9th Circuit ends California ban on high-capacity magazines

[FLAK]

Is it not Ironic that the very entity the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect us against (Govt) actually decides what
weapons we may have, how we may purchase them and only
with their approval?

 

[5MilesBack]

Is it not Ironic that the very entity the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect us against (Govt) actually decides what weapons we may have, how we may purchase them and only with their approval?

That's exactly WHY we have the 2nd Amendment, and why it's worded the way it is. A lot of people incorrectly seem to think that the 2nd actually gives "we the people" the right to bear arms. All the 2nd does is restrict the government from taking away those rights, and specific only to the 2nd........"infringing" on those rights. The entire Constitution and BOR's is in place to "restrict" the government........not the people.

 

[brsnow]

The problem is.......if the CA AG decides to ask the appeals court for a full review and opinion from all justices.......then we'll most likely see that political bias that the 9th Circuit is so famous for.

yes but we have seen the Supreme Court follow precedents as of late vs political wishes.

 

[5MilesBack]

yes but we have seen the Supreme Court follow precedents as of late vs political wishes.

They should be following the Constitution......period. Politics doesn't belong in the SCOTUS at all.

 

[Shrek]

Freedom week 2.0? Is this a short-term or long-term ruling?

Short and long term victory as it short term ends the magazine ban and long term sets precedent for strict scrutiny. It very likely will be overturned. It will be appealed to The 9th en banc where it’s now a 50/50ish proposition whether it will be a conservative or liberal panel thanks to Trumps appointments. Then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If it’s upheld then the SC will almost certainly hear the case but if it’s overturned the current court will most likely turn down hearing the case. If Trump wins in November and gets to replace another communist member with a conservative then the court might take the case. Thomas has long wanted to rule for strict scrutiny for the 2nd and would love for that to be his legacy.

 

[brsnow]

They should be following the Constitution......period. Politics doesn't belong in the SCOTUS at all.

that is what we are seeing.

 

[bluemark]

YES!

 

[Phaseolus]

Can you not buy 30 rounders in Co?

15 rounds is the limit for new magazines

 

[jfs82]

Im in CA, pretty left leaning(for this site at lest), won't be buying hcm, AND damn glad for this ruling.

 

[ODB]

That's exactly WHY we have the 2nd Amendment, and why it's worded the way it is. A lot of people incorrectly seem to think that the 2nd actually gives "we the people" the right to bear arms. All the 2nd does is restrict the government from taking away those rights, and specific only to the 2nd........"infringing" on those rights. The entire Constitution and BOR's is in place to "restrict" the government........not the people.

100%. the right of the people to “keep” and bear arms....not “obtain” and bear arms. They already had the damn things.

imagine TodaY someone proposed legislation that said the right to keep and use/keep cell phones shall not be infringed. it would seem ridiculous because everyone has one, and everyone knows how important they are. In a way SimIlar to the 2nd. Guns were ubiquitous and part of the English gentleman code to carry one. The genius of the founders is they knew history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

 

[Rob5589]

Potentially great news. I imagine Beccera will seek En Banc. And Californians know how that has gone in the past. Fingers crossed.

 

[5MilesBack]

that is what we are seeing.

Not exactly. Just look at the DACA decision. DACA was put in place by an EO.........an EO that should be easily revoked by another EO.........which is the President's right to do. DACA is NOT a law.........only the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) can create law. So the recent SCOTUS ruling barring the President from eliminating the program did not follow the Constitution.

 

[brsnow]

Not exactly. Just look at the DACA decision. DACA was put in place by an EO.........an EO that should be easily revoked by another EO.........which is the President's right to do. DACA is NOT a law.........only the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) can create law. So the recent SCOTUS ruling barring the President from eliminating the program did not follow the Constitution.

sounds like it was restricting the government, which is why we have a constitution;-)

 

[Beendare]

I'm in CA

I have been trying for a couple days to order 15 and 17 rd mags for my Glocks....but the online outfits still won't sell to me.

If anyone has an outfit that will sell those please PM me.

____

 

[def90]

I'm in CA

I have been trying for a couple days to order 15 and 17 rd mags for my Glocks....but the online outfits still won't sell to me.

If anyone has an outfit that will sell those please PM me.

____

The previous court stay order is still in place regardless of the latest ruling so still no mags for California quite yet..

 

[MattB]

Yes, not yet legal to buy in CA unfortunately.

 

[flyinsquirel]

Brownell's sent out an email on Friday saying they would ship any magazine in their inventory to CA. I haven't gotten a follow-up 'we messed up' email yet.

 

[Rob5589]

No mags until Benitez lifts his stay. Hopefully tomorrow

 

[def90]

California’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Violates the Second Amendment, Court Rules (Published 2020)

Supporters of tougher gun laws called the ruling a dangerous infringement on the ability of states to protect their residents from mass shootings.

www.nytimes.com

"California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, said the state had not decided whether to appeal the decision. His office argued that the ruling would not immediately overturn the ban because a stay issued in 2017 by a lower court judge remains in effect. "

 

[5MilesBack]

sounds like it was restricting the government, which is why we have a constitution;-)

That's not what it did at all. Their decision basically said that Obama can create law on his own with an EO, but then that it also cannot be overturned.........even though the President cannot Constitutionally create law. That decision was completely political.