Guns

Justice Kennedy Denies Emergency Motion to Block Gun Control Law

|

Second Amendment advocates hoping for promising news from the U.S. Supreme Court will have to wait a little longer. Last night Justice Anthony Kennedy denied an emergency motion from a group of California gun owners seeking to block the implementation of their city's ban on high-capacity magazines.

At issue in the case of Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale is that municipality's 2013 prohibition on the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The plaintiffs in the case charge the city with violating their constitutional rights, and therefore moved to have the law put on hold while they seek to vindicate those rights in federal court. But a federal district judge took a different view last week, refusing to the block the law because "the right to possess magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds lies on the periphery of the Second Amendment right, and proscribing such magazines is, at bare minimum, substantially related to an important government interest." On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit likewise refused to stop the law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has now reached the same conclusion. Sunnyvale's ban on high-capacity magazines will go into effect as the legal challenge against it proceeds in court.

NEXT: Sheryl Sandberg's Word Police: Have You Banned Bossy Yet?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Permit me.

    “Fyock you, that’s why!”

  2. Oh shit.

  3. Looks like another of those Right To Keep and Bear Hunting Impliments opinions.

  4. Looks like y’all are just gonna have to figure out how to grow bigger penises.

    1. Or become cops. Because when you have a badge, all these scary dangerous weapons are suddenly not scary and dangerous.

    2. Looks like y’all are just gonna have to figure out how to grow bigger penises.

      But in your case they just grew a little cunt.

      1. [points finger] HA…HA!

    3. That’s what Robin secretly thinks about you every night.

    4. Serious question; what’s with the hoplophobes’ fascination with the penis size of people who support the right of self-defense and fire-arm ownership?

      It’s like an obsession with them. I figure 2/3 of the hoplophobic essays I have read have contained speculations about penis size front and center.

      Is it projection? Is it some crazy bit of name-calling that they assume will wound? Is it some attempt to enforce group think (stay on the reservation, or else we will say you have small penis)?

      Their obsession over our penises is so widespread that there has to be a common set of reasons for it, but what it is is just not obvious to me.

      1. Guns as penis substitute is not a new idea. It’s a way of turning on its head the idea that people who are obsessed with guns are tough and macho instead of paranoid and weak.

        1. Ah, so it’s projection then.

          Thanks for clearing it up.

          1. It’s a joke, but I’ll be damned if the fodder for remote psychoanalysis doesn’t pile up.

            Just sayin’, if you live in Bumfuck Alabama and think you need an arsenal to protect yourself from brown people hundreds of miles away whom you’ll never meet, why is that evidence of personal fortitude instead of pissy pants weakness like it sounds?

            1. Just because the only possible reason why you would own a gun is to make up for personal feelings of weakness doesn’t mean other people are similarly insecure.

              1. So the fact that I don’t own a gun or feel the need to own a gun tells you what?

                1. It tells me that you’re an unAmerican pussy.

                  Guns are fun. Guns are a symbol of liberty. Guns are a thumb in the eye of tyranny.

                  They are definitely not for an authoritarian douche like you.

                  1. Guns are machines designed to rip apart human tissue.

                    1. Really?

                      Because half the guns I’ve fired have only been used to put venison on the table. You know… meat.

                    2. Is that what you need high-capacity magazines for?

                    3. Tony|3.13.14 @ 11:22AM|#

                      Is that what you need high-capacity magazines for?

                      You’ve failed to prove that we need to have a reason to own standard capacity magazines (you know, the ones the weapons were designed with). High capacity would be the hundred round double drum deals which tend to jam. Unless we’re talking a thompson gun, which was designed with a fifty and hundred round drum standard, but I digress.

                      Need is not a factor in this discussion. Your problem is the delusion that it is.

                2. So the fact that I don’t own a gun or feel the need to own a gun tells you what?

                  It tells us nothing.

                  The fact that you want other people to be prevented from making that choice voluntarily speaks volumes.

                  1. Have I stated any gun policy preference other than a belief in the obvious fact that there is a line to be drawn somewhere and that the constitution doesn’t specify where?

                    1. The constitution doesn’t specify where because it specifically says that there is no line. That’s what shall not be infringed means.

                3. It also tells me that if shit ever happens, you’ll be one of the first to die.

                  That puts a smile on my face.

                  1. Do you spend a lot of time engaging in apocalyptic daydreaming?

                    1. Nope. Not at all.

                    2. Though I am still beaming at the thought of your unarmed ass lying dead in a pool of blood. Thanks for that!

                4. So the fact that I don’t own a gun or feel the need to own a gun tells you what?

                  It tells me you’re unprepared and determined to stay that way.
                  I have a job that regularly takes me into other people’s homes every week. I have found many people are absolutely unprepared for simple, fairly common problems. Their smoke detectors are chirping for a battery, no fire extinguisher, no stored food or water, no secondary cooking method, no tools, no methods of defense. Not so much as a $5 flashlight for when the lights go out. It’s disgusting.

        2. Guns as penis substitute is not a new idea. It’s a way of turning on its head the idea that people who are obsessed with guns are tough and macho instead of paranoid and weak.

          The same way swords as penis substitute utterly humiliated weak and paranoid swordsmen everywhere.

          Just wait Tony, one day they’ll invent a weapon far more lethal and freely available than guns, then all your humiliation and shaming will pay off.

          1. You mean like the Warty Spread Cannon?

            1. That was a crime against nature and humanity. If any still exist, there’s a nuke on sight order in place.

    5. I know you’re gay, but not everything is about dicks, even if you’re being one.

    6. So I’ll add misogynist, along with racist, to the list of why you’re an awful excuse for a human being troll.

      1. When I develop the ability to fire bullets from my dick, I’ll stop carrying a gun.

        I’ll also go on America’s Got Talent.

      2. I don’t know if he’s a troll, a sockpuppet, or a real person. I do know the fucktarded things he says have been said by liberal friends of mine over the years. So whatever he is, he’s a pretty good example of the vile, hateful people he represents.

        1. troll, a sockpuppet, or a real person.

          Are they mutually exclusive?

          things he says have been said by liberal friends of mine over the years.

          Yeah, and answering the falsehoods in their slogans only lasts until they blink, then they go on like it never happened.

    7. Projecting again?

  5. “the right to possess magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds lies on the periphery of the Second Amendment right”

    pe?riph?er?y (p?-r?f??-r?) n. 1. The outermost part or region within a precise boundary

    IOW, it *is* the Second Amendment Right.

    *** pounds gavel ***

  6. What is the “important government interest” here?

    1. Disarming the Peons.

    2. The important government interest is an ineffectual attempt to make murder more difficult.

      It would be on the order of making it illegal to post a personal ad looking for a gay lover because AIDS is a public health epidemic.

      It’s the same institution that once made up the notion that black people couldn’t be citizens of the US… I believe sugarfree has an explanation of their reasoning.

      1. Here it is: http://hrsugarfree.blogspot.co…..stake.html

        “On your knees,” Roberts said.

        Elena dropped down, accustomed to following orders without thought. Looming over her, face shadowed once more, Roberts said “Hold out your hands.” Scalia let out a hysterical giggle and Roberts turned and backhanded him to the floor. Scalia’s smug grin was filled with blood when he finally stood. Ruth stooped down to run a finger through the blood when Roberts turned back, and then began to massage it into her crotch under her robe. Elena caught a glimpse of iron gray pubic hair and gagged.

        Roberts crumbled the paper into a rough ball in Elena’s hands. “What We do today, We do for Expediency’s Sake,” Roberts continued. “Expediency’s Sake,” the others replied. Roberts produced a match and struck it quickly on his front teeth. The paper in her hands caught quickly.

        “Wha-What are you doing?”

        “SILENCE!” Roberts thundered. “WE DO WHAT MUST BE DONE!”Elena looked away from the flames getting closer to her hands. The Nine were all holding their palms out toward her, each twisted and furrowed by scars. Elena knew what was expected.

        The fire was over soon, raising a mass of blisters. Elena rocked back and forth slightly as she waited for it to be over, the acrid stench of burning shit filling the rotunda.

  7. Need to invest in 3D printers.

  8. I’m curious; can a municipality pass laws in direct contravention of the other Amendments, too, or only the Second? What if my county outlawed billboards advocating decertifying the Montana Teachers Union?

    1. Before I sold my business, I was told by a county cop that we couldn’t have a sign (like real estate agents use) stuck in the ground outside. I asked him what about houses for sale and political candidate signs?
      “We don’t see them.”

  9. Because when you have a badge, all these scary dangerous weapons are suddenly not scary and dangerous.

    Only as long as you can keep them out of civilian hands.

  10. “You got me out of bed to defend some constitutional right?”

  11. Why stop at 10? How many bullets do you REALLY need to stop an intruder? Why not make it 6? Perhaps that’s too many. Let’s just restrict everything to single-shot weapons like derringers for handguns and single barrel break-action shotguns.

    1. At the time the 2A was ratified, all they had were single shot muskets. So obviously allowing people to have anything more than that is being generous.

      1. Everyone except a few unserious psychopaths agrees there is a line to be drawn somewhere.

        Of course libertarians, with their endless supply of unearned sanctimoniousness, will declare that whatever their arbitrary personal preference on where the line should be drawn is the outcome of holy constitutional purity.

        1. You still can’t comprehend that principles are not arbitrary personal preferences.

          No surprise though. I mean, if you think not giving is taking and not taking is giving, your brain is obviously broken.

          1. Do go on bleating about your superior principles. I do love when you prove the very last thing I said right.

            1. A belief is a definable right and wrong based upon logical principles is most definitely superior to your fuzzy emotional notion of fairness.

              You are the moral equivalent of a child.

              1. See this is the point… you’re just claiming logic is on your side. You could shit your diaper and say it was the logical outcome of careful study, but it’s just stupid baby talk.

                The constitution does not specify where the line is to be drawn. But there is a line, as people shouldn’t be allowed to freely trade in weapons of mass destruction, I’m sure we agree. So it’s not about principle, it’s about practicality only. Public health and safety vs. an ill-defined right.

                1. But there is a line, as people shouldn’t be allowed to freely trade in weapons of mass destruction, I’m sure we agree.

                  Nope. No agreement. People shouldn’t be able to freely use them. Trade them? Sure. If they can afford them. The reason why only governments have those things is because only governments are willing to spend billions of dollars on methods of killing people.

                  1. As I said, unserious. Since you daydream about people being brutally killed, guess I’m right about psychopath too.

                    1. I am serious. Who, other than government, can afford to have WMDs made? The answer is no one. So your bringing it up is unserious.

                    2. Tony, The number one killer of people last century was Governments by a long shot. Hundreds of millions died at the hands of their own governments. China alone killed 80 million of their own people. Daydream? Governments unaccountable to the governed are the greatest threat to life on the planet. This century is just getting started, how many have died at the hands of government vs terrorism vs some nut case with a 15 round clip.

                    3. Le4rner, the right people were not in charge. If we had the right people, we would not have to worry about the government murdering people, because then it would only be the right people like Jews Tutsis Cossacks Serbs Kurds Albanians people who don’t conform to our ideals that would be eliminated. Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?

                      /progderp

                    4. That’s true only if you ignore the other worse causes of human deaths that governments played a big role in preventing.

                2. “You could shit your diaper and say it was the logical outcome of careful study, but it’s just stupid baby talk.”

                  I’m not sure you know how metaphors work.

                  “Public health and safety…”

                  There’s no such thing as “public health and safety”. There is only the health and safety of individuals. Restricting the magazine capacity of firearms diminished the safety of law-abiding individuals who would use the weapon for self-defense. Those who would injure an individual’s capacity to defend him or herself cannot be said to be truly concerned with their health and safety.

                  As criminals who would use firearms to hurt or kill other people cannot be expected to adhere to magazine capacity laws, the laws are rightly judged as doing only harm and no good.

        2. What line and where? Sure, we probably don’t need death rays that can destroy the entire world. But the people during the founding of our country had military rifles in their homes.

          The line most liberals want to see is a complete ban on private firearm ownership. But they will settle for incrementally getting to that point, while calling all of their increments “sensible gun restriction”. They will never stop demanding more and more until there is nothing left of gun ownership rights. Even there they won’t stop. They’ll start banning long knives, as has been proposed in Britain.

          No, you will never stop. We should never give in.

          1. Do you really think the gun control side is winning?

          2. I mean, it’s practically legal to shoot black men for no reason.

            1. No, it’s not, and it never has been.

              Complete fucking morons like you repeating that bullshit line over and over practically guarantees some other fucking moron will come across it, believe it, and act on it, though.

              1. JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON!!!

                /derp

                1. After looking at the evidence, and based upon his actions, he got the justice he warrented.

            2. I mean, it’s practically legal to shoot black men for no reason.

              Of course, blacks commit homicide and other violent crimes against whites considerably more often than whites do against blacks in the United States. And the difference is particularly stark when you factor in relative population sizes.

              Source: FBI 2012 Uniform Crime Report, Expanded Homicide Data Table 6: Murder, Race and Sex of Victim by Race and Sex of Offender.

              1. But they get put in jail for it.

          3. The people who founded the country did not want a standing professional army. They wanted a well armed populous that could be called upon to repel an invasion. As in military gear in every home.

            1. Or the Switzerland model.

              1. Which has such a low gun crime rate, yet is one of the most armed citizenry models out there. It is the law to hide your gun from government there.

                1. You can’t tell the libs that, though.

              2. A cursory Google search for “Swiss model” agrees with you.

        3. Happy to be one of the Few, the Proud, the “unserious psychopaths”.

      2. The problem with that line of thinking is you ignore all the other rights that have evolved with technology. You only hold the 2nd amendment to the technology of the past. For example. At the time the 1st amendment was written mass media consisted of the printing press. There wasn’t radio or television much less and internet. So by your way of thinking, the 1st amendment should be restricted to the printing press and individuals voices. You have to apply equal standards to all rights or you are being intellectually dishonest.

        1. I was being sarcastic. I’m sorry, I should have ended it with “/progtard”

      3. At the time the 2A was ratified, all they had were single shot muskets.

        Anybody remember the American Long Rifle? They are not muskets and they killed a lot of British troops who were equipped with shorter-range muskets. They were privately-owned weapons that were superior to standard infantry weapons.

  12. I scrolled by this too fast and read it at first as Justice Kennedy Dies….

    1. Glad I’m not the only one.

    2. Do you really want another Obama Appointment on the SCOTUS?

  13. On a slightly off-topic note, Idaho passes law to permit concealed carry on (most parts of) college campuses:

    http://www.ktvb.com/news/polit…..75661.html

    1. Can we penaltax those who are eligable to carry but don’t?

      1. As long as Roberts is writing the opinion, sure.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.