• 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!

California’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Is Restored by Appeals Court

Rich2018 said:
Really ?

OK, so what is YOUR criteria as to who should be deemed as part of the militia ?
Click to expand...
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
danielpalos said:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

"Criteria" - do you know what is means ?
 
Rich2018 said:
"Criteria" - do you know what is means ?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...
 
Rich2018 said:
How? I'm asking you what your criteria is for eligibility for a militia.

Do you understand the question ?
Click to expand...
computing.............
 
Rich2018 said:
Why do you continue to lie ?

Haven't I always said that I would allow exemptions ?
Click to expand...
But you also said that it would be a gun free society.

Ban all guns + exempt some guns=gun free society

How does that equation work?
 
NWRatCon said:

California’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Is Restored by Appeals Court (NYT, Subscription)​

"A federal appeals court on Tuesday restored California’s prohibition on high-capacity magazines, a decision with national implications that could also lead to the reinstatement of a state ban on semiautomatic weapons.

In a 7-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a state ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition — reversing a federal judge’s decision that said the statute violated gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.

In the appeals court’s ruling, Judge Susan P. Graber rejected the argument of gun rights groups that the state law, first passed in 2000 and strengthened in 2016, violated the “core” right of California gun owners to self-defense.
“There is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine,” she wrote in a decision split along partisan lines. The seven jurists appointed by Democratic presidents supported the law and the four appointed by Republicans voted to strike it down.

In 2020, a three-judge federal panel upheld the ruling by Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court in San Diego to reverse the law, ultimately kicking the case up to the full appeals court."

I would have liked to engage this discussion elsewhere, but I know it would get moved here, anyway. Maybe we can discuss the actual decision and not get onto rote talking points? <fingers crossed>
Click to expand...
Seems like a dumb decision. They want outlaws not to have to do as many mag changes?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Seems like a dumb decision. They want outlaws not to have to do as many mag changes?
Click to expand...

they want to set a precedent to ultimate ban most firearms
 
TurtleDude said:
they want to set a precedent to ultimate ban most firearms
Click to expand...
Like most anti gun rights laws, it's not the end game, it's a step in a never ending cycle of incrementalism. This is a significant one because heretofore buying a new 10+ magazine was banned, but ones already in your possession were grandfathered. This is the first time that an object that was previously legal to buy and own BECAME illegal. Once that happened, the next step would be to do the same with "assault weapons", then bolt action scoped "sniper rifles", etc, etc.
 
natman said:
Like most anti gun rights laws, it's not the end game
Click to expand...
They either can't or are unwilling to define the end game, or they do it without realizing that they do it.

"Would like to see gun laws modeled after those used in a FAR more civilized, in my view, country (Japan)"

End gun violence.

End school shootings.

Not one more.
natman said:
, it's a step in a never ending cycle of incrementalism. This is a significant one because heretofore buying a new 10+ magazine was banned, but ones already in your possession were grandfathered. This is the first time that an object that was previously legal to buy and own BECAME illegal. Once that happened, the next step would be to do the same with "assault weapons", then bolt action scoped "sniper rifles", etc, etc.
Click to expand...
Some understand this and are willing to make it happen. Others just believe in "common sense" gun laws.
 
natman said:
This is the equivalent of stamping your foot, pouting and saying "Because I said so!". That's not debate. If you somehow think magazines do not fall under the classification of "arms", then make your case. If you can.
Click to expand...
What, do you want me to post the entire constitution?
 
TurtleDude said:
you confuse state government with federal government.
Click to expand...
We are talking about California law on magazines. aren't we? Isn't that a state law?
 
Citizen said:
What, do you want me to post the entire constitution?
Click to expand...
where in that document does the government get the power to ban magazines?
 
Citizen said:
We are talking about California law on magazines. aren't we? Isn't that a state law?
Click to expand...
yes it is. but the second amendment has been incorporated and magazines are a part of arms
 
Citizen said:
The same place it gets to ban missile launchers and grenades
Click to expand...
wrong yet again. those are not arms within the meaning of the second amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom