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

[ZeroFoxGiven]

I am really new to these forums, but I just assumed there was much more being discussed here than just the second amendment. I actually didn't even think this was a 2A community; I thought it was a gun-owner community.

I haven't studied the second amendment at all. I don't actually have a reasoned position on it and appreciate hearing all sides. I do know that I selfishly want to preserve my rights to bear arms and I certainly recognize a feeling of violation under current California law. I do look to some interpretation of the second amendment as helping to preserve those rights. But, I also suspect that some interpretations would have consequences I oppose.

Good arguments are demonstrated as such by standing up well to points raised in counter-arguments. The best thing that can happen is that we notice when a good argument is being made from the opposing side and allow it to modify our thinking slightly. I remember being told by a teacher that it was great that I was wrong about something because it allowed me to learn something new (I was still pretty pissed).

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.

 

[bazooka]

Why does this read like AI wrote it?

School, proofreading, stuff like that.

 

[ikeo1]

Why does this read like AI wrote it?

It’s not. It touches on a lot of core values why this place was built and how people see this place.

This site was originally an enthusiast platform but has morphed with the community into something more well rounded. I’m surprised and glad that we can participate in discussions.

I remember being told by a teacher that it was great that I was wrong about something because it allowed me to learn something new (I was still pretty pissed).

This is one of the core reasons this places exists in the way it does. IMO it’s important for people to recognize when they can be wrong, that’s when we get people to think in more than one way.

Thanks for sharing it was good to see someone who benefitted from the back and forth discussion. For every person that posts, there are usually others that don’t that share similar sentiments.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I agree with treelugger that magazines are not arms. A mag fed firearm can be single shot loading a round into the chamber.

A revolver is different. You can't load or fire a round without the cylinder.

 

[Dvrjon]

I agree with treelugger that magazines are not arms. A mag fed firearm can be single shot loading a round into the chamber.

A revolver is different. You can't load or fire a round without the cylinder.

So you’re advocating for a semiautomatic single-shot?

How would that work?

11 CCR 5471 (hh):

(hh) "Semiautomatic" means a firearm functionally able to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case, and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled and released. Further, certain necessary mechanical parts that will allow a firearm to function in a semiautomatic nature must be present for a weapon to be deemed semiautomatic. A weapon clearly designed to be semiautomatic but lacking a firing pin, bolt carrier, gas tube, or some other crucial part of the firearm is not semiautomatic for purposes of Penal Code sections 30515,30600, 30605(a), and 30900.

 

[Skilly]

I agree with treelugger that magazines are not arms. A mag fed firearm can be single shot loading a round into the chamber.

A revolver is different. You can't load or fire a round without the cylinder.

With the exception of 1911/2011s there are VERY few guns (cant recall any TBH) that have an SS slides. This is a little like saying you dont *really* need an engine to get around in a car because it can still roll.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

since when can you load any semi auto without a magazine? I suppose it's not completely impossible but they don't work in any realistic way

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

since when can you load any semi auto without a magazine? I suppose it's not completely impossible but they don't work in any realistic way

You can, but its like eating a thick steak with only a fork and no knife while having to eat it in cut up, bite sized pieces.

Its not realistic and about as fast as two turtles f'n.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Sure, it's stupid and not practical, but one can fire the gun without a magazine. I don't recommend it and I don't like single shot conversion here.

 

[Skilly]

since when can you load any semi auto without a magazine? I suppose it's not completely impossible but they don't work in any realistic way

for handguns, there are slides that have a single shot configuration and the magazine feed is in some cases blocked. Like I said above, Ive only ever seen them on a 1911/2011 platform. Im not really clear on the practical use of the set up other than if you purchase a handgun like that (built as new in that config) in CA it can be purchased off roster.

 

[Skilly]

in other news, oral arguments were heard this morning in California for Sanchez v. Bonta....could it be that we get Surpressors AND standard capacity magazines in 2025? How wild would that be??

 

[p--and--p]

You don't seem to care that POTUS is building a much more sophisticated public version of this which uses our tax payer dollars.

Compared to where you're used to going, I'll take that as a compliment. If Trump wasn't the problem, it would be Biden, or whomever is insert POTUS. I make it a point to have balance here so people must use english and critical thinking skills to articulate their stance.

Otherwise, what do you think I should do about it?

Every president people won't be happy with thats for sure! Oh and nothing to be done about it, I'm expressing that I'm just very surprised anyone here would be against trump considering this is a specific gun forum. Guns and all things gun need to be in support of Republican's at this moment in time. I hate the repoobs most of the time! Nothing to be done, more talking is always good. I want to hear all sides, but we have heard the other sides of the anti 2A's and we should all disagree with them


Someone responded to me like, cali doesn't ban guns- we have them.. Um, yea the roster was shrinking by 3 to 1 until that was tossed by a judge, it would eventually get us to 1 gun on the roster. Cmon' at this point why is that person even on a gun group lol

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I agree with treelugger that magazines are not arms. A mag fed firearm can be single shot loading a round into the chamber.

A revolver is different. You can't load or fire a round without the cylinder.

I’m not sure how this line of thinking came into being, but magazines are certainly arms. They are necessary to the functioning of a protected arm. The whole argument about “the magazine isn’t needed because you can still fire one round out of a semi automatic gun”, is ridiculous; sure you can, but you’ve caused the gun to no longer function as it should.

If the gun is semi automatic, without the magazine, you’ve basically disabled it from being a semi automatic gun. It doesn’t matter that it can fire one shot, once that shot completes, that’s it. It’s not a semi automatic gun any longer, hence you’ve effectively “broken” it.

 

[ikeo1]

Every president people won't be happy with thats for sure! Oh and nothing to be done about it, I'm expressing that I'm just very surprised anyone here would be against trump considering this is a specific gun forum.

Did you forget POTUS came out publicly and stated he’d take guns first and process later or forget that he banned a 2A accessory and was the first POTUS to do it in 30+ years overturned by SCOTUS? He doesn’t own a firearm and doesn’t care for them, even Kamala owns a Glock. Or do you think POTUS knows how to operate any firearm?

Guns and all things gun need to be in support of Republican's at this moment in time. I hate the repoobs most of the time! Nothing to be done, more talking is always good. I want to hear all sides, but we have heard the other sides of the anti 2A's and we should all disagree with them


Someone responded to me like, cali doesn't ban guns- we have them.. Um, yea the roster was shrinking by 3 to 1 until that was tossed by a judge, it would eventually get us to 1 gun on the roster. Cmon' at this point why is that person even on a gun group lol

Look I don’t like what Dem’s do to crypto or 2A but I think you’re missing the point that they both build off each other. Americans spying via Patriot act, continued by all the Dem Pres’s. They just take turns IMO. The idea was, Republicans would have SCOTUS which they did and were given that to define specific things, which they did. If you noticed, they kick back very specific things, on purpose. IMO they do that to keep the issue as a wedge issue. Support the party you want to do the thing you want to do, IMO different people do different things. SCOTUS is very deliberate with what they choose wouldn’t you agree? When they were able to get a right leaning majority, was your expectation they would do more for 2A or was this what your expectation? They could end the magazine ban tomorrow if they wanted.

They choose not to. Why is that?

In your own post, the 3 to 1 was struck down by judges not SCOTUS. Following laws is what makes America, America? Follow the processes laid out. The whole point here is to abide by the rules and change things over time. It’s a longer harder road, but complaining isn’t my style like I’ve seen elsewhere. The goal here is to make changes, that starts by letting people come in. I think we’re doing a good job opening up gun ownership and responsibility to a lot of people.

If you don’t like what someone has to say, you can use the IGNORE button, and never see anything they say again. People can own a firearm and not agree with you because they might think you’re exaggerating which is common in today’s news cycle world. People have options here, please use them.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I'm just very surprised anyone here would be against trump considering this is a specific gun forum. Guns and all things gun need to be in support of Republican's at this moment in time.

This is like saying “Anyone who owns or wants to own a gun should leave California”.

Of all the things he has criticized California for can you find and cite just one exact quote, date and time of Trump criticizing California for our gun laws being too restrictive?

Was there any prominent dem who came out against Harris for publicly admitting [proudly and smugly] to owning and carrying a firearm?

Politicians use it to create and deepen cultural divides. This is why they need the 2A as a political issue. Dems will never get a rid of guns and Reps will never get rid of overly-restrictive gun laws. There’s just too much money and influence in it.

 

[p--and--p]

This is like saying “Anyone who owns or wants to own a gun should leave California”.

Of all the things he has criticized California for can you find and cite just one exact quote, date and time of Trump criticizing California for our gun laws being too restrictive?

Was there any prominent dem who came out against Harris for publicly admitting [proudly and smugly] to owning and carrying a firearm?

Politicians use it to create and deepen cultural divides. This is why they need the 2A as a political issue. Dems will never get a rid of guns and Reps will never get rid of overly-restrictive gun laws. There’s just too much money and influence in it.

The one on roster takes away 3 on roster does indeed get rid of all guns though....

Trump might not have said "california" but didn't he just instruct the JDept to go after states that are going against the 2A (granted I feel like NOTHING is going to come of that)

 

[p--and--p]

Did you forget POTUS came out publicly and stated he’d take guns first and process later or forget that he banned a 2A accessory and was the first POTUS to do it in 30+ years overturned by SCOTUS? He doesn’t own a firearm and doesn’t care for them, even Kamala owns a Glock. Or do you think POTUS knows how to operate any firearm?

LOL!

Trump is very stupid many times for sure. He speaks back and forth, but his actions are important. Yes he banned the bump stock like a wuss but the SC rightfully said you can't. He was trying to win some points with a majority of people that wanted it banned (thats why we aren't a democracy, where the rights for a few can't be taken by the mob crowd

 

[p--and--p]

Look I don’t like what Dem’s do to crypto or 2A but I think you’re missing the point that they both build off each other. Americans spying via Patriot act, continued by all the Dem Pres’s. They just take turns IMO. The idea was, Republicans would have SCOTUS which they did and were given that to define specific things, which they did. If you noticed, they kick back very specific things, on purpose. IMO they do that to keep the issue as a wedge issue. Support the party you want to do the thing you want to do, IMO different people do different things. SCOTUS is very deliberate with what they choose wouldn’t you agree? When they were able to get a right leaning majority, was your expectation they would do more for 2A or was this what your expectation? They could end the magazine ban tomorrow if they wanted.

They choose not to. Why is that?

In your own post, the 3 to 1 was struck down by judges not SCOTUS. Following laws is what makes America, America? Follow the processes laid out. The whole point here is to abide by the rules and change things over time. It’s a longer harder road, but complaining isn’t my style like I’ve seen elsewhere. The goal here is to make changes, that starts by letting people come in. I think we’re doing a good job opening up gun ownership and responsibility to a lot of people.

If you don’t like what someone has to say, you can use the IGNORE button, and never see anything they say again. People can own a firearm and not agree with you because they might think you’re exaggerating which is common in today’s news cycle world. People have options here, please use them.

I agree, the supreme court is making me sick right now. They let the 9th cir step all over Bruen. They could end the mag ban indeed and if its a ploy to keep the right voting for gun rights forever (being just as stupid as single issue voters like abortion) then that is a huge problem and goes to show the country will not get fixed anytime soon..

I do believe if the senate went 70 R vs 30D we would see alot of gun laws getting wiped out though. Since thats not happening, we all lose being stuck in limbo getting mad at each other on the internet.

That being said, once again, we should all be mad at the same side though. The laws coming out of cali are WAY overboard anti 2A and that always only comes from one party

 

[Deleted member 16735]

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 agree, the supreme court is making me sick right now. They let the 9th cir step all over Bruen. They could end the mag ban indeed and if its a ploy to keep the right voting for gun rights forever (being just as stupid as single issue voters like abortion) then that is a huge problem and goes to show the country will not get fixed anytime soon..

I do believe if the senate went 70 R vs 30D we would see alot of gun laws getting wiped out though. Since thats not happening, we all lose being stuck in limbo getting mad at each other on the internet.

That being said, once again, we should all be mad at the same side though. The laws coming out of cali are WAY overboard anti 2A and that always only comes from one party

 

[john_marsten_1873]

The one on roster takes away 3 on roster does indeed get rid of all guns though....

Trump might not have said "california" but didn't he just instruct the JDept to go after states that are going against the 2A (granted I feel like NOTHING is going to come of that)

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?