Republicans respecting states' rights strike down California's ban on high-capacity magazines

[Craig234]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

 

[Dayton3]

To the OP, no one has ever suggested that "states rights" could ever supersede what is actually in the Constitution like the 2nd Amendment.

 

[trouble13]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

Funny I dont recall any posts from you like this one, a few months back, when the courts overruled alabamas anti-abortion laws. Does the state have the authority to usurp personal rights in general or only when you disagree with that particular right?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Praxas]

Funny I dont recall any posts from you like this one, a few months back, when the courts overruled alabamas anti-abortion laws. Does the state have the authority to usurp personal rights in general or only when you disagree with that particular right?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

sorry I don't agree with high magazine bans. Banning is not the answer to guns or magazines.

 

[Variant]

To the OP, no one has ever suggested that "states rights" could ever supersede what is actually in the Constitution like the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention high capacity magazines.

 

[PNW Guy]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

Well, hunting is done with a .30 cal M60 select fire, at least "the pros" everyone knows that! I like my meat tender and I use a full 250 round box mag on each deer don'tcha know! Really dood, you've no idea.... :lamo

But seriously, mass shootings are an abberation. I'd see handguns banned if I was god emperor. If it fits in a pocket or under your shirt easily, I'd ban it. Most gun crime would be seriously curbed. I'd let anyone have any rifles they liked, no restrictions other than background checks (universal). Sawed off shotguns too, so long as it's too big to hide easily....

 

[jcgriff2]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

Why would you ever think that Biden will do a damn thing when it comes to appointing judges?

He had 8 years under Obama to find, vet and recommend to Obama possible choices to fill the judge vacancies - but he did not do a damn thing. I think Obama appointed about 10 judges (I have no idea).

Biden was too busy getting Hunter his $1 million/year job with Burisma.

 

[Craig234]

Why would you ever think that Biden will do a damn thing when it comes to appointing judges?

He had 8 years under Obama to find, vet and recommend to Obama possible choices to fill the judge vacancies - but he did not do a damn thing. I think Obama appointed about 10 judges (I have no idea).

Biden was too busy getting Hunter his $1 million/year job with Burisma.

What nonsense. Obama appointed judges fine with a Democratic Senate, and then McConnell blocked him as hard as he could. You're blaming the victim and it's not honest. Also, it wasn't Biden's role to pick judges for Obama.

 

[Craig234]

But seriously, mass shootings are an abberation. I'd see handguns banned

I agree. But both make sense.

 

[Luther]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

But what happens when the states take the rights of the people away?

 

[Luther]

Well, hunting is done with a .30 cal M60 select fire, at least "the pros" everyone knows that! I like my meat tender and I use a full 250 round box mag on each deer don'tcha know! Really dood, you've no idea.... :lamo

But seriously, mass shootings are an abberation. I'd see handguns banned if I was god emperor. If it fits in a pocket or under your shirt easily, I'd ban it. Most gun crime would be seriously curbed. I'd let anyone have any rifles they liked, no restrictions other than background checks (universal). Sawed off shotguns too, so long as it's too big to hide easily....

I'd see handguns banned if I was god emperor.

Good thing you're a tiny minority that feels that way

 

[Dayton3]

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention high capacity magazines.

Sure it does. First Amendment. Freedom of the press shall not be infringed.

 

[Variant]

Sure it does. First Amendment. Freedom of the press shall not be infringed.

Did you post before you finished typing?

 

[Dayton3]

Did you post before you finished typing?

What are you talking about?

 

[Casper]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

Do you think banning high-capacity mags will change anything? Really???

 

[Craig234]

Do you think banning high-capacity mags will change anything? Really???

First, yes. If it prevents one mass shooting, that's important. Second, while I'm sympathetic to arguments why it's not as critical as other things, there's the principle of citizens having the right to pass a law they want for the protection they want.

 

[Fledermaus]

First, yes. If it prevents one mass shooting, that's important. Second, while I'm sympathetic to arguments why it's not as critical as other things, there's the principle of citizens having the right to pass a law they want for the protection they want.

What does one 30 round magazine do that can't be accomplished by 3 X 10 round magazines?

 

[Fledermaus]

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention high capacity magazines.

So what?

The first amendment doesn't mention the interwebz.

 

[Casper]

First, yes. If it prevents one mass shooting, that's important. Second, while I'm sympathetic to arguments why it's not as critical as other things, there's the principle of citizens having the right to pass a law they want for the protection they want.

What are you going to do about the Millions of high capacity mags already out there? You do know that no one will turn them in no matter what laws are passed, and mags can be easily made using 3-D printers. Did it change anything in California, not that I can tell. Actually, no they cant if those laws violate any Constitutional Rights.

 

[Craig234]

What are you going to do about the Millions of high capacity mags already out there? You do know that no one will turn them in no matter what laws are passed, and mags can be easily made using 3-D printers. Did it change anything in California, not that I can tell. Actually, no they cant if those laws violate any Constitutional Rights.

So, you know exactly who might have committed a mass shooting and been affected by the law? You should offer the info to law enforcement. There's no constitutional right involved.

 

[Casper]

So, you know exactly who might have committed a mass shooting and been affected by the law? You should offer the info to law enforcement. There's no constitutional right involved.

Nope, don't need to, Statistics are your friend are shooting up or down, don't look at 2020, the numbers are weird but go back to when Cali passed heir laws and tell me what changed. You can only go so far with laws before they are considered infringement and the law gets struck down in the courts.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention high capacity magazines.

It doesn't mention abortion either, but I think we can all agree that the law of the land is that abortion cannot be banned.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Well, hunting is done with a .30 cal M60 select fire, at least "the pros" everyone knows that! I like my meat tender and I use a full 250 round box mag on each deer don'tcha know! Really dood, you've no idea.... :lamo

But seriously, mass shootings are an abberation. I'd see handguns banned if I was god emperor. If it fits in a pocket or under your shirt easily, I'd ban it. Most gun crime would be seriously curbed. I'd let anyone have any rifles they liked, no restrictions other than background checks (universal). Sawed off shotguns too, so long as it's too big to hide easily....

Banning handguns would mean only criminals would have handguns. Not a good idea of how to curb gun violence.

 

[Craig234]

Nope, don't need to, Statistics are your friend are shooting up or down, don't look at 2020, the numbers are weird but go back to when Cali passed heir laws and tell me what changed. You can only go so far with laws before they are considered infringement and the law gets struck down in the courts.

And this wasn't that far. It was struck down by corrupt right-wing radical judges.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges, 2-1 ruling. Shocking: The two voting to strike down the ban by California were nominated by trump and Bush, the one voting not to was nominated by Clinton.

One more key benefit, the courts, that Biden's election will bring.

It was a good call by the majority. Until there’s an effective way to get firearms out of the hands of criminals, reducing the allowed number of rounds a law abiding citizen can carry only reduces their ability to protect themselves.