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

[wajalama]

Dude...wtf is this thread about anymore, I just clicked on it to see about any updates regarding the magazine ban

 

[grandpapeepap]

Dude...wtf is this thread about anymore, I just clicked on it to see about any updates regarding the magazine ban

Update is to hurry up and wait more. Enjoy the conversations with fellow forum members in the mean time

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Update is to hurry up and wait more. Enjoy the conversations with fellow forum members in the mean time

Look we finally agree on something dear

 

[grandpapeepap]

 

[ikeo1]

Dude...wtf is this thread about anymore, I just clicked on it to see about any updates regarding the magazine ban

This kinda thing happens, I'm working on a separate solution for this... It'll come up soon enough.. The forum's will stay forums for the usual, but we'll have a one way communication method later for people who don't want to sift through the noise. I'm working on a few things rn.

 

[oneaudiopro]

I most definitely am a liberal. And what does that have to do with the debate we're having? You seem to be using it an an insult, but that attempt failed.


Who is to say? Not me. My personal opinion on the matter is of little importance. And by the way, in my personal opinion, a magazine capacity limit (of say 10 or 5 or 15) makes no sense from a public safety standpoint.

Who is to say? The legislatures. If you don't like their answers, you can use the famous four boxes.


You need to read Heller more carefully. It's not about history and tradition, it's about the inherent meaning of the 2A (minus the prefatory clause).


I did not.


I'm not pleading a case. I'm pointing out that a lower limit (for example, 5 rounds for semi-automatic guns) could plausibly be passed by the legislatures. And if Duncan is rejected by the Supreme Court, it would even pass constitutional muster. Whether I like it or not is not relevant to this observation, and I don't.

You make it clear by your posts that you're a liberal. My question is what are you doing on a pro 2nd amendment website trying to justify the liberal arguments which go against everything the 2nd amendment represents? Do you also use the women's restroom? smh

 

[treelogger]

Im not sure I agree, and the analogy isnt great. Screws and rivets have useful purpose without the application of a gun.

While true, that is irrelevant. The argument that you (and others) are making: Magazines are required to operate guns. Therefore magazines must be "arms" (in the narrow sense of an item that can't be regulated away, without implicating the 2A. That argument also applies to screws. If the government banned all sales/use/possession of bolts and rivets, it would be unconstitutional, because we would no longer be able to keep and bear arms.

The other direction, the argument does not work. The 2A protects the use of FUNCTIONING arms. It protects other components (such as magazines, and screws) only in as much as they are required to keep guns running. Neither magazines nor screws are arms. Neither are directly protected by the 2A.

I admit that one of the things that adds to the confusion is that some laws treat certain gun parts as if they were guns themselves. The best example is NFA regulation of silencers, or the way California runs background checks on ammo (and soon barrels, uppers, and indeed all firearm tools and parts, technically including screws!).

 

[treelogger]

You make it clear by your posts that you're a liberal.

Guilty as charged.

My question is what are you doing on a pro 2nd amendment website trying to justify the liberal arguments which go against everything the 2nd amendment represents?

To begin with, you seem to think that the 2A represents "all guns everyone all the time". That might be your opinion or wish, but it is not reality. The 2A gets restricted and regulated all the time. Some of those restrictions are constitutional, others are not. For many of them, we don't actually know for sure, because the courts haven't evaluated them yet. And often, they never will.

Second, I'm not justifying the arguments, I'm pointing them out. If I didn't do that, do you think those arguments would spontaneously go away? Don't you think it would help if pro-gun people (and I count myself solidly among them) understood all the arguments and the background?

You seem to want want to be in an echo chamber, where all you hear is "the 2A is great, the 2A is happy, everyone can have all guns all the time". That would be a warm and fuzzy place, but you will lose connection to reality. Ignorance is not bliss.

Do you also use the women's restroom? smh

Another fun insult. Do you have any better arguments? And for the record, I don't.

 

[ikeo1]

You make it clear by your posts that you're a liberal. My question is what are you doing on a pro 2nd amendment website trying to justify the liberal arguments which go against everything the 2nd amendment represents? Do you also use the women's restroom? smh

We aren't like other forums where disrespect is acceptable. If you want to form a coalition, make peace with your biases here. There's plenty of places to go where you can be a to random people, this is not one of those places. If you wouldn't say it to someones face in a normal conversation, then it shouldn't be here. And if that's how to speak to people in person normally, then you won't be welcome here.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Guilty as charged.


To begin with, you seem to think that the 2A represents "all guns everyone all the time". That might be your opinion or wish, but it is not reality. The 2A gets restricted and regulated all the time. Some of those restrictions are constitutional, others are not. For many of them, we don't actually know for sure, because the courts haven't evaluated them yet. And often, they never will.

Second, I'm not justifying the arguments, I'm pointing them out. If I didn't do that, do you think those arguments would spontaneously go away? Don't you think it would help if pro-gun people (and I count myself solidly among them) understood all the arguments and the background?

You seem to want want to be in an echo chamber, where all you hear is "the 2A is great, the 2A is happy, everyone can have all guns all the time". That would be a warm and fuzzy place, but you will lose connection to reality. Ignorance is not bliss.


Another fun insult. Do you have any better arguments? And for the record, I don't.

Since Duncan is just another attempt to infringe on our constitutional rights, there are hundreds more. "Shall not be infringed" couldn't be more clear or concise. Please state ANY other constitutional right that requires paying a fee or taking a test in order to exercise that right. The 2nd amendment shouldn't be a red headed step child but because it deals with weapons, some people think they can treat it differently than other rights. I'll wait

 

[Skilly]

While true, that is irrelevant. The argument that you (and others) are making: Magazines are required to operate guns. Therefore magazines must be "arms" (in the narrow sense of an item that can't be regulated away, without implicating the 2A. That argument also applies to screws. If the government banned all sales/use/possession of bolts and rivets, it would be unconstitutional, because we would no longer be able to keep and bear arms.

The other direction, the argument does not work. The 2A protects the use of FUNCTIONING arms. It protects other components (such as magazines, and screws) only in as much as they are required to keep guns running. Neither magazines nor screws are arms. Neither are directly protected by the 2A.

I admit that one of the things that adds to the confusion is that some laws treat certain gun parts as if they were guns themselves. The best example is NFA regulation of silencers, or the way California runs background checks on ammo (and soon barrels, uppers, and indeed all firearm tools and parts, technically including screws!).

The state is coming after everything to build a gun, with the full force force of ignorance, and under the false pretense that they are targeting ghost guns. And, its grounded in the same position you are taking - none of these things are arms. And, in that over reach as the Governor Race looks today, its highly likely we will get a replacement thats a strong supporter of 2A - this is a pretty normal course for over reach. At some point it corrects itself, but I digress.

Comparing a magazine and a screw as being the same because in your position they serve the same purpose in the function of a gun is a flawed . A screw is not solely manufactured for the use gun and its useful purpose is a multitude of applications whereas a magazine has a singular purpose and is rendered useless without its counterpart, a gun. Restricting a magazine is restricting a gun.

Unregulated and not part of the constitution, but just for fun, what if after purchasing a car, the government subsequently regulated/restricted access to brakes or tires, would the car still be useful without access to those things? Or, would you consider them part of the car? They aren't 'the car' but they are manufactured for the sole purpose of the functional use of that car. And the car is nothing without them.

 

[couragewolf]

There are guns without magazines, you dont need a magazine for a "gun". But thats being extra pedantic

Fine clips it is

 

[Dvrjon]

• It's not Gavin, it's Governor Newsom. And calling it Excremento is right out. If you can't make a good enough argument and have to resort to invective, you have already lost the debate.

Everybody in the state sends these folks to Sacramento. Very few are actually from here. Stop sending the A-holes up here and we may be able to change the narrative.

• Laws are passed by the legislature, not by the governor. In special cases (like this law), it is passed by the voters.

A clarification. While the laws are, indeed passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, they are put forth by a well-funded organization which seeks to shape social structures. In this case, when the Legislature's (and the Governor's) approved legislation was found to be ambiguious and therefore un-Constitutional, the Giffords wrote the proposition (stealing the concept from Senator de Leon's flawed attempt) and selling it to Newsome as a gubernatorial set piece for his future run. The People were the pawns of the "Safety for All" proposition, and based on the vote counts, a bunch of R's voted for it.

• Possession of large capacity magazines is an infraction or a misdemeanor, not a felony, right now (enforcement suspended by the pending lawsuit). Making it a felony (or a special prohibiting misdemeanor with a 10-year gun ban) might be a good idea, depending on one's viewpoint. Personally, I like to have LCMs.

There are potential felony provisions currently available.

• To my knowledge, there has been no gun law related case that has lasted 20+ years. The record is around 8 or 9, and Duncan may indeed be the record holder (or perhaps Nordyke).

Agree. And in this case, there has been a final decision on the merits by a Court of Appeal TWICE.

 

[Dvrjon]

u mYoay remember that at the time of the negotiations for the 1994 AWB, a magazine capacity of 5 rounds was heavily discussed. Would that pass constitutional muster? That's a more dfficult question than the current 10-round limit. To begin with, it leaves most revolvers out, and a revolver is particularly the weapon that got special 2A protection in Heller.
i
But in the long run, I would not be surprised for example by a ban of 5 rounds on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

Regrettably, I am that old.

For exemplar purposes, I used 5 rounds simply to move the number up from the FBI defense point of 3, but below the military load of the 1911. I also used the single action Western style pistol as an exemplar. Let’s make the hand gun a “six-shooter” and cover everything. Revolvers of more than six shots are new-fangled designs which are “unusually dangerous”. Since six rounds is a good number for revolvers, let’s make the “Standard Magazine” a six round unit. Good?

 

[Dvrjon]

Dude...wtf is this thread about anymore, I just clicked on it to see about any updates regarding the magazine ban

First post: The case has been accepted for review by SCOTUS for Certiorari. Conference is expected on Nov 21. If denied, the prohibition stands. If accepted, we go to trial.

 

[Dvrjon]

Some laws are passed because this state has a whacky rule that if ignored by the executive, Mr. Newsom, they become law by default.

I know of no other state that does this. Is that how "democracy" is supposed to work? Under that system we don't need a governor.

Always happy to educate:
States passing laws w/o Gubernatorial signature.

 

[Dvrjon]

Do you also use the women's restroom? smh

For the record, I, as a non-liberal (or as the Governor has labelled us, an "Illiberal" don't use the ladies restro0m because the damn lines are too long. However, I admit to ushering my wife into the "Boys" side periodically, warning her that it may not be up to her standards. Depending upon the urgency, she sometimes agrees with the former, but always agrees with the latter.

 

[treelogger]

"Shall not be infringed" couldn't be more clear or concise.

But "shall not be infringed" does not mean: all the guns, all the possible configurations (triggers, calibers, barrel lengths, ...), all the time, all places, for all people. There are lots of restrictions on gun rights that have been held to be constitutional, such as the NFA, DD ban, sterile places, and so on. Try buying a nuclear device (which clearly is an arm) and using it at a shooting range. Try the same with a using an 155mm howitzer as a civilian. Or a ma deuce without NFA paperwork. Or a 2-gauge punt shotgun. Or try bringing your carry piece into the dining room of the White House as a visitor.

"Shall not be infringed" is concise, but not at all clear. And it does not answer the question of how far gun rights do reach.

Please state ANY other constitutional right that requires paying a fee or taking a test in order to exercise that right.

Fascinating question, but wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Certain restrictions on gun rights (such as fees and taxes, example: NFA, and tests such as the FSC or CCW background checks, and the restrictions I described above) are considered constitutional, and have been vetted by the courts. Don't like it? Tough. Just because you wish it to be otherwise, and just because you can draw comparisons to other rights does not change that reality.

Comparing a magazine and a screw as being the same because in your position they serve the same purpose in the function of a gun is a flawed . A screw is not solely manufactured for the use gun and its useful purpose is a multitude of applications whereas a magazine has a singular purpose and is rendered useless without its counterpart, a gun. Restricting a magazine is restricting a gun.

You didn't read my post carefully enough. If the state were to restrict ALL screws (and for the picky people, all other fasteners such as rivets), that would wipe out the 2A. But that doesn't mean that screws are arms. Now replace the word "screw" with "magazine" in that sentence, and you will find that magazines are also not arms.

The reason the state can not restrict all magazines is not that magazines are arms ... they are not. Nobody has ever been shot by a magazine. It is that magazines are required for the common models of guns (that being pistols and semi-auto rifles) to function. And the 2A guarantees (since Heller) that we must have access to functioning common models for self defense.

The underlying fallacy is that you (and many others) seem to think that the 2A protects ONLY arms. No, it actually protects the ability of normal people to defend themselves, and arms are one ingredient needed for that ability. Read Heller.

Unregulated and not part of the constitution, but just for fun, what if after purchasing a car, the government subsequently regulated/restricted access to brakes or tires, would the car still be useful without access to those things? Or, would you consider them part of the car? They aren't 'the car' but they are manufactured for the sole purpose of the functional use of that car. And the car is nothing without them.

You should look at the the California state government (in the form of CARB) did to diesel trucks. It is exactly the scenario you described, which has caused all heavy trucks older than ~2012 to vanish from the streets of this state. Because diesel engines were "regulated/restricted", just as you describe. It happens. Don't like it? Sorry, people who like diesel engines and heavy trucks (which includes me, I own one that is no longer road legal) are in the minority.

 

[tomrkba]

Comparing a magazine and a screw as being the same because in your position they serve the same purpose in the function of a gun is a flawed . A screw is not solely manufactured for the use gun and its useful purpose is a multitude of applications whereas a magazine has a singular purpose and is rendered useless without its counterpart, a gun. Restricting a magazine is restricting a gun.

You didn't read my post carefully enough. If the state were to restrict ALL screws (and for the picky people, all other fasteners such as rivets), that would wipe out the 2A. But that doesn't mean that screws are arms. Now replace the word "screw" with "magazine" in that sentence, and you will find that magazines are also not arms.

The reason the state can not restrict all magazines is not that magazines are arms ... they are not. Nobody has ever been shot by a magazine. It is that magazines are required for the common models of guns (that being pistols and semi-auto rifles) to function. And the 2A guarantees (since Heller) that we must have access to functioning common models for self defense.

I believe you are incorrect in that a court ruled (I don't remember the details of the case, but Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner went over this) that magazines are arms because they are a component of one. In other words, it's a gross classification for the purposes of determining status of the part as protected or not under the 2A. I could be wrong and would need to research this. It's probably in one of Smith's books somewhere.

 

[grandpapeepap]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, until we bring up mentally unwell people or people released from prison after their sentence. Then usually the restrictions can happen.