Gun Control

Here Is Why a Federal Judge Nixed California's Ban on 'Large Capacity Magazines'

The Second Amendment covers magazines holding more than 10 rounds, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, because they are commonly used for lawful purposes.



On Friday evening, a federal judge in San Diego blocked enforcement of California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, deeming it inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep arms for self-defense. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez concluded that "California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny." Benitez, who in 2017 issued a stay that prevented the law from taking effect, also agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes that highly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit, which was originally imposed in 2000 and extended to pre-existing hardware by a 2016 ballot initiative. "Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense," Benitez writes. "This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment."

While Benitez thinks that is the appropriate test, he also concludes that California's ban on "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) fails "strict scrutiny," which requires the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and even "intermediate scrutiny," which requires that the law be substantially related to an important state interest. The LCM ban "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state," he writes. "It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored—it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit."

Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban—reducing the lethality of mass shootings—is related to a small subset of "extremely rare" crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a "critical pause" during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape. Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. "From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family," he says, "the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."

California reasoned that 10 rounds are plenty for someone firing a gun in self-defense (except, somehow, for active and retired police officers), since the average number of rounds used in such cases is just 2.2. But by the same logic, the state might argue that gun owners do not really need ammunition at all, since firearms are merely brandished in the vast majority of defensive uses. If there are situations where an LCM makes a significant difference in the hands of a mass shooter, there will also be situations where it makes a significant difference in the hands of someone defending himself or others. Benitez suggests a few:

When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.

Proposition 63, which required heretofore legal owners of pre-2000 LCMs to surrender them, remove them from the state, or sell them to licensed gun dealers, passed in 2016 with support from 63 percent of voters. But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval. "Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy," Benitez writes. "Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet this is the effect of California's large-capacity magazine law."

NEXT: Media Must Drop the Political Shenanigans and Get Back to Scrutinizing the Powerful

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

148 responses to “Here Is Why a Federal Judge Nixed California's Ban on 'Large Capacity Magazines'

  1. What about recreational purposes? It's a lot more fun to put fifteen or more holes in a target at a time than six or seven.

    1. Reloading mags also sucks up valuable range time.

      1. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
        Try it, you won't regret it!?..

        Click here ==>>

        1. You deserve more than 10 rounds in you

    2. You don't like wasting time reloading magazines?

      Well I've got some good news for you. Brownell's is now selling a semiauto version of the BRN-134D Minigun in 7.62X51. It has a 3000-round capacity. It can be yours for $25,000.

      I can't wait for the anti-gun media to discover this and totally lose their shit.

      1. You realize that was an Apr 1 prank, right?

        1. You realize it doesn't matter right?

          The media has long since lost the capacity to distinguish fact from fiction so this will be real to them. They'll lose their shit regardless.

        2. P.S.


        3. I remember the hysteria that you could buy a .50 caliber rifle by mail order for $30! Fifty caliber!! Capable of shooting down an airliner!!! Like the infamous "Voting From The Rooftops" sniper rifle firing the same ammo as the M2 .50 BMG used on US fighter planes in WWII.

          Turned out it was end of season .50 CVA Bobcats ($69.95 marked down) -- muzzleoaders, cheap replicas of the old buffalo hunter rifle of the 1850s but really good beginners black powder guns.

          1. Let's not forget the 500 round AR magazines for 10 dollars that happened to be AirSoft mags

      2. Yes, it's a joke. But that thing would be perfectly legal if they removed the motor and replaced it with a hand crank - ie. made it a Gatling gun.

    3. That's one plus for revolvers for recreational shooting. You can change a magazine quicker than reloading a revolver, but reloading a revolver is much quicker than reloading a magazine.

      I can average about 18 rounds a minute with a revolver.

      1. It's CGI to be sure, but there's a scene in "The Dark Tower" where the gunslinger, Roland, flips open his empty revolver, rolls the wheel across his hip, pushing the perfectly spaced cartridges on his belt with his thumb into the gun. Then flips it closed and starts shooting again. Like 1 second, blink and you'll miss it.

        In real life, moon clips and speedloaders can help but they take magazine-like time to preload.

        1. Jerry Miculek fired 16 shots in 4 seconds from a S&W 929 9mm 8 shot revolver using moon clips.

          And Roland's revolver in the book was a single action, although I do believe he does swing out the cylinder at least once. Because Stephen King hates guns, knows nothing about them yet writes about them frequently.

        2. Rushuna's reload technique in Grenadier was superior, I think.

    4. The idea that I ever need to justify my natural rights to a bunch of pencil necked progtarded bireaucrats sickens me.

      They really need to go.

  2. Hughes Amendment, you're up next...

  3. "But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval."

    Lets see if any more judges can remember that.

    1. ...or at least a majority of the judges.

  4. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures.

    Can we get this guy on the Supreme Court?

    1. Tweet about it to Trump.

    2. Unfortunately, he's in his late 60s and I'd prefer someone about 15 years younger. He was nominated by W back in 2003.

  5. The Second Amendment covers magazines holding more than 10 rounds, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, because they are commonly used for lawful purposes.

    I bet Michael Hihn would disagree. And we youngsters should listen to him since he's been a libertarian activist since before most of us were born.

    1. Why, he was even elected Dumbfuck!

      1. Dumbfuck is the only position he could be elected to.

        1. by acclimation

    2. Yes, the Hihnfaggot says many bizarre things.

  6. "But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval."

    Tony? The asshole Rev? We got some news for you.

    1. Well you didn't mention me by name but you should know it's likely the next Democratic President will expand the Supreme Court by at least 2 members.

      1. Congress, not the President is who would expand the court. The President will only nominate the justices if the expansion occurs which is very unlikely. Democrats will be lucky to keep the House in 2020. They are crushing their chances of winning the WH more and more every day. The only person who would actually have a chance is Biden and the #MeToo movement is after him.

        1. If we were 2 days away from the election, you *might* have a point.

        2. For supreme court expansion to happen, One party would have to control the House, the Senate and the White House.

      2. Why wait? If it's a good idea, let's do it now.

    2. If I encounter either of those shitheads I'll tell '
      'em you're looking for them

  7. Cue the delicious prog tears....

  8. This judge is an American hero.

    1. Believe it or not.

      1. Hopefully, he didn't lose the instruction manual.

      2. Are you saying that the judge had to change his last name halfway through the hearing?

    2. How about just 'an American.' There seems to be so few of us left.

      1. Libertarians, always quibbling over semantics...

        (this is tongue-in-cheek, btw)

  9. "But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval."

    I strongly suspect a large majority of Americans would disagree with that. And always have.

    1. Which is exactly why we need more judges like this guy.

      1. I understand that is one thing Trump is doing right (and the other is not being Clinton).

    2. You know, in California a majority voted in favor of Proposition 8 a few years ago. Prop 8 was an amendment to the California constitution to define "marriage" as solely between a man and a woman. No one on the left trotted out the "but the majority wants it" argument in response to that, and they all applauded when the Proposition was struck as unconstitutional. "Tyranny of the majority" and all that.

      The ban on standard capacity magazines overturned here was also enacted by proposition, Prop 63. Wonder how long it will be until we hear the cries of "but the majority wants it"? Or, "the court is ignoring the will of the people"? Etc.

      1. What should be looked at is that the State's Attorney refused to defend Proposition 8 (the marriage defining one), while obviously defending this one from being challenged.
        The State Attorney - Kameltoe Harris, coincidentally - is hired, when called on, to defend every popularly passed initiative, yet failed to do that job in one of these instances

        1. When the left talks about the majority or democratic process, its with the same mentality of a mother asking her son whether he wants his bath tonight or tomorrow. Either way he's taking his bath tonight, and the kid will learn to say tonight, because its the only way to preserve the illusion of choice

      2. What I want to see are people who contributed money to Prop 63 being publicly humiliated, fired from their jobs and left wandering in the desert to die alone, in the dark. Oh wait! That's only for those who supported Prop 8.

    3. If a right is subject to majority approval, it is not a right. I would think the majority of people do agree with the statement. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot because when the government is allowed to strip us of one right, it becomes much easier to strip us of others if not all.

    4. The strongest point of a Constitutional Republic is to avoid tyranny by an ignorant emotional mob led by demagogues.

  10. Common sense? What? Shocking.

  11. He didn't say it but the judge's hypothetical of defending oneself from a crowd of people is an implicit acknowledgment that these weapons are ideal for mass murder.

    1. If I remember correctly, the "crowd" in the judge's hypothetical was three.

      The judge's hypothetical started with a .22 - a weapon which generally requires two hits to stop an attacker (but which can nevertheless be the right choice if you are a small-framed person who has trouble with the recoil of a larger caliber or if you have reason to be worried about people or pets on the other side of the wall). The judge's hypothetical also noted that even highly-trained police hit less than 50% of the time during life-threatening, adrenaline-loaded situations. With those assumptions, a 10 round magazine is sufficient to stop two attackers but not three.

      Personally, though, I don't consider three "a crowd".

      1. In a man to man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine.
        - Erwin Rommel

      2. I believe he was referring to the MEN of the Korean district in the area of heavy rioting after the Rodney King trial announced the verdict that the blacks did not like. Thousands roamed the area, burning, looting, destroying..... after laying waste to several blocks of homes and commercial properties, they were flowing up street toward the Korean families' area... where they had shops on the ground floor at the street, then residence behind the shop and on a second floor above it. The Korean MEN had armed themselves with AR type rifles, and standard capacity magazines... 30 rounders were standard in those days. They were keeping watch on the roofs and saw the marauders approaching.. they hollered, they kept coming. When not very far away, a few rounds were placed in the street in front of the invaders....who promptly made informed decisions to go find another district to destroy. Smoe 1500 buildings in that area were destroyed, but NOT ONE of the Koreans lost anything. WHY? THey had AR's, AK's, and standard capacity 30 round magazines.

        1. The Koreans were doing the job the United States Army should have done.

          1. maybe not the job of the military but it was the job of the police

          2. It is illegal for the Army to enforce laws withing the United States. Posse Comitatus Act and all that jazz.
            (But please don't tell the citizens of Little Rock)

    2. Governments is the biggest mass murdered of all. I suppose saying only the government should have guns is a way of supporting mass murder.

    3. It's almost like magazines are morally-neutral inanimate objects that are equally useful to peaceable people and degenerates.

      1. just like happers, knives, baseball bats, and bare hands and feet... ALL of which are used to kill people at far higher rates than firearms are doing these days. Yep. Four times as many killed with blunt objects (hammers, bats, bricks, etc) than are killed with guns.... and the standard carpenter's claw hammer? about three times as many victims per year as from guns.
        Those are per FedGov stats......

        1. And you didn't even mention wishing as a means to kill people. That kills more people than all the others combined.

        2. What about words? Huh?
          Words are violence!

    4. the judge's hypothetical of defending oneself from a crowd of people is an implicit acknowledgment that these weapons are ideal for mass murder.

      Wow, nice job! It takes a special level of functional retardation to be able to contradict oneself in so few words.

    5. Logical fail. Think about it for a bit and you'll figure out where.

    6. Fuck off; you lost.

    7. "He didn't say it but the judge's hypothetical of defending oneself from a crowd of people is an implicit acknowledgment that these weapons are ideal for mass murder."

      If you're trying to prove how stupid a lefty can be, you're doing a very good job.

  12. "a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals"

    Isn't that the real goal anyways?

    1. Cue the Ayn Rand quote about governing honest men....

      1. Ack, it's ruling innocent men:

        "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

  13. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals.


    1. what exactly is a "gun nut"? Someone who has a different opinion than yours? Gun owners are always labeled "gun nuts" by those opposed to guns because we dare express opposing opinions. I am not a gun nut. I am a Bill of Rights nut... I believe the rights granted us in the Bill of Rights are not subject to limitation at the whim of people with an irrational fear of inanimate objects or their warped perception of million of law abiding gun owners.

      1. Just a note: Fist is a legend on H&R for the subtle humor of his tongue-in-cheek comments. Adjust your sarcasm detector accordingly.

      2. Not sure if serious. Claims to be "Bill of Rights nut" but in same sentence claims rights are granted by BoR.

      3. Rights are protected by the Bill of Rights; they are neither granted nor created by the BoR.

        1. ^ Thank you.

  14. It really needs to be said that before liberals started trying to ban "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons" (back during the Clinton years), AR-15s and such were hardly even a blip on most gun owners' radar. As recently as during the Obama administration, AR-15 sales would spike in the aftermath of every mass shooting--for fear that gun buyers wouldn't be allowed to buy them in the near future. There's something right about the gun grabbers reaping what they sowed.

    I don't think it's just about the allure of forbidden fruit either. It's more like the Streisand Effect, where the more you try to stop people from being able to do something, the more attention it gets. Before the gun grabbers opened their stupid mouths and started yapping about "assault weapons", AR-15 ownership was pretty rare. Now, owing a lot to all that yapping, AR-15s are among the most widely owned guns in America. There are millions of Californians who never knew they wanted to own a 30 round magazine until the state of California said they couldn't buy one.

    P.S. What's this do for bans on handguns with more than x rounds? If anything is more popular than AR-15s right now, surely it's 9mm handguns with more than 9 rounds. California compliant models just pisses people off.

    1. I'd wager the popularity of AR15's is directly correlated with combat veterans leaving the armed forces. It's very similar to the weapon they were used to using.

      1. That is certainly a factor -- the 94 AW ban expired just as the first Iraq/Afghan war vets were coming home -- but ARs were already on their way to superstar status before then.

        Back when the ban first passed, there were three AR manufacturers: Armalite, Bushmaster, and Colt. And they mostly made plain-vanilla A1s or A2s with 20-inch barrels and iron sights.

        The desperate rush to purchase a forbidden rifle created a massive pent-up demand that exploded when the law expired. Now their are literally dozens of manufacturers, offering ARs in a myriad of configurations.

        Had Clinton left well enough alone, I think most AR owners would still be content with their Mini 14s.

      2. It is similar in appearance only, not operation. ARs became popular when they became less expensive. Before the ban in 1994, they were very expensive because few companies made them. Now there are a lot of companies making them or you can build your own.

        1. Its pretty similar from the user perspective, all the controls are in the same place. Field stripping and cleaning is the same too

          As for the rest, you have some stuff out of place. They became popular before they became cheap, because if they weren't popular more companies wouldn't have started making them (which as you note is what drove the price down)

          I think ken Schultz is correct, we Americans have a rebellious streak. Tell us we can't have something and we will only want it that much more

      3. The M-16 dates back to the Vietnam war. Lots and lots of veterans left the armed services for decades without the AR15 becoming popular. Maybe that's a factor for a minority of buyers but I'm much more inclined to believe Ken Shultz' hypothesis.

        Personally, I don't remember my M-16 with any great favor. It was okay but it was clearly a compromise designed by committee. Whatever you wanted in a rifle - range, accuracy, ease of maintenance - better existed. My 1911, on the other hand...

        1. I think his hypothesis certainly helps explain the popularity of short-barrel, telescoping-stock, M4-clone carbine models with rails and optics and lasers.

          Those were almost unheard of in the AR community before the early 2000s, and those are the ones which copy the modern military versions.

          Another factor for their popularity? First-person shooter games like Call of Duty, which introduced a whole generation of youth to the AR platform.

          1. Personally, I went out and bought a Calico carbine, but that's because I REALLY wanted to give my Congressman the finger.

            Well, that and not having to reload while plinking in the backyard.

      4. "I'd wager the popularity of AR15's is directly correlated with combat veterans leaving the armed forces. It's very similar to the weapon they were used to using."

        They're popular with a lot more than just veterans.

        1. One of my ex's is a far left vegan tree hugger. She also owns several pistols, and an AK-47. Of course, I'm in WA State, where even a lot of progs love their guns.

          1. Not enough progs like guns. The last two completely idiotic gun control (actually gun owner control) initiatives easily passed. The progs are the masters of incrementalism. More intrusive background checks, more fees for gun transfers, more registration of where the guns are, etc. Given the recent activity, I predict mass gun confiscation immediately after the 2020 election no matter who wins.

    2. Anecdote: I make a point of buying or making a gun every time some Demorrhoid shitbag says he wants to get rid of them.

      Yes, I have a shit ton of AR-15s now.

      1. They are best salesmen the gun companies could hope for

        1. Obama was the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in modern times.

  15. California, indeed, the federal government needs to ban large capacity gun magazines.
    They should also need to ban large capacity gun periodicals, newspapers, movies, films, books, etc.
    Its for our own good.

    1. Sarcometer pegged.

    2. Why anyone would need a newspaper or magazine larger than 4 pages is beyond me. I'll admit newspapers used to commonly have 30 or even 60 pages but modern attention spans make that just too much newspaper for common use.

      1. Last time I saw magazine (years ago) it only had 4 pages of content. It was 75 pages in size, when you include the ads. Sort of like the internet - - - -

    3. Who needs a movie longer than 15 minutes?

  16. "The LCM ban "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state"

    And, it might be added, these capacities might not be commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state if the gun grabbers hadn't tried to grab them.

    1. In the same vein, some Sandy Hook parents are suing Bushmaster for marketing their gun in a manner to deliberately appeal to spree shooters.

      Ironically, it was actually the gun-control freaks' constant repetition of the lie that "the AR-15 is good for one thing and one thing only -- to kill the greatest possible number of people in the shortest possible time" that actually drew the psychos' attention.

  17. Wow. My faith in the judiciary just went up a notch. Sure didn't see that happening.

    1. That was the only error of Robert Bork's that frosted my hide. Yes, the BoR recognizes existing rights, it doesn't grant them.

    1. It's amusing that they think the .357 uses a larger bullet than the .38.

      1. What are you going to believe, facts or the NYT?

        1. In Lyman's 50th Edition we trust.

      2. They conflated the shell with the bullet, right?

        1. Bullet, cartridge, casing, primer, flint, whatever; if it goes into or on a gun it is evil incarnate and must be banned, for the children.

          (plus it will make it easier when we cancel the election and rule by fiat)

    2. I was bemused by this focus on caliber as well. Since a .223 Remington bullet is (I think) nominally a thousandth of an inch smaller in diameter than a .22LR bullet, the former must be less deadly.

      1. They didn't mention rifle bullets at all, since it wouldn't fit the predetermined conclusion.

      2. A .223 is actually three-thousandths of an inch larger than a .22. That's what the numbers mean - diameter in decimal inches. That's in contrast to gauge where the diameter goes down as the number goes up. Gauge is (roughly) the number of round balls of that diameter that it takes to make a pound of lead shot.

        But, yeah, it was a really stupid argument.

        1. I was relying on Wikipedia (yes, I know I probably shouldn't be using it as my source) and used the top range of the diameter of a .22 long rifle bullet which it shows as being in the range of 0.223 to 0.2255 inches while Wikipedia shows a .223 Remington bullet as having a diameter of .224 inches.

    3. Cue the NYT op-ed saying that the number of bullets doesn't matter, just the size.

      That's like saying the number of cocks in a woman's vagina doesn't matter, just the size.

      1. I don't understand the analogy. Are we talking consecutive or concurrent?

    4. A study last year, published in JAMA Network Open, examined the type of weapon used in every fatal and nonfatal shooting in the city.

      Think they bothered researching the demographics of *who* executed those shootings?

  18. Yet NY's bullshit SAFE act is still in effect.

    1. By the rate of compliance, I assume no one really cares.

  19. It is stupid... the reason is that simple.

  20. A California judge no less.

  21. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures.

    Sure they can. It's called a police state.

  22. Communism is a failed ideology.

  23. How about a $10 "public safety" tax per cartridge?

    1. How about not.

      Yea, that's better. No tax. Have a nice day.

    2. ? ?Take you a glass of water
      Make it against the law.
      See how good the water tastes
      When you can't have any at all.
      Bootleg, bootleg,
      Bootleg, howl.
      Bootleg, bootleg,
      Bootleg, howl.
      ? ?

      How does the heavy taxation of legal alcohol (especially heavy taxation of legal marijuana) affect the bootleg market?

      1. makes lots of residents of Washington wait till they drive to California to spend a grand on hootch, toss it into their car, and drive back to Wasnington. Nevada booze is even cheaper. When Washington adds about 140% to the price of the booze itself in taxes, its time to vote with your feet... and lots of trunk space.

    3. Fuck off, slaver.

  24. "Constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval."


    Everybody sure this isn't an April fools joke?

  25. If enough people sign a petition stating they want ____ weapons to the point that desire for ____ weapons could be considered common, does that mean I can legally own nuclear bombs?

    1. Some dumb ass invariably shows up with that stupid trope every time. Stop conflating with nonsense.

      1. I wasn't using in the way you think I was. Can't we use that argument to regain full 2A rights for automatic weapons and other firearms?

        1. A "petition" is conclusive evidence they are not "common."

          1. But that's the thing. I think there are a lot of weapons that would be common if they weren't banned, so the fact we have to petition to have them legalized, based on unconstitutional 2A restrictions, shouldn't disqualify the rationale that the weapons would be commonly used if not banned unconstitutionally. Saying they aren't common because they're banned is circular reasoning.

            1. But, sadly, it's circular reasoning the Court embraced in the Heller decision. It's going to take more than one replaced Justice to get to a Court that treats the 2nd amendment as more than the Bill of Right's crazy aunt locked in the attic.

        2. Noted awild; whenever I see that particular verbiage about "nuclear weapons" in a discussion re the 2A; I tend to be "triggered."

          At this point I'd settle for suppressors being taken off the Class 3 list

  26. Will the judge's decision suvive appleas that are sure to be made? One so hopes, but.

    1. It will probably be overturned by the 9th Circuit, but hopefully it will make it to the Supreme Court and be reinstated.

    2. Huge win, likely to be reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (where about 2/3rds of the judges are liberals) and then appealed to the Supreme Court where the two Trump appointees probably will enable another win.

      1. I agree that is exactly what will happen; of course it seems Roberts likes being the "swing" vote on that body, so it would be nice if another judgeship opened up sometime soon...but replacing Notorious with someone like Barrett likely would set off something of a civil war.

        1. I think Trump might be saving Barrett to replace RBG. The Anita Hill thing won't work so well with Barrett as she is female. What will the left do?

          1. If you thought Roe v. Wade was a major talking point during Kavanaugh's hearings, wait until Barrett is nominated to replace RBG. Its pretty much the only thing the left can try to burn her on

      2. I wouldn't have agreed with that prior to the Court refusing the bump stock injunction request without explanation. "Because guns" has got to be the only plausible reason for not enjoining a law that mandates the destruction of millions of dollars of property without compensation.

  27. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.


  28. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.


  29. THERE is a judge fit for SCOTUS.

  30. And New York's five round limit?

  31. Silly me.
    I thought the judge would have said "this law is an unconstitutional 'infringement' of the second amendment to the US Constitution".

  32. "Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures"

    Except the ones that occur during a Boston Marathon.

  33. Because he can read?

  34. ?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can't confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern...GOOD LUCK .

    click here =====??

Comments are closed.