DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[p--and--p]

Considering California, arguably the most restrictive 2A state, is his largely his primary target for public criticism on political issues, why hasn’t he publicly said a single word about our anti-2A laws? Why is such a constitutional right not a priority for him or congressional republicans?

What does “go after” 2A restrictive states mean and how would the success of that be a meaningful win for current gun owners in California and the likes of?

I think the go after anti 2A laws is vague, BUT they did start by suing LA for not giving permits in a timely manner. That was the start, so things have moved- ever so slowly though sadly

 

[p--and--p]

I won't pretend like the dems aren't the main pushers of the agenda today, but microstamping, mag disconnects and LCIs were Shwarzeneggers baby, the Initial assault weapons ban in 1989 was a republican governor George Deukmejian and the very first gun control laws of the state were from Reagan. It's really only been since about 2015 that republicans have done anything meaningful with gun law even in red states. Like the "constitutional carry" stuff in states like texas is less than 10 years old.

I think Grey Davis did us in with the roster while the fake R Arnold added microstamping. He also pushes the whole green agenda so that is how you know he isn't in touch with reality.
I think though that for a while now the Dems in california have just pushed it into overdrive because of one party rule. The extra 11% is sickening for one. Having it an open ended issue just so people keep voting for the other party is disgusting as well. I dont know if I see bright future on it

 

[GoldensRule]

Here's the nutshell version: I don't believe in the 2A at all. I instead believe in a version of "ultra-strict scrutiny", which is that anything that infringes liberty (of any kind) needs to be very well justified. The 2A is a casuistic attempt to create a special carve-out for guns, which takes that basic principle and both overly restricts it and overly broadens it (have to explain what I mean). I think the form of gun regulation that for example exists in Sweden on Switzerland is a much better way to go about it, because it is intellectually more honest and can be long term load bearing.

For the most part I enthusiastically agree with the above paragraph.

The 2nd amendment is a failure. It's primary stated purpose was to ensure the nation could protect itself against tyranny and that has proved itself to be a joke under the pedophile-in-chief.

It's primary but unstated purpose of ensuring that slave states could put down slave rebellions worked for ~70ish years and that led us into the bloodiest civil war in our nation, to date.

It's secondary "interpreted" purpose of enabling the population of the nation to defend itself was a major contributing factor to the genocide of native Americans.

As a republic, we could ensure that reasonable, rationale gun laws exist that enable people to defend themselves without creating such a glut of easily obtainable , insanely efficient firearms (such as we have now) that our level of domestic carnage is only exceeded by nations engaged outright warfare.

In fact, firearm related deaths on an annual basis in the US EXCEED the annual deaths in Ukraine related to the aggressive war being waged by Russia! This is an abysmal and shameful statistic that we should all seriously ponder.

 

[GoldensRule]

So why are you even be a member of a gun forum? Are you writing a thesis?

While I respect your right to have a difference of opinion, I do not find your opinions helpful in any possible meaningful way to make the 2A Community or 2A in general better. For this reason I will be “ignoring” you as I there is enough negativity in the world. I come here to discus positive 2A Rights /Laws.

But keep on preaching brother, that is also one of your “Rights.”

It's sad if not pathetic that some people treat the 2nd amendment as a religion and this website as it's cathedral.

The 2nd amendment is nothing but a deeply flawed and failed piece of legislation that was ratified 234 years ago, primarily as a mechanism to suppress slave revolts. To treat it as some kind of law carved into a tablet by an almighty deity is indicative of a lack of respect for the governing principles of American society.

To impugn someone for publicly disagreeing with failed legislation or for challenging what seems to be some people's gun religion is juvenile at best.

This is not a 2nd amendment church or a holy place, as much as some would like it to be. It is somewhere we can discuss firearms, the good the bad and the ugly. Only through civil discussion, not the suppression of ideas and opinions through ad hominem attacks, red herrings and other fallacies of logic can our system of government survive.

 

[Jimi Jah]

The 2nd amendment is nothing but a deeply flawed and failed piece of legislation that was ratified 234 years ago, primarily as a mechanism to suppress slave revolts.

Read the Federalist papers. The reasoning was made clear, the 2nd was created to prevent government tyranny.

 

[bazooka]

Take Ikeo for one example, I do not agree with his opinions at times, but I can follow his thought process and reasoning, even if we do not come to the same conclusion/opinion. I like that kind of discussion because it can help me see a difference of opinion even if I never change mine because of it.

But what treelogger is doing, in my opinion, would be the equivalent of me going on a Trans Activist Website and telling them their definition of sexes is wrong and that science and biology prove that “Normaly” there are only two sexes; mutations such as hermaphrodites not withstanding.

Would I ever do that? No, I’m not an A-hole and I do not understand why people feel the need to do so.

I hear you. This is a California gun forum, so overly-restrictive gun rights will be part of many topics discussed, and the second amendment is a big part of that. But, I think your definition of the community being represented by these forums is much smaller that what is intended by the owners.

A trans activist website's intended community probably only includes people who don't believe in the two sexes position (likely, who violently disagree with it). So a person having that position would be an intruder on the community. I understood this forum's intended community to be people who shoot guns and want to talk about various things related to that. That's a different community than 2A supporters.

Still, as much as we push back against the suppression of ideas, there are dangerous ones. Floating the idea that the second amendment is flawed can be dangerous in an arena that includes people who want to disarm us. But that's no one in this community.

P.S. No AI was used to write or edit this or any of my posts. I've used AI once, when I needed a quick implementation of a "bin packing algorithm". I spent the next hour studying the flawed code before throwing it out and writing it myself. AI sucks.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I think the go after anti 2A laws is vague, BUT they did start by suing LA for not giving permits in a timely manner. That was the start, so things have moved- ever so slowly though sadly

The point I’m trying to make here is not about what they’re doing but what they’re NOT doing with the tremendous amount of power they currently have.

Not even a tweet from Trump on California’s restrictive laws (obviously a low bar).

So saying the “president/reps/dems are the party of blank” lets them off the hook. These folks should have to earn our vote every single election.

I’m certainly not a single issue voter, but if 2A is your primary concern you should be the biggest critic of those in power who do next to nothing for that cause.

 

[Ro-bo]

I think Grey Davis did us in with the roster...

I'd go with SB23 if I was trying to make this point, but a lot of people are ignoring the bipartisan nature of this state's gun control history. And no, it didn't begin in the 1960s.

Regardless, if you were around at the time Davis threw his hat in the ring, you might recall that his NRA-backed Republican rival Bill Simon stated his support for an assault weapon ban during the one and only debate between the two. That's the reality of California politics. Guns have always been an issue nobody wants to touch. Anyone who thinks we could've outvoted the "other side" somehow, hasn't paid attention to anti-2A lawmaking in this state. This is why it's vitally important to detach the 2A from politics altogether.

 

[Ro-bo]

That has been true for a very long time. All I need to say is "2 gauge punt guns". And I won't mention nuclear arms, since that seems to regularly upset some posters here.

But even you know those are red herrings so not mentioning either (oops, you did!) is probably in your best interest.

As for the state's position that magazines aren't arms (your personal opinion notwithstanding/being irrelevant), it's an untenable one that fails the sniff test which is exactly why the petition exists in the first place. A specialized component such as a magazine, is unique to a firearm, unlike screws and other more general bits and bobs you've used in your examples. Willfully conflating the two to say that a ban on those generalized components doesn't rise to the level of a 2A infringement is being disingenuous. If a core component of a firearms *isn't* a firearm, than the sky is the limit. Sights, barrels, grips, folded and formed plastic? Nope. None are on their own firearms therefore yadda-yadda. The state's position is entirely grasping for a way to claim that the magazine debate doesn't clear the first hurdle, which is Heller, and that's entirely so they don't have to defend their position under Bruen instructions.

As terrible as the supreme court can be about missing the bigger picture, that logic isn't likely to succeed. The bigger hurdle will be clearing Bruen because the high court has already slightly walked back "text, history and tradition" and watered that down with the caveat that things not be "trapped in amber". The lower courts have run wild with that position, which is why the justification for any modern firearm restriction is defended with examples of broader historical attempts to control any type of weapon (bowie knives, etc.) not just guns.

Again, if the supreme court accepts that as proper application of Bruen, we are royally F-ed.

 

[ikeo1]

I understood this forum's intended community to be people who shoot guns and want to talk about various things related to that. That's a different community than 2A supporters.

Just to be clear, this also includes 2A supporters. I will say if people get out of line or just bad overall and don’t contribute positively to the growth of the site, then they can be removed from a particular discussion or the site altogether.

Main thing is to have a well intentioned community looking to drive progress on multiple fronts. I originally started this for gun owners to get more information and training but I’m glad to see the site mature a bit more with the content and want to support that area of 2A ownership. For the reason you mentioned earlier where these laws impact us directly, it’s good to understand the history, current status, and what we can potentially do as individuals and as a community.

Spreading awareness is a form of that and IMO one way we can move 2A ownership to a more moderate position as people become more proficient and have a better understanding. It’s moving beyond our initial purpose and widens our perspective

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

I hear you. This is a California gun forum, so overly-restrictive gun rights will be part of many topics discussed, and the second amendment is a big part of that. But, I think your definition of the community being represented by these forums is much smaller that what is intended by the owners.

A trans activist website's intended community probably only includes people who don't believe in the two sexes position (likely, who violently disagree with it). So a person having that position would be an intruder on the community. I understood this forum's intended community to be people who shoot guns and want to talk about various things related to that. That's a different community than 2A supporters.

Still, as much as we push back against the suppression of ideas, there are dangerous ones. Floating the idea that the second amendment is flawed can be dangerous in an arena that includes people who want to disarm us. But that's no one in this community.

P.S. No AI was used to write or edit this or any of my posts. I've used AI once, when I needed a quick implementation of a "bin packing algorithm". I spent the next hour studying the flawed code before throwing it out and writing it myself. AI sucks.

Why would you come to a gun forum if you do not support the 2A? Same thing for my Trans activist argument. Who the hell has enough free time to join forums that you do not agree with just to be a naysayer? Seriously, I support your right to do it, but it seems a very douche thing to do.

 

[M_N04H]

Why would you come to a gun forum if you do not support the 2A? Same thing for my Trans activist argument. Who the hell has enough free time to join forums that you do not agree with just to be a naysayer? Seriously, I support your right to do it, but it seems a very douche thing to do.

And a waste of time on the part of the person doing it.

 

[p--and--p]

I was asked why not use the "ignore button" - well because I'm probably already in an echo chamber and I like debate! I like to hear different opinions, HOWEVER, when someone flat out says the 2A is bad and things like that, then there is no common ground. I have given up on common ground with people that support C Kirk's death, there is nothing we can reason together about anymore. There are several I will just ignore because they are here for the wrong reasons. The pedophile in chief is a clear example of TDS because he wasn't even on the list in the end, just another talking point in that person's echo chamber.

I'll agree with someone who said we should be mad at the R side because they do have alot of power and aren't doing much of anything. That is absolutely infuriating!

 

[p--and--p]

The point I’m trying to make here is not about what they’re doing but what they’re NOT doing with the tremendous amount of power they currently have.

Not even a tweet from Trump on California’s restrictive laws (obviously a low bar).

So saying the “president/reps/dems are the party of blank” lets them off the hook. These folks should have to earn our vote every single election.

I’m certainly not a single issue voter, but if 2A is your primary concern you should be the biggest critic of those in power who do next to nothing for that cause.

Very much agreed, but I think the "green agenda" would be the death of us and I'd rather have that squashed then fight having a fin grip on my AR. When costs of basics like electricity take so much of the budget, we will no longer be able to be a 1st world.

 

[p--and--p]

It's sad if not pathetic that some people treat the 2nd amendment as a religion and this website as it's cathedral.

The 2nd amendment is nothing but a deeply flawed and failed piece of legislation that was ratified 234 years ago, primarily as a mechanism to suppress slave revolts. To treat it as some kind of law carved into a tablet by an almighty deity is indicative of a lack of respect for the governing principles of American society.

To impugn someone for publicly disagreeing with failed legislation or for challenging what seems to be some people's gun religion is juvenile at best.

This is not a 2nd amendment church or a holy place, as much as some would like it to be. It is somewhere we can discuss firearms, the good the bad and the ugly. Only through civil discussion, not the suppression of ideas and opinions through ad hominem attacks, red herrings and other fallacies of logic can our system of government survive.

No, this is a gun site. Gun site would mean a PRO 2A... Maybe someone can argue some gun laws vs none, but the 2A is so important. Go back to Daniel Hogg's "only the gov" should have guns, how would this country have started? By people being armed and able to fight the British. The 2A is the backbone because it protects freedom of speech and the others. Look at England today, you go to jail for "retweeting" a joke.

On that note, its ignore. You are too far gone my friend, we live in two different realities assuming you aren't here to just TROLL

 

[couragewolf]

Why does this read like AI wrote it?

This is the new feature of our era. Don’t trust your eyes friend the internet is no longer a safe space for human beings.

 

[treelogger]

Sorry, was too busy yesterday and today to post anything, and now I'm tired. Will try to reply tomorrow.

 

[Skilly]

Of course this is a CA forum and California is going to take the heat for being so restrictive.

However, as we say that out loud, 2A is being marginalized all over the country. An overall ban of AR15s in Illinois, and the same in NY (due to their VERY loose description of "assault weapon"). Half the guns in my safe wouldn't be legal in many other states - there were extra hoops, granted. But I own them legally, in CA. More than I could say in some of the other places around the country.

This isn't a note to defend CA, its more to the earlier comment about government loving to distract and divide us while they quietly take our freedoms away. And that objective is bi-partisan.

 

[Skilly]

No, this is a gun site. Gun site would mean a PRO 2A... Maybe someone can argue some gun laws vs none, but the 2A is so important. Go back to Daniel Hogg's "only the gov" should have guns, how would this country have started? By people being armed and able to fight the British. The 2A is the backbone because it protects freedom of speech and the others. Look at England today, you go to jail for "retweeting" a joke.

On that note, its ignore. You are too far gone my friend, we live in two different realities assuming you aren't here to just TROLL

England and the retweeting comment is interesting - there have been hundreds in the US losing their jobs from the same, and the President is regularly suing for billions challenging our First Amendment protections. It might be overlooked by someone who agrees with that view until its their view that has them unemployed.

Really, Im not so sure that's a good example of our freedoms playing out in a better way. Whether it be jail or your livelihood, we have a very strong (and growing) opposition to 1A in this country. Pearls are being clutched everywhere. For some reason we seem to be OK with our own views. And as others view the opposite, it seems more standard today to infringe on those opposing. It starts with echo chambers and grows from there. Unlike this forum, X and Threads are DESIGNED for conflict; 80% of their traffic are bots creating conflict because conflict drives engagement (see the meme of Grandpa Simpson "Old Man Yells at Cloud!").

Thats why this is such a great forum. Real people first and foremost and some great views from both sides and learning new perspective!

 

[adrkwan]

For the most part I enthusiastically agree with the above paragraph.

The 2nd amendment is a failure. It's primary stated purpose was to ensure the nation could protect itself against tyranny and that has proved itself to be a joke under the pedophile-in-chief.

It's primary but unstated purpose of ensuring that slave states could put down slave rebellions worked for ~70ish years and that led us into the bloodiest civil war in our nation, to date.

It's secondary "interpreted" purpose of enabling the population of the nation to defend itself was a major contributing factor to the genocide of native Americans.

As a republic, we could ensure that reasonable, rationale gun laws exist that enable people to defend themselves without creating such a glut of easily obtainable , insanely efficient firearms (such as we have now) that our level of domestic carnage is only exceeded by nations engaged outright warfare.

In fact, firearm related deaths on an annual basis in the US EXCEED the annual deaths in Ukraine related to the aggressive war being waged by Russia! This is an abysmal and shameful statistic that we should all seriously ponder.

Just to throw some context into the firearm related deaths portion of your post. Suicide make up the bulk of US gun related deaths at 58% (~27,000) per year according to CDC data. The next large category was murder at 38% (~18,000). Suicide by gun is the most common form of suicide in the US at 55%. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...un-deaths-are-murders-what-share-are-suicides I'm not sure the comparison is exactly apples to apples using the total gun deaths in the US.

On the second point of the deaths exceeding the Ukranian War, I think that is incorrect at least as to the current state of the war? The last I read, Russia lost 0.25M just this year alone and accounting for each of the 5 years of the conflict that would be 50,000 deaths on just one side. The early days of the war had fewer casualties for sure as Russia has adopted human wave tactics again.