The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 9, 2019, 11:44 AM   #76
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
The California AG was making loud noises about the "irreparable harm" done to the state's efforts to promote gun safety by allowing these instruments of mass death and destruction into the state. I'm waiting for all the reports of mass shootings and general carnage that must inevitably follow in the wake of the importation of so many heinous instruments of mayhem.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 9, 2019, 01:52 PM   #77
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,930
How do they reconcile the fact that other states with the same citizenry as the rest of the country has 30rd mags and total mayhem hasn’t happened? And why do people even support those politicians and leaders who’s messages and actions defy even the most common of logic?
rickyrick is offline  
Old April 9, 2019, 01:57 PM   #78
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
The California AG was making loud noises about the "irreparable harm" done to the state's efforts to promote gun safety by allowing these instruments of mass death and destruction into the state.
If the harm is "irreparable" that means it cannot be fixed, so there's no point in NOT letting people have their magazines.

Still trying to understand how magazine size has anything to do with gun safety... I can understand how repealing the ban affects the state's efforts to promote gun control, but not gun safety

They are not the same thing, no matter what some political figure says....

Quote:
And why do people even support those politicians and leaders who’s messages and actions defy even the most common of logic?
Some people support them because they want no guns (or more often, no guns for other people..) the rest support them because they don't have guns, don't give a snit about gun rights, and believe the issue doesn't affect them. They look at the other things that politician does, things that they recognize as affecting them, and support those they agree with on those issues.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 9, 2019, 02:57 PM   #79
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick
And why do people even support those politicians and leaders who’s messages and actions defy even the most common of logic?
Because they (the people who support the gun grabbing politicians) don't understand that what the politicians are saying and promising isn't logical. Remember, the Second Amendment (and the Constitution in general) hasn't been taught in junior high Civics classes for a couple or three generations or more, so most people have heard of the Second Amendment, but they don't understand what a "right" really is or what it means.

Further, they don't understand anything about guns except that guns can kill people. The politicians say guns are bad because "guns" kill people, so the populace buys into the myth that banning guns will magically eliminate killing. It's all smoke and mirrors, but people do buy into it.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 9, 2019 at 10:36 PM. Reason: typo
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 9, 2019, 05:49 PM   #80
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
Its funny, im 40 and from grade school on we were taught that we had guns to protect ourselves from the government, about rights as a us citizen, even about how a search warrant is needed for the government to enter your home and all that. Even among those older than me from other places (ie not nh) they are surprised about the concept of that being taught to kids by teachers, even gun enthusiasts..

My girlfriend, who recently learned how fun AR rifles are, used to think "well we need a balance" and "nobody is going to take your guns away" - she would've voted for gun grabbers in the past and didn't get it until she had her turn with a 40 round mag . Many non gun owners who are on the fence just aren't exposed enough to understand what the politicians are even talking about actually taking away and why we want to keep such things so badly.
riffraff is offline  
Old April 10, 2019, 01:31 PM   #81
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,236
If this ruling stands ( not likely where it's headed ) what does that mean to the assault weapon definition . Not just here in CA but through out the US . Many definitions use wording like " capable of using a detachable magazine capable of holding more then ten rounds"

If it's unconstitutional to restrict the standard mag capacity and is declared just a arbitrary number made up by lawmakers . How can you have that wording describing or in the definition of something else you are restricting ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 10, 2019, 10:09 PM   #82
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Kauai, HI
Posts: 426
The state of California needs to be damned careful here if they want to keep their position. As I've attempted to read the decision multiple times and am still digesting, it sounds like the judge covers many bases for potential appeal avenues. I'd like to hear from an expert what the state might come up with to base their appeal on.

As it is, California does not want this case to go to SCOTUS, neither does any other ban-state. If Cali screws up and lose at the 9th, they take the other Western States down with them... might want to cut their losses there. If Cali wins at the 9th, then the plaintiff appeals to SCOTUS. And the longer it takes, the more likely President Trump will get another nominee.

Anyways, just thinking out loud.
__________________
Living in Hawaii... damned if I don't feel like a criminal just to get permission from the gov't to buy a gun.
SamNavy is offline  
Old April 10, 2019, 11:56 PM   #83
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
If it's unconstitutional to restrict the standard mag capacity and is declared just a arbitrary number made up by lawmakers . How can you have that wording describing or in the definition of something else you are restricting ?
The devil is always in the details (unless you are a design engineer, then its God in the details )

A ban is certainly a restriction, but a restriction may not be a ban. It may amount to a practical ban (making something expensive and hard to get) but unless its a legal ban (may not possess at all) there is a difference.

What we have here is a CA ban on possession of mags over 10 rounds. Similar to the Supreme Court Heller ruling, a complete ban was declared unconstitutional. Various restrictions, short of a complete ban, have not been ruled on, and until then are presumed legal.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 11, 2019, 07:47 AM   #84
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
The struggle will finally come down to banning all semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines or fixed magazines with over a certain capacity.

Look to NZ for a model as was done in Australia. In NZ, the prime minister's ban was passed by a 119 to 1 vote.

The country seems to think that there is no need for those types of weapons compared to the risk.

They don't see them as needed for self-defense or defense against tyranny. The risk of foreign invasion in any foreseeable future is not there. WWII is long gone and a future invasion not likely. They are the country that got rid of all their fighter planes.

In the USA, with so many folks bleating that 5 is enough, the self-defense argument is undercut every day on the gun world internet and press.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 11, 2019, 11:20 AM   #85
dreaming
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
The existing state of affairs

The purpose of a stay of a order or judgment is to return the state of affairs to where it was just before the issuance of the order or entry of judgment. This was impossible to do by simply staying the order enjoining (barring) enforcement of the California 10+ capacity magazine ban that had issued as a result of Judge Benitez's Judgment of 3/29, since thousands of law abiding persons had bought them in reliance on the Federal Judgment. Balancing the equities of the arguable irreparable injury to the state against turning good citizens into instant felons, until the validity of his judgment is finally determined by the appellate process, the judge stayed the injunction against enforcement of the law, except for those who got their magazines between Friday, March 29 and Friday, April 5 at 5 P.M.

The third part of the stay continues the previously issued, and upheld on an earlier appeal, "preliminary injunction" against enforcement of subsections of the law criminalizing the possession of large cap magazines.

Hopefully the Duncan case is the right vehicle to focus the Supremes on the protection of second amendment rights, which so far have been treated as second class constitutional rights by the application, some say the misapplication, of intermediate scrutiny.

Last edited by dreaming; April 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM.
dreaming is offline  
Old April 11, 2019, 03:42 PM   #86
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,111
“In the USA, with so many folks bleating that 5 is enough, the self-defense argument is undercut every day on the gun world internet and press.”

That is a vast oversimplification of a nuanced position many of us have. Bigger bullets, faster bullets, and more bullets are usually better. Yet most of us find semi-auto shotguns with hundred round magazines to be a little unwieldy to carry and even harder to conceal.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 11, 2019, 05:33 PM   #87
dreaming
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
Judge Benitez completely shreds the 5 or 10 is enough argument in the 80+ page order granting summary judgment in Duncan v Becerra. There he illustrates the plight of three three women each and the additional danger faced should their 10 round magazine run dry. I.e.: their may be multiple attackers. He gives the example of where 5 hits failed to put incapacitate an intruder. They may not have both hands available so they can change magazines, as in the case where a woman had to keep firing with one hand while trying to call police with the other. A woman wakened by an attacker in the middle of the night may not have ready access to an extra magazine. Should you care to read it here is a link to the order granting summary judgment.

What is somewhat astonishing about the five is enough argument sung by the "common sense" crowd is how often a trained LEO finds a single 17 round magazine isn't enough to put down a single bad guy. If 17 is not enough for skilled law enforcement, how is 5, 7, or ten supposed to be enough for a defense of home and family by an ordinary citizen? It's only "common sense" that it is not!

Last edited by dreaming; April 11, 2019 at 05:40 PM.
dreaming is offline  
Old April 12, 2019, 09:59 AM   #88
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 872
Here's an officer who carries 145 rounds on duty:

https://www.policeone.com/police-her...mo-on-the-job/

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old April 12, 2019, 11:24 AM   #89
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wag
Here's an officer who carries 145 rounds on duty:
Because there's no such thing as a one-shot stop in the real world, and a hit from a .45 doesn't pick you up and throw you ten feet through the air.

I've read that officer's story before. It was ... sobering.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 12, 2019, 11:40 AM   #90
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
Because there's no such thing as a one-shot stop in the real world,...

There absolutely is such a thing as a one-shot stop in the real world. There is even a "no-shot" stop. They absolutely exist.

What doesn't exist is the one shot stop that results in total instantaneous incapacitation of every attacker 100% of the time.

On the other hand, you can look at it another way, and find that every stop is a one shot stop, one bullet did the job. So, one shot stop, right? Let the ME figure out which one of the multiple hits was THE one...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 16, 2019, 12:36 PM   #91
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wag
Here's an officer who carries 145 rounds on duty:
Interesting. He switched from 45ACP to 9mm.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2019, 01:07 PM   #92
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Interesting. He switched from 45ACP to 9mm.
Not all that strange. Once the reality that the wounds produced by defensive handgun rounds are so close to each other there is no practical difference, the additional rounds and lesser recoil of a 9mm pistol makes perfect sense.

The real take home from that event is the fact that the vaunted 45acp didnt do what a lot of people think it will...aka “one shot stop”
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 16, 2019, 03:05 PM   #93
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Consider the weight difference between 145 rounds of .45 ACP compared to 145 rounds of 9mm.

I'm sure that wasn't the only factor that led to the switch, but I'm also certain that is was A factor.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 16, 2019, 11:08 PM   #94
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
You can carry an ammo load out suitable for house clearing in Beruit if you feel like it. I don't.

One thing to remember, the private citizen doesn't have a police dept,city, county, state agency with lawyers and deep pockets behind them.

The individual officer may well be exonerated, excused, forgiven, or some other phrase holding him blameless for firing off 2 dozen rounds and hitting an innocent person in the course of stopping a bad guy. DO you think you would be??

I doubt it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 19, 2019, 08:55 PM   #95
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,236
I need clarification on something . I was under the impression that the stay the judge put in place stopped the importation , sale and manufacturing of 10+ round mags in CA but did not make/keep them illegal . Or he said the old law can't be enforced , is that correct ?

Meaning you can posses and use them now but can't buy more or make more in CA , is that correct ? I was at my local gun store today and the sales guy said the state can still enforce the old ban ? If so that's pretty messed up for those that same judge allowed to buy the mags in the first place .

Can someone give me the exact situation we are in in CA . Can I own , use or even posses the mags I bought during that one week period the law was struck down ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; April 20, 2019 at 10:31 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 19, 2019, 10:04 PM   #96
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,179
If I read correctly, the judge blocked enforcement of the ban for magazines bought/transferred during the specified period. That would mean they are legal to possess/use (until the case gets decided/forever if we win).

Edit: perhaps "legal" is not the best term, but you cannot be prosecuted for them, due to the injunction.

Last edited by raimius; April 19, 2019 at 11:31 PM.
raimius is offline  
Old April 20, 2019, 01:19 AM   #97
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
Can I own , use or even posses the mags I bought during that one week period the law was struck down ?
IF my understanding is correct, the old law (10+ = illegal) was struck down, then that strike down was struck down. partially.

During that week period, after the old law was struck down, 10+ mags were presumptively legal again, and a bunch of people got them (or ordered them) during that time. The most recent "stay" that I heard of, on the striking down of the older law, allows for those mags bought during that week to have been done in good faith, with no intent to violate the law.

SO, what they ruled was essentially, that, until the issue is fully resolved, the state could go back to prohibiting getting any MORE 10+ mags in the state, but those bought during that week may be kept (and used) and are not subject to the 10+ ban law UNTIL the issue is resolved by a future court ruling.

So, if you got yours during that week, you can keep them for now, but if the future court rules the old law gets to stand intact, then they will become contraband. If the ruling striking down the 10+ law is upheld, that law goes away and they stay legal, and you'll be able to get more.

If the future court rules something else, then all bets might be off...
and we'll have to see exactly what is ruled legal and what isn't, then.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 20, 2019, 06:10 AM   #98
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,680
^^^ 44AMP has summed up my take on the situation nicely.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 20, 2019, 10:33 AM   #99
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,236
Thanks guys that was my understanding as well . Not sure what the gun store clerk was talking about .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 20, 2019, 11:30 AM   #100
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Gun store clerks are generally not lawyers, or even paralegals. They are usually not the most authoritative source for good information about what court rulings say or mean.

Let's face it. There are lawyers and judges who maintain that the Heller ruling says that the Second Amendment only applies to handguns in the home.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11700 seconds with 8 queries