about 60, 40, 30, 20, 15, 10?
 
Chillfolks said:
I am glad to see this but I do support some forms of magazine limits. There is not reasonable need for police or civilians to own magazines in the 100 round capacity.
Click to expand...

Well there's no reason for anybody to own a Bugatti Veyron but people still can.
 
VanceMack said:
If I keep and bear firearms for the purpose and intent specified in the 2nd Amendment, then it is ABSOLUTELY prudent for me to have 100 round drum magazines for my weapons should there ever be a need to employ those weapons in the defense of the free state.
Click to expand...

Also no need for mag changes during practice
 
jaeger19 said:
the irony here is that once trump gets done with this country.. I might just need to use my firearms to protect myself from the government.
Click to expand...

So you believe there is a purpose for the Second Amendment? Actually it's stated purpose I'm glad we can agree on that.
 
Chillfolks said:
I am glad to see this but I do support some forms of magazine limits. There is not reasonable need for police or civilians to own magazines in the 100 round capacity.
Click to expand...

Well, it is true that most 100 round magazines are not "reasonable" I have never had a magazine that holds > 30 rounds that is sufficiently reliable for defensive use. To say nothing of the opressive weight.

That said, need is not a criteria, any more than need should be a criteria for buying a Ferrari. If I am dumb enough to want a 100 round magazine, then it should be legal to own one. Those who want them and can afford them should be able to buy them
 
dogboy49 said:
Well, it is true that most 100 round magazines are not "reasonable" I have never had a magazine that holds > 30 rounds that is sufficiently reliable for defensive use. To say nothing of the opressive weight.

That said, need is not a criteria, any more than need should be a criteria for buying a Ferrari. If I am dumb enough to want a 100 round magazine, then it should be legal to own one. Those who want them and can afford them should be able to buy them
Click to expand...

the main flaw in his argument is not the usefulness of 100 round magazines but rather believing the limit should be whatever the legislature wants at a given time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom