• 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!

Californian Magazine ban struck down by federal district court

TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201..._kbfVYmWZmOUwDIIE8w30rub92t4ZJ3FntVAwkzxNLqSo

Main issue-the appeal will go to the notoriously anti gun 9th Circuit but you never know which three judge panel will get the case. And the Ninth circuit was-at least recently, the most overturned circuit in the USA
Click to expand...

Sweet.

Here is a link to the preliminary injunction which outlines the District Court's analysis:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201..._kbfVYmWZmOUwDIIE8w30rub92t4ZJ3FntVAwkzxNLqSo

Main issue-the appeal will go to the notoriously anti gun 9th Circuit but you never know which three judge panel will get the case. And the Ninth circuit was-at least recently, the most overturned circuit in the USA
Click to expand...

Maybe you can help clarify. This ruling only applies to the new law in California that banned the grandfathered in magazines from the 2000 law ban and the 2000 ban on new high capacity magazines is not part of this?
 
jet57 said:
Not anti constitutional at all. Neither would banning armor piercing ammunition be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

What part of shall not be infringed, allows such nonsense? and since you apparently support ten round limits-at what number of rounds does infringement take place?
 
Federal Judge strikes down ban on 'high-capacity' magazines.

Fed Judge: California’s ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
AWR HAWKINS29 Mar 2019

high-capacity-magazines-640x480.png


The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.

On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”
Click to expand...

Magazien capacity has never been shown to increase or decrease crime. Banning capacity beyond an arbitrary quantity is nothing but harasement and I hope this puts an end to it.
 
This is great news. Now I can legally buy those 30-round clips for the MINI 14.

I'm so happy!! :D

"Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts." - Judge Roger T. Benitez
 
TurtleDude said:
What part of shall not be infringed, allows such nonsense? and since you apparently support ten round limits-at what number of rounds does infringement take place?
Click to expand...

What part of "not an unlimited right" don't you get? Guns are quite operable with 10 round clips. So, as usual - you fail.
 
jet57 said:
What part of "not an unlimited right" don't you get? Guns are quite operable with 10 round clips. So, as usual - you fail.
Click to expand...

What gives the federal government a power at 11 rounds but not 8?
 
Crovax said:
Maybe you can help clarify. This ruling only applies to the new law in California that banned the grandfathered in magazines from the 2000 law ban and the 2000 ban on new high capacity magazines is not part of this?
Click to expand...

Well given that Palmetto State Armory put out a notice on its FB page that it is NOW accepting orders from California for Normal capacity AR 15 magazines (30 rounds) it appears as if the entire law is toast. Which is exactly the proper ruling.
 
jet57 said:
Not anti constitutional at all. Neither would banning armor piercing ammunition be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Sure it would be, soldiers use armor piercing ammo.
 
jet57 said:
What part of "not an unlimited right" don't you get? Guns are quite operable with 10 round clips. So, as usual - you fail.
Click to expand...
They're called magazines not clips, if you're going to debate guns learn your vocabulary.
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201..._kbfVYmWZmOUwDIIE8w30rub92t4ZJ3FntVAwkzxNLqSo

Main issue-the appeal will go to the notoriously anti gun 9th Circuit but you never know which three judge panel will get the case. And the Ninth circuit was-at least recently, the most overturned circuit in the USA
Click to expand...


This ruling is far more important than folks realize. The opinion written by Judge Roger T. Benitez is not a weak rationalization of a political stance (as are many judicial fiats); its 86 pages are not only closely reasoned, it is the "most thorough judicial analysis" (Volokh Conspiracy) to date on magazine bans.

And what is most interesting (to me) is its detailed analysis of the record, its analysis under a variety of tests, and its reliance on the most direct and relevant test of all - "the simple Heller test".

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

***

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected.
Click to expand...

Simple, sweat, and logical.

The 9th circuit will almost certainty overturn it with the usual mumbo-jumbo and, if another circuit disagrees it will find its way to SCOTUS. I hope it does.

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf
 
Last edited:
DebateChallenge said:
They're called magazines not clips, if you're going to debate guns learn your vocabulary.
Click to expand...

A very very good friend of mine was in Vietnam in '67; they all called 'em clips. I'd heard the word used that way myself, so I'm going to stick with "clips". I would suggest that you work on disproving the facts I lay out in these debates.
 
jet57 said:
What part of "not an unlimited right" don't you get? Guns are quite operable with 10 round clips. So, as usual - you fail.
Click to expand...

Where does the 2nd Amendment say thst?
 
jet57 said:
A very very good friend of mine was in Vietnam in '67; they all called 'em clips. I'd heard the word used that way myself, so I'm going to stick with "clips". I would suggest that you work on disproving the facts I lay out in these debates.
Click to expand...

Magazines are one thing, clips are something else. A magazine is an ammo feeding device that has moving parts and is meant to be used over and over again. A clip is also an ammo a device that holds ammo but it doesn't have moving parts and although clips can and often are used over and over again, they are intended to be disposable. Clips are sometimes even used to insert ammo into magazines.

Magazines and clips are clearly two different things with different functions. As I said, if you're going to debate about guns, ammo, and ammo holding and feeding devices, learn your vocabulary.
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201..._kbfVYmWZmOUwDIIE8w30rub92t4ZJ3FntVAwkzxNLqSo

Main issue-the appeal will go to the notoriously anti gun 9th Circuit but you never know which three judge panel will get the case. And the Ninth circuit was-at least recently, the most overturned circuit in the USA
Click to expand...

Excellent! All the more unlikely the proposals for mag bans here will make it any further. And decent ammo (pun intended) if we do need to fight it here on the legislature floor.
 
jet57 said:
View attachment 67253785

Scalia in Heller. You have to keep up.
Click to expand...

that was prior to McDonald and most of what he talked about were

1) state restrictions

2) and those who lost their constitutional rights due to a conviction (ie du process of law)

that was DICTA too
 
TurtleDude said:
that was prior to McDonald and most of what he talked about were

1) state restrictions

2) and those who lost their constitutional rights due to a conviction (ie du process of law)

that was DICTA too
Click to expand...

Then some judge saying that the AR15 is not a weapon of war is just dicta then too isn't it.

You can't just follow laws that are convenient to you. If you agree with Heller, then you have to agree that the second is not an unlimited right. Your sophomoric rhetoric is light years outside of reality in this country and other parts of the world.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Magazines are one thing, clips are something else. A magazine is an ammo feeding device that has moving parts and is meant to be used over and over again. A clip is also an ammo a device that holds ammo but it doesn't have moving parts and although clips can and often are used over and over again, they are intended to be disposable. Clips are sometimes even used to insert ammo into magazines.

Magazines and clips are clearly two different things with different functions. As I said, if you're going to debate about guns, ammo, and ammo holding and feeding devices, learn your vocabulary.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to 'round and 'round with you: they're "clips", and that's the way it's gonna stay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom