Politicspoliticsguns

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:34 PM

Pro-Gun Groups Challenge CA's Normal-Capacity Magazine Ban

https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/05/19/pro-gun-groups-challenge-cas-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

On Wednesday, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), in conjunction with the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), has filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on “high-capacity” magazines. The lawsuit, known as Duncan v. Becerra, challenges the state’s magazine ban based on three points:

1. The law violates the Second Amendment.
2. The law violates the due process clause.
3. The law violates the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Millions of law-abiding Americans own firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. There is nothing unusual or novel about this technology. Indeed, many of the nation’s best-selling handguns and rifles come standard with magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, and firearms equipped with such magazines are safely possessed by law-abiding citizens in the vast majority of states,” the complaint reads. “The reason for the popularity of these magazines is straightforward: In a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death.”

In order to help Californians understand the legal challenges they face, the NRA and CRPA will be hosting online webinars. Webinars will go into details on the Department of Justice’s pending “assault weapon” regulations and future regulations.

27 replies, 279 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pro-Gun Groups Challenge CA's Normal-Capacity Magazine Ban (Original post)
Juan Rico May 2017 OP
ForrestTrump May 2017 #1
Juan Rico May 2017 #3
ForrestTrump May 2017 #4
Jake May 2017 #5
LineLineLineLineLineReply .
D26-15 May 2017 #7
Muddling Through May 2017 #8
Juan Rico May 2017 #12
Muddling Through May 2017 #23
Solesurvivor May 2017 #6
Juan Rico May 2017 #11
Duke Lacrosse May 2017 #21
Carl May 2017 #26
Currentsitguy May 2017 #9
ForrestTrump May 2017 #13
PrescientWon. May 2017 #16
Currentsitguy May 2017 #18
Paradigm May 2017 #25
His Daughter May 2017 #10
Jack Burton May 2017 #14
PrescientWon. May 2017 #15
ForrestTrump May 2017 #17
PrescientWon. May 2017 #20
Muddling Through May 2017 #22
Nostrings May 2017 #24
rahtruelies May 2017 #2
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy May 2017 #19
Da Mannn May 2017 #27

Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:39 PM

1. Why sure. A person could totally need to let loose 30 rounds when faced with

 

a "violent attacker" situation.

LOL.

That is ample "reason" why the general public should be strolling the streets with what are basically weapons of war.

You may have to face a "violent attacker".....and if that happens.......10 rounds just won't be enough.

Again: L O L

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #1)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:47 PM

3. I'm curious...is 10 rounds the perfect limit to magazine capacity?

Would you limit it further?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #3)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:48 PM

4. I'd simply BAN. THEM. ALL.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #4)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:51 PM

5. Your opinion is noted

Along with the worthlessness of your previous statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake (Reply #5)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:53 PM

7. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake (Reply #5)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:54 PM

8. "No one wants to take away your guns".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #8)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:15 PM

12. Sometimes they're open about it. Famed SF writer Arthur C. Clarke once outlined his plan for global

disarmament.

http://www.lightmillennium.org/2006_18th/arthur_c_clarke_civilized.html (yeah, it's looney webite...what a shock)

High-tech weapon systems are the crutches of impotent nations; nukes are just the decorative chromium plating. Let us see what crutches we can throw away, to walk proudly into a decent future.

The first criterion for civilized weaponry should be the total avoidance of collateral damage (to use another piece of mealymouthed Pentagonese, like friendly fire). In fact--don't laugh--no device that could kill more than the single person targeted should be permitted. A larger radius of action could be allowed only for instrumentalities that produced temporary disablement e.g., the "gas of peace" in H.G. Wells's Things to Come, acoustic or actinic bombs, water cannons, hypodermic guns, etc. Many more could be found if a fraction of the effort devoted to slaughtering people was spent devising ways of immobilizing them.

To deal with the sort of minor disturbances that may require police action even in the most utopian society, here are the minimum-force items that would be added to the above:

Nonlethal martial-arts devices, like quarterstaffs (Robin Hood had the right idea).

Genetically modified feline, canine, ursine, or simian aides, preferably in the five-hundred-kilogram class, playing the same role as today's guard dogs, but with higher IQs.

Passive defense robots (Robocop plus Asimov's three laws).

The permitted delivery systems for all these would include bicycles, scooters, jeeps, hovercraft, and helicopters.

So much for basic law and order. But for real emergencies, which will occasionally arise even in utopia, single-shot rifles and handguns could be issued, perhaps only under presidential orders...

And that's it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #12)

Fri May 19, 2017, 03:00 PM

23. I'll give Wells a *bit* of a pass,

having seen the horror of The Great War, his opposition to weapons of "mass destruction" is understandable.

Clark's views are understandable given his "future societies" as a part of his spec fiction.

I don't agree with them, but I do get their thought process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #4)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:52 PM

6. obvious troll is well obvious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #4)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:59 PM

11. And the mask slips.

Thank you for your honesty. It's refreshing to see someone on the side of gun control admit their true agenda.

Something to ponder...there isn't the slightest chance that you will see your goal of banning all guns ever come to pass, but there is a distinct chance that in the near future we will see:

1). National concealed carry reciprocity.
2). Suppressors made much easier to purchase.
3). Repeal of state level restrictions on magazine capacity and "assault" weapons.

History appears to be in my side, not yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #4)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:50 PM

21. Except for use by government employees, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #4)

Fri May 19, 2017, 03:14 PM

26. Ahem

https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=873435

Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 09:58 PM

DigitalBobby (260 posts)
6. Kewl. BAN. THEM. ALL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #1)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:54 PM

9. It's a good start

30 in the AK, 8 in the Mossberg, 6 in each of the pistols, extra mags and speedloaders within arm's reach of the bed; half for me, half for my wife. NO ONE is getting past our front door, window, or what have you.


Our bedroom closet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #9)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:18 PM

13. I don't have any gun at all, and I am not frightened in the least. What on earth are you

 

so afraid of?

Other people with guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #13)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:26 PM

16. no law exists forcing you to own a firearm.

Live and let live, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #13)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:30 PM

18. My home has burned down, while I was in it

I got Type1 Juvenile Diabetes, at age 40. I have been in two car accidents in which there was nothing left, and walked away. Caught my ex-wife in bed with my "best friend" and found out she was knocked up by him.

If it can happen, it happens to me. As a result I prepare for EVERYTHING, since I assume it will eventually occur.

on edit:

I outsource my protection to no one. Ultimately I am responsible for my own safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #13)

Fri May 19, 2017, 03:13 PM

25. I'm not afraid of my

house burning down, but I am askeered of fire extinguishers, therefore I refuse to own one and I also believe since I'm not going to own one, no one else in the country should be allowed to own one either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #1)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:55 PM

10. I know many cops who agree that 10 rounds is not enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #1)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:18 PM

14. It's a Bill of Rights

not a Bill of Needs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #1)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:25 PM

15. 99% of gun users shoot them for fun.

And blazing off 30 rounds into a herd of pumpkins is a lot of fun. How can your sensitivity block my fun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #15)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:27 PM

17. Adam Lanza agrees*

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #17)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:47 PM

20. irrelevant red herring.

If Adam Lanza had no guns he'd burn down the school. Crazy people are crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #17)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:57 PM

22. Nice guilt by association.

Joe Mccarthy agrees*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForrestTrump (Reply #17)

Fri May 19, 2017, 03:06 PM

24. Lanza is dead and can't agree or disagree with anything.

You sound mad bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Fri May 19, 2017, 01:43 PM

2. my normal mag capacity is 30

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Fri May 19, 2017, 02:35 PM

19. I wish them great success!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Fri May 19, 2017, 03:17 PM

27. Goes to USSC, Ban overturned 5/4

gun grabbers lose again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsguns