MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Second Amendment Injunction Against California Ban on Large-Capacity-Magazines Kept in Place by Ninth Circuit

The panel concludes that the district court didn't abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction -- though the decision is non-binding.

In Duncan v. Becerra, a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of California's ban on magazines that fit more than 10 rounds, pending a full trial on the merits. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld this, in a 2-1 nonprecedential decision, though one that heavily deferred to the lower court's judgment, and didn't prejudge the final result after a trial is held and the final judgment is issued and appealed.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Randy Smith, joined by visiting District Judge Deborah Batts; the dissent was written by Judge Clifford Wallace. For those who watch such matters, both Judges Smith and Wallace are Republican appointees, as is Judge Roger Benitez, whose decision is being affirmed here; both Judges Smith and Wallace are known as solid conservatives (I can't speak to Judge Benitez). But the deciding vote on the panel, in favor of upholding the lower court's decision protecting Second Amendment rights, was cast by a judge who sits in Manhattan, was appointed by President Clinton, and is said to have been "the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge."

Here is an excerpt from the majority:

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds....

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing[, among other cases,] Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon "that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 ("'[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right' to obtain the bullets necessary to use them." (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011)))....

Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson. The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a "historical pedigree." Next, the district court concluded ... that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right, but ... that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court concluded that California had identified four "important" interests and reasoned that the proper question was "whether the dispossession and criminalization components of [section] 32310's ban on firearm magazines holding any more than 10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals." ...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court's review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that section 32310 is "not likely to be a reasonable fit." California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court's conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court's findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In reviewing the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, we cannot "re-weigh the evidence and overturn the district court's evidentiary determinations—in effect, to substitute our discretion for that of the district court." ...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds. First, the district court ... outlined the correct legal principles. Second, the district court did not exceed its discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d) (surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally "deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights"; and (2) that California could not use the pol ce power to avoid compensation.

And here's one from Judge Wallace's dissent:

The majority concludes the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding California's large-capacity magazine (LCM) possession ban did not survive intermediate scrutiny on the ground that the district court's conclusion was based on "numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence." The problem, however, is that the district court's "judgment calls" presupposed a much too high evidentiary burden for the state. Under intermediate scrutiny, the question is not whether the state's evidence satisfies the district court's subjective standard of empiricism, but rather whether the state relies on evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant" to substantiate its important interests. So long as the state's evidence "fairly supports" its conclusion that a ban on possession of LCMs would reduce the lethality of gun violence and promote public safety, the ban survives intermediate scrutiny....

The district court is correct that a physical appropriation of personal property gives rise to a per se taking. But here, LCM owners can comply with § 32310 without the state physically appropriating their magazines. Under § 32310(d)(1), an LCM owner may "[r]emove the large-capacity magazine from the state," retaining ownership of the LCM, as well as rights to possess and use the magazines out of state. The district court hypothesized that LCM owners may find removal to be more costly than it is worth, but such speculation, while theoretically relevant to the regulatory takings inquiry, does not turn the compulsory removal of LCMs from the state into a "physical appropriation" by the state....

There's a lot more—the opinion is fairly long for a nonprecedential decision—and you can read it all here. Thanks to Charles Nichols for the news about the decision coming down.

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.

  • Longtobefree||

    My first thought was "is this our ninth circuit?". But then "intermediate scrutiny" for a constitutional right.
    So all is well.

  • James Pollock||

    I'm not sure the chain of inferences connects a Constitutional right to the law in question. Right to bear arms implies right to bear ammunition? OK. But right to bear ammunition implies the right to load as much of it as you want into your weapon? Sketchy. Hard to argue that the authors of the second amendment intended that. Use a modern interpretation, and it's on firmer ground.

    Of course, how you WANTED the ruling to come out may affect your opinion as to the validity of the legal reasoning.

  • Allutz||

    It seems odd to me to read in a restriction (# of bullets) into a right that, at the time, applied to state-of-the-art weaponry (including crude multishot weapons, that Congress quickly thereafter invested in developing). So, it seems to me that the burden would be on those who think that it would no longer apply to state-of-the-art firearms, as those would clearly be "necessary to the security of a free State", rather than being on those who think it would.

  • James Pollock||

    "State of the art weapons"? Nope, not covered, and you can be expecting a stiff sentence for your partially-assembled nuclear device, nerve-gas supplies, and weaponized smallpox.

  • ||

    "Arms" in the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to arms that are carried by infantry. Your nuclear bomb strawman doesn't work.

  • James Pollock||

    ""Arms" in the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to arms that are carried by infantry."

    Yes, obviously. Except it doesn't say that.

    And nuclear devices, nerve-gas, and weaponized biology can be carried by infantry.

    Other than those two small defects, your argument checks out.

  • mad_kalak||

    One could easily have carried a barrel of gunpowder in 1791, and a couple of smallpox infected blankets. What's your point? In the context of arm/militia/bear, it's obvious they were referring to weapons.

  • James Pollock||

    " it's obvious they were referring to weapons."

    It's going to mess with his "Patriot" head when he figures out that he's advocating a more limited view of the second amendment than I am. Then again, he's already tried to put me in the leftist Democrat Party with all the other gun confiscators, and having that pointed out as incorrect over and over still hasn't registered, so I'm thinking it might take a while.

  • mad_kalak||

    I'm actually glad that he's making the point that "keep and bear" means single soldier weapons. Between ARWP and I, we had a debate that he said "bear" meant "to aim" thus cannons which could be "brought to bear" on the enemy were protected by the 2nd Amendment. I replied that he was incorrect, that in the context of "keep and bear" it meant "own and carry".....though we both agree that in the Founding Era militia cannons were often privately owned and nobody had a problem with it, as were warships with letter of marque, so larger weapons of war privately owned should be seen as normal.

    Personally, I think the reductio ad absurdum arguement about nuclear weapons is so stupid, that it just needs to go away.

  • James Pollock||

    " I think the reductio ad absurdum arguement about nuclear weapons is so stupid, that it just needs to go away."

    I didn't make a reductio ad absurdum argument.
    I used ABC weapons (atomic, biological, and chemical) because these are weapons which we (the United States) assert the right to deprive other sovereign nations of. We're currently attempting to take away one country's nuclear arsenal (North Korea) and prevent another (Iran) from developing them. We invaded the airspace of Syria, and bombed not just Syrians but some troops of other nationalities, in an attempt to target chemical weapons.

    Use of atomic weaspons by private citizens is not (yet?) a thing, in part because of extremely strict controls on ingredients. But there have been both chemical and biological attacks carried out by individuals. (Big conventional explosives, too.)

  • mad_kalak||

    Now you're moving far afield, mixing in U.S. foreign policy (which is rarely consistent) with constitutional jurisprudence and expecting some sort of logical consistency, and when you don't get it, using that as debate points for your side.

    So whether you intended it or not, it was a reductio ad absurdum argument, because you were making the case that if the 2nd Amendment protected weapons that can be hand carried, then ANYTHING that can be hand carried is protected, like a man-sized nuke (which I understand was developed during the Cold War). Although amusing, that tactic is easily dealt with by pointing out that they were referring to guns, "arms", not weapons of any kind.

    While I don't want to diminish the dangers of anthrax or somebody with a beef and the know-how creating a virulent flu strain, controls on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

  • James Pollock||

    " Although amusing, that tactic is easily dealt with by pointing out that they were referring to guns, "arms", not weapons of any kind."

    Go back, reread what I quoted, and responded to.

    (BTW, There are multiple methods of implementing an atomic explosion. Back in the days of the Manhattan Engineering District, they weren't sure which, if any, would work so they developed two completely separate weapons, which were code-named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy". The method that is used in modern weapons is implosion... a mass of Plutonium or enriched Uranium is compressed to a smaller volume via carefully-timed shaped explosive charges. But the other method is simply called the "gun" method. Turns out both work.)

    Sometimes you get people with serious misunderstandings of the purpose of the 2A. They think it's there so that the people can rise up and overthrow the federal government if it gets all tyranty. That's nonsense. The 2A doesn't cover all weapons of war, unconditionally. The notion that the first Congress put in a pro-uprising amendment to the Constitution while they were dealing with a number of uprisings by, well, not greeting them as liberators, shows this.

  • mad_kalak||

    My apologies if I mistook your baiting of ARWP as your actual position, but that's kinda of a motte and bailey tactic on your part, because it comes off as identical to the reductio ad absurdum argument I pointed out it was.

    Aside from individual self defense, Madison understood that a nation of armed people would provide a moral deterrence against tyranny (much like the existence of police is a generalized deterrent to crime), but considering they just came out of shooting war, I think they understood that general deterrence of weapons in citizens' hand could sometimes necessarily mean that shooting wouldn't happen from time to time. And do rag-tag militias defeat professional armies with the latest and greatest military weapons? More often than neo-cons are willing to admit.

    I would hesitate to use Washington putting down the Whiskey Rebellion as evidence that the Founders were against rebellion. They, like Brits did, considered it illegitimate is all. If they won, it wouldn't be considered illegitimate.

  • James Pollock||

    "considering they just came out of shooting war, I think they understood that general deterrence of weapons in citizens' hand could sometimes necessarily mean that shooting wouldn't happen from time to time."

    What the Founders tried to do was prevent the United States from keeping a standing army. That's in the original text, before any amendments, and the second amendment arises from the attempt to de-armify the federal government.
    A standing army is a temptation to put them to work. The Founders actively discouraged the federal government from having an army, but allowed one to be raised in time of war. They chose to rely on militia for defense... really, the Atlantic Ocean was the major component, because our perceived enemies were in Europe. Boatlifting an invasion/occupation army would have been VERY expensive, and therefore as small as possible, and therefore can be opposed by citizens defending theor own homesteads and communities. Also, the Natives hadn't been told yet that we planned to take all the land, all the way West.

  • Toranth||

    @JP
    The 2A does include all weapons of war, but just like every other right it can be restricted if the restriction survives strict scrutiny.

    Nuclear and biological weapons fail, because of a) a lack of discrimination, and b) difficulty of safe storage.
    Chemical weapons may or may not pass - some chemical weapons are in common use in the US. Pepper spray is one very common chemical weapon, with 10s of millions sold each year.

  • Rossami||

    re: "'Arms' in the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to arms that are carried by infantry."

    That is not clear at all. At the time of the Founding, privately held arms included crew-served artillery pieces (cannons and mortars), all manner of cavalry equipment and even major ships of war (the WMDs of their day).

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    Reductio ad nuculerium!

  • James Pollock||

    "It seems odd to me to read in a restriction (# of bullets) into a right that, at the time, applied to state-of-the-art weaponry"

    That restriction was part of the technology of the time. It's not a stretch to say "they didn't mean to include X, because X hadn't been invented yet" (or "perfected", if you prefer). You might consider that if you hopped in your time machine, popped back to 1791 while they were debating the Bill of Rights, and taken the guys out behind the legislature and showed them an AK-47, they might have included a right to keep and bear automatic weapons... or they might have excluded them. So an originalist reading of the text is largely meaningless.

    You get similar results with other technologies. Does the First Amendment apply to radio transmissions? Because Congress made some laws about that. Asking the first Congress that was working out the text of the Bill of Rights wouldn't give you a meaningful answer because they didn't have a conceptual basis for evaluating the question.

    It's fairly non-controversial that the FCC can regulate radio transmissions, even though "the press" uses radio broadcasts, and the 1A says that Congress can make no law abridging freedom of the press.

  • ||

    No, it's non-controversial that the FCC can regulate radio transmission to ensure non-interference and order, but I posit (along with many others) that the FCC should not be able to regulate "offensive" word.s

  • James Pollock||

    Take it up with them when your license is up for renewal. No license? Oh, then you can't transmit ANYTHING, controversial or not.

  • ||

    What is your point? You said that the FCC's regulation of content is "non-controversial." That clearly is not the case.

  • James Pollock||

    "You said that the FCC's regulation of content is "non-controversial.""

    Well, that's not actually what I said. What I did say is that the FCC's authority to regulate radio transmissions is non-controversial. Which is true.

    The FCC can regulate radio transmissions. Nobody disputes this. It's not controverted.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Of course, the amendment in question says, "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be utterly abolished".

    The general idea is that, if it's a constitutional right, you can't even inconvenience its exercise without a damned good reason. You can't just keep piling arbitrary rules on top of arbitrary rules, with the rather transparent aim of discouraging exercise of the right, and claim you're not violating it as long as the right is still possible to exercise in SOME fashion.

    Do we treat any other fundamental, enumerated right that way?

  • James Pollock||

    "Of course, the amendment in question says, "'hall not be infringed', not 'shall not be utterly abolished'"

    It does, but it also says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right to keep any and all arms. There's an argument that the 2A covers one weapon each per able-bodied manfolk in the home. It's a dumb one, but it exists

    "Do we treat any other fundamental, enumerated right that way?"

    Yeah. All of them. Which is why we have court rules for figuring out whether laws conflict with Constitutional rights, and if they do, whether they get to stand anyway. Hell, the 1A starts out with "Congress shall make no law...", and there are whole books full of laws Congress made that limit rights enumarated in the First.

  • ||

    Oh, we do? Do we allow laws that ban speech without good reason? Do we allow laws that ban speech, but allow it at 3 a.m. on every other Tuesday?

  • James Pollock||

    "Oh, we do?"
    Yes, we do.
    Need a Google tutorial, do we?

  • Rossami||

    Apparently, we do need a tutorial because google returns diddly-squat. Please itemize the allowable laws "that ban speech without good reason". Please rattle off the limitations that you think exists for the First Amendment which parallel the limitations you consider acceptable on the Second Amendment.

  • ||

    While he's at it, hopefully he can list the limitations on speech that are entirely irrational, but are acceptable in his eyes because they make people "feel safer."

  • James Pollock||

    Troll-feeding hours are alternate Tuesdays from 11:00am to 2:00pm

  • The original jack burton||

    please explain how prior restraint applies to the 1st Amendment but somehow doesn't apply to the 2nd.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Because saying a bad thing is a fundamentally different act than a bad shoot.

  • ||

    And searching a house without a warrant is a fundamentally different act than closing down a newspaper. What's your point?

  • James Pollock||

    Searching a house without a warrant is sometimes allowed. That's another one of those cases where the court has rules to figure out if it was OK or not.

  • ||

    Yes, in exigent circumstances. Are there any times where you don't get the protection of the 4th Amendment unless some bureaucrat decides you have a "good and substantial" reason to have it?

  • James Pollock||

    " Are there any times where you don't get the protection of the 4th Amendment unless some bureaucrat decides you have a "good and substantial" reason to have it?"

    It takes a couple of weeks of lecture in the 1L class "Criminal Procedure" to go through and explain them all.

    Get out your credit card, call Amazon and order "Examples and Explanations: Criminal Procedure" for about $30, and get yourself informed.

  • Careless||

    well, I guess it's ok to ban James Pollock's speech. Oh well, sorry, James.

  • James Pollock||

    "well, I guess it's ok to ban James Pollock's speech. Oh well, sorry, James."

    Well, the owners of the site could, if you chose. But, thus far, they didn't. So I can continue to poke holes in bad arguments. Too bad that's the only kind you got.

  • Careless||

    No, I mean the government. Sorry, you're just one of those exceptions to the rules. You'll understand, since you advocate for such

  • James Pollock||

    Did it hurt when you got your brain injury? Or do you not remember?

  • regexp||

    There's an argument that the 2A covers one weapon each per able-bodied manfolk in the home

    Its more in line with the plain reading of Constitution and its amendments than allowing "state militia" unlimited access to advance military weaponry.

    As a gun owner myself - I continually annoyed by gun nuts using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to buy shiny boom boom sticks for their own enjoyment.

  • susancol||

    Translation: Guns I like = protected, guns I'm not interested in are "shiny boom-boom sticks" owned by "gun nuts".

    No problem, lots of folks find liberty distasteful.

  • James Pollock||

    "No problem, lots of folks find liberty distasteful."

    Nothing brings that out more than a discussion of firearms law. Well, maybe marriage equality.

  • Careless||

    Odd that James would describe himself as anti-liberty here, but there it is

  • James Pollock||

    Odd that "Careless" didn't understa...

    No, that seems typical.

  • James Pollock||

    I don't give a damn about the people who take care of their weapons and handle them safely and responsibly, so that the risk to other people is kept minimized. They can have whatever firearm they want and can afford.
    The people who won't, or can't, be responsible? I've no problem seeing them restricted, any more than I cry that reckless drivers lose their driving licenses, or even have their cars confiscated when they keep driving without a license.

    That's basic libertarianism... I'm responsible when I do stuff, or I stop doing it, and I expect you to either be responsible when you do stuff, or stop doing it.

  • Careless||

    I don't give a damn about the people who take care of their weapons and handle them safely and responsibly

    Except you want their right to have the chance to do so eliminated

  • James Pollock||

    "Except you want their right to have the chance to do so eliminated"

    When you finish grade school, you'll get better at reading comprehension.

    So, give it another 8 or 9 years.

  • mad_kalak||

    >"As a gun owner myself - I continually annoyed by gun nuts using the 2nd amendment as an >excuse to buy shiny boom boom sticks for their own enjoyment."

    As a non-golfer, I think the sport of golf is for rich pansies because the equipment and courses cost so much, and it's just hitting a tiny ball with a metal stick with some walking around involved. And the lazy ones don't even do the walking part. Take up a real sport like Judo or rock climbing I say.

    Then I come to my senses and realize that with freedom and liberty, people can do what they want with their own money, provided they don't hurt anybody else. You know, like buy guns and shoot them for fun.

  • James Pollock||

    "provided they don't hurt anybody else. You know, like buy guns and shoot them for fun."

    If only that last thing were also always the first. But it isn't. And the yahoos who can't or won't be responsible ruin it for the people who are.

  • ||

    So punish those who do and leave the rest of us alone.

    And by the way, calling same-sex "marriage" marriage equality is already starting from a position of bad faith.

  • James Pollock||

    "So punish those who do and leave the rest of us alone"

    So... you're advocating punishing the people who handle their weapons responsibly, and leaving you alone?

    " calling same-sex 'marriage' marriage equality is already starting from a position of bad faith."

    Didn't say same-sex marriage, but I'm happy to see that you choose to treat them equally.

  • ||

    You can call it what you want, but a marriage it ain't.

  • James Pollock||

    You can imagine it that way, if you like. Doesn't make it true, but if it keeps you happy, whatever.

  • Krayt||

    By your religion, sure. But that is the important thing, right? Not the state's blessing?

    The state is some irrelevant interloper for hellbound divorce purposes

  • mad_kalak||

    Than statistically, you're on pretty shaky ground. There are 400 million guns in the U.S., so assuming the approximately 30,000 gun deaths (about half of which are suicides) means that only .000075% of the guns in the country are put to misuse in any given year. You might push it up higher if you included shooting and attempted murders, but not by much.

  • James Pollock||

    "Than statistically, you're on pretty shaky ground."

    There's only one of me, so a gun injury that involves me may be statistically insignificant to you, but remains significant to me.

  • ||

    There's only one of any person, so any HIV infection that involves him may be statistically insignificant to you, but remains significant to him. That's why anal sex between two men should be prohibited, as it is the most likely act to spread HIV.

  • James Pollock||

    "That's why anal sex between two men should be prohibited, as it is the most likely act to spread HIV."

    If it bothers you so much, just stop doing it.

    (The act most likely to spread HIV is blood transfusion, BTW)

  • ||

    I'm referring to acts that in the aggregate cause the most infections. 75% of new HIV infections occur among gay men. That means that we could eliminate the vast majority of the HIV problem if gay men would stop barebacking every dude they meet.

  • James Pollock||

    "we could eliminate the vast majority of the HIV problem if gay men would stop barebacking every dude they meet."

    If it bothers you so much, STOP DOING IT.

  • Rossami||

    Way to miss the point, James. Let's be more blunt. If shooting people illegally bothers you so much, STOP DOING IT.

    Oh, wait. You mean we already have laws that make murder illegal? Then why are you so bothered by lawful actions of other which have far, far less chance of doing you harm than
    - driving on the average highway
    - walking in the rain
    - tending your garden
    - working at pretty much any job anywhere.

  • James Pollock||

    "Way to miss the point, James"
    Actually, you're the one missing the point.

    " Let's be more blunt. If shooting people illegally bothers you so much, STOP DOING IT."

    I did. Tell you what. Why don't you scroll up until you find the posting where I wrote:
    "That's basic libertarianism... I'm responsible when I do stuff, or I stop doing it, and I expect you to either be responsible when you do stuff, or stop doing it."

    "You mean we already have laws that make murder illegal?"
    Accidentally shooting people isn't murder.

    "why are you so bothered by lawful actions of other which have far, far less chance of doing you harm than- driving on the average highway"

    Hmmm. What did I already say about that? Oh, yeah:
    "The people who won't, or can't, be responsible? I've no problem seeing them restricted, any more than I cry that reckless drivers lose their driving licenses, or even have their cars confiscated when they keep driving without a license."

    Why don't you find the FIRST paragraph from the comment I've quoted from twice in THIS comment, and then go fuck off?

  • mad_kalak||

    "There's only one of me, so a [Muslim terrorist attack] that involves me may be statistically insignificant to you, but remains significant to me."

    Now, do you feel the same way about the travel ban as you do about guns?

  • James Pollock||

    "Now, do you feel the same way about the travel ban as you do about guns?"

    Yep, the same way. Apparently not the way you thought, but the same way.

    Hint:
    Pro freedom for responsible people, OK with restrictions on people who can't or won't play nice.
    So I'd be in favor of a travel ban for terrorists. Travel ban from people retreating from terrorists? That's just amazingly stupid, and I wish my country hadn't chosen that way.

  • mad_kalak||

    Theoretically you would support a ban on Muslims from terrorist prone countries. That's something I suppose. But a clever rephrasing doesn't escape you from the logical inconsistency you've placed yourself in. Because we can't tell the refugees from the terrorists, we ban them all. By your own admission, then even if a gun (Muslim) has a tiny change of being used against me (blowing up a bomb near me) than that slim change is chance enough to ban guns (ban Muslims).

    Moreover, statistically, the chances of you being murdered with a gun are even less than the chances a particular gun will be misused. There were 17,250 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the U.S. in 2016. Your odds of being murdered by one of your 330 million fellow citizens is .00005%. But I'll give you that about 250 million are over 18, so it comes out to .000069% that you will be killed by one of them in any given year. Do you have a particularly dangerous occupation, like slumlord in Detroit, that has you so worried?

  • James Pollock||

    "Theoretically you would support a ban on Muslims from terrorist prone countries."

    No. Theoretically (and actually), I would support a ban on terrorists, from anywhere.

    " But a clever rephrasing doesn't escape you from the logical inconsistency you've placed yourself in."
    Because I haven't placed myself in one. You've done that, by reading my actual opinions, ignoring the ones you don't want to or can't argue against, substituting the ones you'd prefer I was trying to defend, and then attacking those. I suppose it's easier for you, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

    "Moreover, statistically, the chances of you being murdered with a gun are even less than the chances a particular gun will be misused"

    That's nice to know, though totally irrelevant.

  • James Pollock||

    Here, let me work the problem you so badly flubbed.

    Some people are terrorists.
    We do not want to allow terrorists into our country, if we can help it.
    The terrorists do terrorist-y things that create refugees.
    We might want to help refugees. Maybe even let some of them resettle here for a while, maybe even a long while if the conditions that kept from from being safe in their own country persists.
    But... what if a terrorist pretends to be a refugee?

    My answer:
    Check the background of people who claim to be refugees. Maybe impose a waiting limit before they can come to the US. Maybe restrict their access to guns in the US... don't let them have the types of guns that terrorists like.

    See how not-even-close you were in claiming to know what my answer was? Yeah. You got a bad habit of that.

  • mad_kalak||

    That's some clever dancing there. Neo in the Matrix would be jealous. Do you have a telepathy machine that will discern potential terrorists from actual refugees? Because without being able to discern who is or isn't a likely terrorist, the ban on refugees and immigrants (from which terrorists are but a subclass), from the affected countries was due to lack of background checking being possible. So, again, the same logic you use for gun control still applies to the travel ban. Your reasoning can be summed up as "you just never know" to better to be careful and ban them.

    So again, if you're worried about a gun being used against you to shoot you, but in any given year that possibility is statistically nil, it is indeed totally relevant when you propose gun control BECAUSE YOU FEAR BEING SHOT.

  • James Pollock||

    "Because without being able to discern who is or isn't a likely terrorist, the ban on refugees and immigrants (from which terrorists are but a subclass), from the affected countries was due to lack of background checking being possible."

    That's 100% bullshit.

    "So, again, the same logic you use for gun control still applies to the travel ban."

    Yes. I said that.
    The continuing problem here is that logic I used and the logic you'd like to argue about diverge significantly. Speaking of which:

    " Your reasoning can be summed up as 'you just never know' to better to be careful and ban them."

    You're wrong by approximately 180 degrees, there. On BOTH my positions. Despite having been previously corrected, about both.

    This forces me to the conclusion that you're not arguing in good faith, you're just full of shit.

  • mad_kalak||

    Your position on the travel ban and gun control are inherently contradictory and I pointed it out. If that's not arguing in good faith, then I confess mon ami.

    Let me try to "steelman" your arguments, because it would also illustrate my own doublethink, which you should have been able to catch.

    1) Travel ban - We should ban known terrorists only. We generally should not restrict refugees and immigrants, even from countries where terrorists create refugees. The risk is very low that any refugee will be a terrorist.

    2) Guns - Even though the individual risk of getting killed with a gun is small, that risk is existential, so I want gun control. Because some people misuse guns and create crime that is an existential risk, we should do more to restrict certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

    Some support the travel ban because even though the risk of terrorist attack is small, the attack is an existential risk to those involved. Because the government cannot tell if a random refugee might be a terrorist, we should therefore ban all immigration from countries with lots of terrorists.

    Here I am acknowledging that 30k people die every year from guns, but because the odds are so low that I will be put in danger by one, I don't advocate for gun control, even if the risk is existential (just like a terrorist attack). Notice the problem now?

  • James Pollock||

    "Your position on the travel ban and gun control are inherently contradictory and I pointed it out. If that's not arguing in good faith, then I confess mon ami."

    No, my ACTUAL positions are not at all contradictory.
    But you keep insisting on representing your own opinion(s) as mine.
    And you've decided to keep doing it, so... assumption confirmed. You're full of shit.

  • Rossami||

    James, you seem to be arguing above in support of a strong gun-ban position (or ammo ban or other compilation of restrictions that becomes a de facto gun ban). If that is not your position, then please state so clearly so that those of us who misunderstood you can apologize. On the other hand, if that is your position, please consider the following:

    Assume:
    1. We want to ban all terrorists. We also want to ban all murderers.
    2. Most (but not all) terrorists are Muslim. Most (but not all) murders are committed by gun owners. (In both cases, with the qualifier "at this point in history".)
    3. Actual terrorists are only a tiny fraction of all Muslims. Actual murderers are only a tiny fraction of all gun owners.
    4. We do not have a magical Sorting Hat to tell the future terrorists from the law-abiding Muslims or the future murderers from the law-abiding gun owners.

    I'm all for your position of 'freedom for responsible people and restrictions on irresponsible' but absent the Sorting Hat in #4, how do we tell them apart? And without that Sorting Hat, how can anyone define a de facto blanket ban on Muslims as bad but a de facto blanket ban on gun owners as good? Why are they not both reprehensible?

  • James Pollock||

    "you seem to be arguing above in support of a strong gun-ban position (or ammo ban or other compilation of restrictions that becomes a de facto gun ban). If that is not your position"

    No. That's what you want to see, so that's what you see. But it's not there. And this has been pointed out around a dozen times now.

    "so that those of us who misunderstood you can apologize."

    Yeah, right.

  • Rossami||

    Okay. Now that I understand your position, I apologize for misunderstanding it. I will concede that I did not read every one of your endless stream of comments.

    Separately, I will call you out as a jerk for making it deliberately hard to apologize to you. Believe it or not, there really are a few of us on the Internet who want to have civil discussions.

  • James Pollock||

    "I will concede that I did not read every one of your endless stream of comments"

    Doesn't seem like you read any of them. I cherry-picked the most obvious, but NONE of my "endless stream of comments" matched your characterization.

    "Separately, I will call you out as a jerk for making it deliberately hard to apologize to you"

    Meh. Over the last couple of days, I've run into a long string of twits who've felt a need to misquote me and mischaracterize what I said, and that gets annoying, and annoyed people lose social grace. Since I don't start with much, it gets obvious.

  • James Pollock||

    " you seem to be arguing above in support of a strong gun-ban position"

    You read this:
    "They can have whatever firearm they want and can afford."

    And somehow came up with "THIS GUY'S ARGUING FOR A GUN BAN!!!"

    And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

  • James Pollock||

    "how can anyone define a de facto blanket ban on Muslims as bad but a de facto blanket ban on gun owners as good?"

    I don't know. Why don't you ask someone who advanced that combination of opinions?

  • mad_kalak||

    I went back and re-read all your comments carefully after letting this thread sit overnight, and James, you're still tap dancing, not only about the travel ban by advancing an irrelevant non-option that was appropriately called out as "sorting hat," but for your nonsupport support for gun control.

    Meh.

  • James Pollock||

    " you're still tap dancing, not only about the travel ban by advancing an irrelevant non-option that was appropriately called out as "sorting hat," but for your nonsupport support for gun control."

    You're still a person who has to lie, twist, distort, and mischaracterize someone else in order to advance his own opinion.

    Go fuck yourself with your "sorting hat" and as many firearms as will fit.

  • Careless||

    No idea what you imagine your point to be here. You are irrelevant. We don't limit opinions to victims. Well, some people on the nutty Left do, but not normal humans

  • arch1||

    mad_kulak, your .000075% figure is way off.

    People considering the prospect of gun deaths don't care what year it happens, and certainly don't care per se how many guns there are in the US. What they care about is their life may be destroyed.

    Let's conservatively estimate that the average number of people whose death by firearm would destroy a given American's life is 3 (the person in question plus parents and/or spouse/children, depending on life phase).

    So the probability that an average American's life will be destroyed by gun death is about 3*(75*30,000)/325M, where the parens enclose the number of American gun deaths during an average 75 year lifetime, and the denominator is the US population.

    This is about 2%, disturbingly big as the likelihood of one's life being destroyed.

    Note this is significantly bigger than your spurious .000075%, for several reasons:
    a) you didn't multiply by 100 when converting to percent
    b) you calculated a per-year figure, but what's most relevant to peoples' real concern (their life being destroyed, in whatever year) is a per-lifetime figure

    Finally,
    c) you calculated a per-gun rather than a per-person rate. While numerically minor, this is a big conceptual error. It suggests, for example, that if the number of guns were to double, one's concern about gun safety should be halved(!) The analysis should be people-centric, not gun-centric (you know, we the people, whose well-being is ultimately the name of the game?).

  • mad_kalak||

    Ah, nice catch that I forgot to move the decimal place over from .000075 to .0075. World of difference that.

    Now, I specifically said "per year," so you're claim that it was spurious is not quite correct, because I was making that caveat, along with the limitation of chances to get shot "per gun." Though, thank you for extending the analysis.

    So, since you are correct that we should worry about people, not guns, let's exclude the number of suicides (since someone else can't force me to commit it). That halves our number to 15,000 gun deaths per year. That makes it .00375% ((15,000/400,000,000)*100) chance per year that I will be shot with a particular gun, which with somebody has to have on hand, in order to shoot me with it. That means we are talking about people then.

    If we take the big (and I mean big) assumption that everyone's risk of being shot is the same (which it's not, most gun murders are related to the drug trade) then your lifetime change would be .0285% over a 75 year lifespan (.0000375 * 75). That's still pretty low.

    Look, the point I am trying to make, because I realize that these analyses are silly on their face, in that the risk is overall very low. But we humans don't evaluate risk very well. The X-games guy that likes to go rock climbing also has a well funded retirement plan, ya know?

  • James Pollock||

    Can't use logic OR a caluculator?

    Such a surprise...

  • arch1||

    Thanks m_k. Your .0285% lifetime risk should be 0.285%, but we are converging.

    I see I can cut my 2% in half because suicide (though some suicides are ones of opportunity and would presumably not occur if no ez firearm access), Ignoring that, I'm now down to 1% risk of (non-suicide) life being destroyed by firearm death.

    Your 0.285% is still wacky because it's a per-gun figure, which doesn't matter to anyone. Also because it ignores the impact of violent sudden deaths of loved ones, a huge impact (most parents say they'd rather die than have a child die; unless such words are empty, they count for something).

    My 1% is still arguably wacky (as you observe) because of correlation of gun deaths w/ lifestyle choices such as drug trade. Not sure how we adjust for this (ignore deaths of those working dangerous professions, e.g. dealers/cops? only ones whose activities are illegal or of whom we disapprove?).

    We're probably at the point of diminishing returns in terms of further analysis. My takeway is that 0.5% risk of having one's life ended or seriously screwed up is in the general ballpark. That's a pretty big risk.

  • Toranth||

    Arch, you haven't defined your terms, you make false assumptions about populations, you ignore repetition, you fail to account for positive interactions, and (of course) your entire argument depends on 'feelz'.

    According to studies - including the CDC's - private gun ownership PREVENTS at least 2 million crimes per year. How many "lives destroyed" is that in your calculations?

  • mad_kalak||

    I agree that a per gun position is wacky, because almost invariably, the only ones killed with guns are inner city youth involved in the drug trade, which makes the .285% lifetime chance that any gun will be used against you as meaningless as can be. It's like saying your lifetime chance of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan is .285%...when you never join the military and thus never will be shot at by terrorists.

    Again, I only provided the correlation to show the low risk of the plethora of firearms, which for someone not dealing drugs, is essentially zero.

  • NToJ||

    "The general idea is that, if it's a constitutional right, you can't even inconvenience its exercise without a damned good reason. You can't just keep piling arbitrary rules..."

    The "damned good reason" test is also an arbitrary rule.

  • ||

    Sure, but at least it's consistent with the way the rest of the Constitutional is treated.

  • James Pollock||

    You've got three different levels with the way the rest of the Constitution is treated. (Strict, intermediate, and rational basis) Deciding which one to apply rather significantly affects the outcome, but calling it "consistent" would make anyone with even slight awareness of the topic laugh right in your face.

  • ||

    Except that neither intermediate nor rational basis are used for things that clearly infringe upon enumerated rights.

    If I recall correctly, intermediate is only used for sex discrimination (sex isn't even supposed to be covered by the 14th Amendment at all, which was written for race) and content neutral speech laws.

  • James Pollock||

    "Except that neither intermediate nor rational basis are used for things that clearly infringe upon enumerated rights."

    You might want to read this article before you make statements like this.

    I'll quote the most relevant sentence for your convenience:
    "Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson."

  • ||

    Are you being intentionally obtuse?

  • James Pollock||

    "Are you being intentionally obtuse?"

    No, I'm conversing with a stupid person. I can see why you'd be confused between the two.

  • Careless||

    James Pollock, who stridently argues that men and women are biologically identical, calls someone else "a stupid person"

    Look out, people! a flat earther is going to insult you!

  • James Pollock||

    "who stridently argues that men and women are biologically identica"

    Your brain injury, was it sudden onset, or a long slow decline to the point where your faculties only allow you to lie about people and what they said (or didn't say)?

  • Krayt||

    Four ways. "Congress shall make no law" is a value judgement made by The People that eviscerates "but we really, really, REALLYY WANNA override that freedom!"

    That's how it's supposed to be, anyway. You, the government, do not even have the option of deciding how many "really reallg really"s you need before you "get to" disobey the commandment.

  • James Pollock||

    "Four ways. 'Congress shall make no law' is a value judgement made by The People that eviscerates 'but we really, really, REALLYY WANNA override that freedom!'"

    You idealist, you.
    They obviously didn't mean to include (prevention of) obscenity in the First Amendment. Someone might write a story about having sex with someone who's underage, or worse yet, invent Photoshop and illustrate it. And we want to put them in prison for at least ten years if they do THAT.

    And for sure they didn't mean to make bein' a Commie and writing things that advocate for Communism, or for peace when we're trying to run a war.

    And we're going to want to kick John Lennon out of the country, before he starts planting "strawberries" in Central Park or somethin'.

  • NToJ||

    ""Congress shall make no law" is a value judgement made by The People that eviscerates "but we really, really, REALLYY WANNA override that freedom!""

    It's unlikely to say the least that the same people who enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts also adopted your broad view of the "value judgment" found in the 1A.

  • James Pollock||

    It is true that despite the first amendment leading off with "Congress shall make no law...", Congress has indeed made quite a few laws that did what the amendment tells them they can't do, and a fairly substantial number of them survived legal challenge at least once.

  • Joe_JP||

    "Do we treat any other fundamental, enumerated right that way?"

    No. We do regulate religious practice, speech, the press, assembly and petition in various ways, not allowing everything that literally fits one of those things, regulating and providing limits in a range of ways.

  • ||

    No we don't.

  • James Pollock||

    Well, if you do it differently in whatever country you're writing from, that's fine, but here in the U.S., we do.

  • ||

    No, we don't. No other right is regulated the way liberals think the RKBA should be.

  • James Pollock||

    Tell you what.
    Learn the way liberals think the RKBA should be, accurately, and not the way your other rightwingnut friends like to imagine it, and maybe we can have a discussion.

    As long as you insist on arguing both sides... the one you like and the imaginary one you don't like, but DO like imagining people you don't like, like... you're just a waste of time.

  • ||

    I've learned. Liberals want guns entirely banned, or they want them heavily regulated to the point where the ownership of one is a tightly regulated privilege, not a right.

  • James Pollock||

    This word "learned"... you're not using it correctly.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Right to a free press implies right to use paper? OK. But right to use paper implies the right to load as much of it as you want into your computer? Sketchy. "

  • James Pollock||

    If you're putting paper in your computer, I'm using my right to ignore your opinion on pretty much anything.

    Buh-bye, Bob.

  • ||

    You're a moron.

  • James Pollock||

    Perhaps. I'm demonstrably smarter than you, though.

  • James Pollock||

    So at least I have that goin' on.

  • DjDiverDan||

    There are two words in that sentence, "demonstrably" and "smarter", on which, judging by context, you are unclear of the meaning.

  • James Pollock||

    Woohoo! I'm smarter than TWO people!

  • DonP||

    Try Minneapolis Star Tribune vs. Commissioner

    Ruling that taxing ink and paper, was an infringement on lawful exercise of their 1st amendment rights.

    "On its face, this ruling finds that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently from any other business without significant and substantial justification. The state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. Therefore, this tax was in violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press."

  • Krayt||

    ===But right to bear ammunition implies the right to load as much of it as you want into your weapon? Sketchy.===

    Given the context of the 2nd, desire for control of that is even sketchier.

  • James Pollock||

    "Given the context of the 2nd, desire for control of that is even sketchier."

    OK. Does that change the point that finding that it would be unconstitutional to do so would be difficult to do with a straight face using an originalist approach, yet considerably easier using a modern approach? Because if it does, I don't see how.

  • ThomasD||

    Had you tried to argue the Constitutional validity of legal limits on powder horn volume I think the authors of the Second Amendment would have thought you touched.

  • ||

    "Under intermediate scrutiny, the question is not whether the state's evidence satisfies the district court's subjective standard of empiricism, but rather whether the state relies on evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant" to substantiate its important interests. So long as the state's evidence "fairly supports" its conclusion that a ban on possession of LCMs would reduce the lethality of gun violence and promote public safety, the ban survives intermediate scrutiny...."

    No. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the evidence show that the restriction is reasonably related to furthering the government interest. It doesn't give the state carte blanche to determine what evidence "fairly supports" its own conclusion. The level of "scrutiny" advocated by this "judge" would result in upholding every single law challenged under it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And, that was rather the point.

    Personally, I object to referring to 10 round magazines as "large capacity"; No, they're normal capacity, even on the low side.

  • ||

    Depends on the gun. The 10 round magazine I have for my S&W Shield (for which a 7 or 8 is standard) is large capacity. It's normal capacity for my Glock 26. It's low capacity for my Glock 19 or for my AR-15.

  • DjDiverDan||

    When I bought my Beretta 9mm, it came with 2 magazines, both 17 round capacity. I would not have had ANY magazines for that gun which complied with California law.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    There's a trick here. California law bans the sale, gifting, manufacture, or importation of larger magazines, but not the purchase or possession. But there is a loophole that armored car companies are allowed to sell normal magazines, and because purchase is legal, it would have been possible to buy 30 rounders if someone had been adventurous. Goofy or not, that at least used to be the law. Thus the additional weirdness of this law.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's part of the point: They want to make "California guns" an expensive specialty item, the permissible nature of which is constantly being churned to keep up the cost, and lower the availability.

    Basically, they're trying to dance along the bare edge of getting their laws slapped down by the judiciary; If they could just flat out ban guns, they would.

  • James Pollock||

    You already have California automobile emissions standards as effectively national because there's no point in making two models of every car, a California model and a rest-of-US model. And Texas has that kind of sway in K-12 school books.

    And you get a perverse incentive NOT to improve gun safety, because successfully doing so would affect owners of existing guns, and they, as a group, are VERY concerned consumers.

  • ||

    The only way to "improve gun safety," the way liberals mean, is to ban all guns.

  • James Pollock||

    Yes, well, I mean it in the sense of "cause less damage to human tissue that was unintended at the time."

    But yes, thank you for illustrating my point that "are VERY concerned consumers" = "Have a lot of fucking paranoids among them."

  • ||

    Maybe that's what YOU mean, but it's not what the left in general means.

    And in my experience, the only people who malign others as "paranoid" are those who are trying to do exactly what the so called "paranoid" people fear they are trying to do.

  • James Pollock||

    "Maybe that's what YOU mean, but it's not what the left in general means."

    According to your tag, you're not even a member of the left in general, so I'll go ahead and take a pass on your attempt to speak for them.

    "And in my experience, the only people who malign others as "paranoid" are those who are trying to do exactly what the so called "paranoid" people fear they are trying to do."

    Well, now your experience includes something else.

    And I didn't make any mention of paranoia until you started saying paranoid things.
    There's a cause-and-effect at work there.

  • susancol||

    It isn't paranoia if they really *are* out to get you. Ample numbers of clear statements of the wish to ban all firearms are documented.

  • Sarcastr0||

    No, it's paranoia.
    Some quotes versus the demonstrably scattered positions throughout the actual Democratic party. Banning guns isn't anything near a plank in the Dem platform.

    But, of course, that's just a ruse and they're all lying to fool the rubes that aren't as plugged in as you!

  • ||

    Cut the BS. Every major Democrat Party leader has called for an Australia style ban and confiscation. The fact that the party doesn't currently have the ability to implement it doesn't mean that it's not a sincere and mainstream belief.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Every major Democrat Party leader has called for an Australia style ban and confiscation.

    Weird how this party hell-bent on confiscation still funds pro-gun candidates in both Congress and the Senate.

  • ||

    Maybe they did 20 years ago, but they do not today. Every Democrat largely falls in line. Even people who were formerly "pro gun" like Gillib*tch (D-NY) and Wanker (D-VA).

  • Sarcastr0||

    Maybe they did 20 years ago, but they do not today

    You're just throwing out what you feel as facts, now?

    Check out Arizona, for instance.

  • James Pollock||

    "Even people who were formerly "pro gun" like Gillib*tch (D-NY) and Wanker (D-VA)."

    Maybe they stopped supporting you because you started calling them names like a third-grader?

  • James Pollock||

    "Every major Democrat Party leader"

    You tip your hand with this one.
    If you were listening to actual leaders of the Democratic Party, you'd know that the "Democrat Party" is an invention of right-wing media.

    Here's some news you apparently aren't hip to: Democrats gots guns, too.

  • Krayt||

    I thought the politicians swore up and down registry lists would never be used to track owners for confiscation.

    They wouldn't be festering liars, would they?

  • James Pollock||

    "Ample" numbers? There are some people who'd like to ban private ownership of firearms and confiscate them all. They are so few in number as to be not taken seriously.

    Oh, no! The scary boogiemen are coming to take all the guns! -- not even scary on Halloween.

  • ||

    No, they're not few in number. A full HALF of Democrats want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is not a small, fringe few.

  • Sarcastr0||

    A full HALF of Democrats want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    Another unsupported 'fact.' I've googled, and it looks like you're a liar to me!

  • ||

    Sorry only 39%

  • James Pollock||

    Yeah, thing is, I'm taking a pass on your attempt to speak for Democrats, because you aren't one of them and apparently don't know how to use Google, either.

  • James Pollock||

    "No, they're not few in number."
    Yes. They are.

    Your chosen political party would like you to think they are everywhere, and just on the verge of getting their way unless you send money now, and vote for their candidates. And send in some more money. And keep voting for our guys.

    It's funny that it still works, because it requires that you stick to only news media which backs up the lie, and literally any other source of news would tell you the truth.
    Of course, that's assuming you have any interest in the truth. Do you?

  • ||

    Why do you insist on lying? 39% of Democrats want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns. More than half of America now identifies as Democrats because you liberals have been successful in importing tens of millions of worthless third worlders who vote for food stamps and other free stuff. Do the math.

  • James Pollock||

    "Why do you insist on lying?"
    ... followed by a paragraph of lies.
    LOL.

  • NToJ||

    "39% of Democrats want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns."

    Can you post the link to the poll? Because wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment and wanting to ban all guns are not the same thing.

  • ||

    No, the comment system here won't let me link. Google it and it comes up in the first few results. Anyway, yes, practically speaking, they are. People want to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to ban guns.

  • James Pollock||

    Why do you keep claiming to speak for somebody else?

    Would it be OK if I said that 39% of actual right wing nitwits favor bestiality with farm livestock? Goats, specifically?

    Hell, I didn't make any attempt to find out how widespread it is, but 100% of the ones I've interacted with recently had a very high interest in male-male anal sex.

  • NToJ||

    "People want to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to ban guns."

    Not necessarily. Someone may want more restrictions than are currently permitted under current 2A jurisprudence, but less regulations than "ban all guns". For instance, I think Heller was wrongly decided and think the 2A needs repealing because of that, but I don't agree with the specific gun regulation at issue in that case, and wouldn't support that time of regulatory regime in my own state. (If others want to do so, they should be free to do so, in my view.)

  • ||

    If you think Heller was wrongly decided, you[r'e saying you don't think the 2nd Amendment provides any individual right. If that's the case, why do you disagree with the regulation at issue?

  • James Pollock||

    "If you think Heller was wrongly decided, you[r'e saying you don't think the 2nd Amendment provides any individual right."

    If that's the part of Heller you think was wrongly decided. It's entirely possibly to support the right to possess firearms, and still not like Heller's specific outcome.

  • ||

    There really isn't.

  • NToJ||

    "If that's the case, why do you disagree with the regulation at issue?"

    Because I can think that banning certain firearms is a bad idea as a matter of policy without also thinking that banning them is unconstitutional. I also might think, crazy as it might seem to you, that people in Chicago and Washington D.C. should be free to govern themselves differently than we do in Texas.

  • NToJ||

    Also you can link this way:

    Place the link in the following text +a href=[link]+"[text]+/a+ where you replace the +s with < and >.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Democrats outnumber Republicans -- especially educated, tolerant, reasoning, accomplished Americans who live in modern, successful communities -- tend to register as Democrats because they oppose the belligerent ignorance, stale bigotry, childish superstition, and general backwardness of the Republican Party.

    As the American electorate continues to improve -- it is destined to become less rural, less white, less bigoted, less rural, and less religious -- it will likely become more difficult to lash together an effective electoral coalition for ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.

    This -- with the progress effected by America's liberal-libertarian alliance for more than a half-century -- explains America's greatness.

  • Krayt||

    The mere fact this bit of rhetoric has risen to talking point status belies the ultimate goal of confiscating all guns.

  • ||

    "And you get a perverse incentive NOT to improve gun safety, because successfully doing so would affect owners of existing guns..."

    This. My Springfield XD is illegal in California because it has a trigger and grip safety. A safety that cant be disabled by any child
    with a thumb, but fuck that, cause regulationz haz me feel safer.

  • ||

    Wait, guns with no manual safeties are illegal in CA?

  • mad_kalak||

    There are only 813 handguns on the approved list of CA legal guns.

    "As of January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement."

    https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns

    SAAMI standards, industry self regulation, the free market, and the occasional lawsuit do a better job of "regulating" handgun safety than any government agency. California list is about reducing choices.

    Guns were removed from the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authority as far back as 1976 to keep "safety" regulations from working as a backdoor ban, like the 1968 Gun Control Act's "sporting purposes test" acts as a backdoor ban on certain types of guns.

    But at the state level, CA can do what it wants, and if the market is big enough, then gun makers will go along with it (as noted already) has happened with other safety standards. However, gun makers have not done this, as the market outside of CA is still to big.

  • ||

    Interesting. What really needs to happen is for the manufacturers to refuse to sell any guns to California police agencies.

  • mad_kalak||

    While it makes for good optics, they would go to a foreign manufacturer I suspect. Did Barrett's refusal to sell guns to CA have any effect? I don't think so.

    That general tactic was part of the gun control tort lawsuits. Cities that settled with S&W promised police contracts with S&W to keep them afloat during the backlash against them, but since the average cops gun is swapped out every 10 years, it was to little to late and the company went bankrupt and was sold by the Brit owners. It is alleged that the Bush administration, which repudiated the S&W agreement steered federal contracts to S&W to get them back on their feet.

  • ||

    So then Congress should prohibit the importation of guns for police agencies in states where civilians can't also buy them.

  • NToJ||

    That smells like an anti-commandeering problem. If the feds don't want California to regulate guns, they can just take over the regulations and use preemption.

  • Joe_JP||

    An argument can be made that the 2A suggests states should have somewhat more discretion in this specific area like was the case with the 1A & to the degree it increases the right to own a firearm, there wouldn't be a 14A individual rights problem either.

    How seriously that argument would be taken in the next few years is somewhat unclear but can see more potential of it especially if the Roberts Court brokers a compromise with Breyer/Kagan to allow a good amount of gun regulations as part of the deal.

  • James Pollock||

    "So then Congress should prohibit the importation of guns for police agencies in states where civilians can't also buy them."

    That's it. I'm calling bullshit that this is a serious position. Disarm the police? That's a leftist position.

  • mad_kalak||

    Naw, it's a serious position. Just meant to get their attention, though that's all. Nobody expects the police to be unarmed.

    Do a search for "The Barrett effect: it's time to stop selling firearms to government agencies in California"

  • Chem_Geek||

    I expect the police to be unarmed; it works in the U.K.

  • James Pollock||

    The UK police aren't as "unarmed" as the gun-control advocates would lead you to believe.

  • ThomasD||

    "Disarm the police? That's a leftist position."

    No, it is not. Especially in any jurisdiction that disarms the citizenry.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    If somehow Ruger or Smith and Wesson developed some radical new technology that would allow the semi-auto handguns they made to never, ever fire unless it was safe to do so these guns would not be legal in California. The state roster of "not unsafe handguns" requires that any semi-auto handgun sold to the masses in California have, among other things, a microstamping capability that does not exist. So yes. There is a perverse incentive to not improve gun safety created by the lawmakers and bureaucrats in California.

  • NToJ||

    The "fairly supports" language comes from City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. It was a plurality opinion written by O'Connor, joined by Scalia and Thomas.

  • ||

    Yes, but that case also laid out that the government has the burden of proving its evidence actually does support the interest and allows the other side to dispute it. The judge in this case advocated for letting the government make its own determination as to how the evidence should be "weighed."

    In any event, an enumerated right should not be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny, but strict.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    A district court issuing a national injunction!? Aren't those one of those "bad" things that I am supposed get angry over? It's like it was just a month ago that the following was posted by EV

    I just wanted to note that in today's Trump v. Hawaii decision, Justice Thomas has a separate concurrence that argues against "nationwide injunctions" (or "national injunctions," or as Justice Thomas labels them, "universal injunctions")—injunctions that "prohibit the Government from enforcing a policy with respect to anyone, including nonparties." Our own Sam Bray has written extensively on such injunctions (not at all limited to the ones against the travel bans), including in a recent Harvard Law Review article; the concurrence cites that article nine times. Congratulations to Sam for having his work so prominently noticed!"

    Why not write blog post criticizing the district court for issuing one of these "universal injunctions" in this case?

  • ||

    Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

  • James Pollock||

    Was it a national injunction? I thought it was a California law.

  • Eugene Volokh||

    QuantumBoxCat: I don't have strong views on the universal injunction question; Sam does, but I don't. But I do like to note when my cobloggers' work is cited by courts, whether I agree with it, disagree with it, or have no firm opinion.

  • jph12||

    "A district court issuing a national injunction!?"

    The district court did not issue a national injunction. A national injunction of a state law that only applies within the state is nonsensical.

    "It's like it was just a month ago that the following was posted by EV"

    And I'm curious what you see in Eugene Volokh's post as criticizing universal injunctions rather than congratulating Sam Bray for being cited nine times in a single Supreme Court concurrence.

  • Bored Lawyer||

    The injunction was not national -- it was against the California AG and all law enforcement officers in California.

    The question, though poorly stated, is still a valid question. Justice Thomas' recent concurrence on the issue pointed out that traditionally injunctions are to protect the interests of the plaintiff(s), not to enforce the Constitution generally.

    In this case there were ten plaintiffs. They claimed this new law violates their 2nd and 5th Amendment rights. The court agreed. So that means they are entitled to an injunction. But why should the court enjoin the state from enforcing this law against anyone? Even those who are not plaintiffs?

    To be clear, the answer is not obvious. These plaintiffs asked for and got an injunction that extends to the entire state and every law enforcement officer in California. Which makes some sense -- they want to be able to possess these items anywhere. So that means the entire state has to be enjoined from enforcing the law against them, at least.

    Would it be workable to order, you may not enforce this law against these ten people, but you still can against everyone else?

    (This is a bit different than, for example, the funding cases. Chicago sues that funding is being improperly withheld. The Court can order funding to continue to Chicago. No need to do so for LA or NY, for example.)

  • James Pollock||

    Was it an "as applied" challenge, or a claim that's facially unConstitutional?

    California, like some of the other big states, produces a challenge, because the whole state is not contained within the authority of the District Court. In a smaller state, wholly contained in a single district, a ruling that the statute is facially unconstitutional would end the statute (pending appeal) An injunction against enforcement of the statute while its Constitutional validity is being determined is just judicial economy, saving the court the time and effort to deal with endless additional plaintiffs seeking the same outcome. The joinder mess would keep the court from addressing the question.

    California has several different federal districts, though, so you could wind up with a statute that's presumed valid in one district, and under litigation in one district, or even found unconstitutional in one district, all at the same time. So a single injunction against enforcement again seems like judicial economy... if it's a question of facial constiutionality.

    If it's as-applied, though, it has to be dealt with case-by-case.

  • jph12||

    "The question, though poorly stated, is still a valid question."

    No, the poorly stated question would have been valid had it been directed at Sam Bray, not Eugene Volokh. But Sam Bray didn't write the article and Eugene Volokh doesn't really care about universal injunctions.

    "But why should the court enjoin the state from enforcing this law against anyone? Even those who are not plaintiffs?"

    It quite possibly shouldn't.

    "Would it be workable to order, you may not enforce this law against these ten people, but you still can against everyone else?"

    Sure. If one of the plaintiffs gets questioned by the police, they just show them their injunction. Although one of the plaintiffs was a membership organization asserting its membership rights, so I'm not sure if it would have to be applied to all of its members as well.

  • AmosArch||

    Why is a >10 round magazine called 'large capacity'? I mean much of the time there is no reason to go with a

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    Because liberals don't have a logical argument to support their position, so they use an appeal to emotion fallacy to make them sound scary.

    Never mind the fact that these same magazines have been sold as standard companions to pistols and rifles for at least the past 30 years.

    Don't believe me? The Beretta 92FS - one of the more popular pistols of the 1980s, came standard with a 15 or 17 round magazine.

    STANDARD.

  • James Pollock||

    "Why is a >10 round magazine called 'large capacity'?"

    It's a nice, round number.

    If you haven't hit what you were shooting at by the time you're expending your tenth round, you shouldn't have been relying on your weapon for protection, anyway.

    Mass shooters are usually stopped when they reload. So making them reload sooner/more often helps anyone caught in their way. It's not much of a help, but you need all the help you can get, especially if the mass shooter has achieved tactical surprise.

  • ||

    Everyone you just wrote is false, and emblematic of someone who is totally ignorant about guns.

  • James Pollock||

    Everything I just wrote perfectly true, but it doesn't fit what you so desperately WANT to believe.
    This causes you to deny reality. I have some bad, bad news for you. Reality always wins.

    It's true, I don't spend a lot of time with little popguns. The ones I got to work on were more interesting.

  • Gunstar1||

    "Mass shooters are usually stopped when they reload."

    So you have some proof that this is true? Not just a hand full of examples, but some study or something that shows that is the majority of all the ways a mass shooting has been stopped.

  • Absaroka||

    His statement is not remotely close to true.

    For example, from the 2000-2013 Active Shooter Report (see 'Resolutions'):

    "The majority of the 160 incidents (90 [56.3%]) ended on the shooter's initiative—
    sometimes when the shooter committed suicide or stopped shooting, and other times when
    the shooter fled the scene."

    In addition to that 160 there were 36 where the police exchanged gunfire with the killer resulting in the killer's death, wounding, or surrender.

    Gary Kleck has studied the issue and concludes "News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were known to have been used, occurring in the United States in 1994–2013, were examined. There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload."

  • Absaroka||

    Oooooops, should be 'In addition to that 90...'

  • ThomasD||

    "If you haven't hit answered what you were shooting at addressing by the time you're expending your tenth round word, you shouldn't have been relying on your weapon aptitude for protection reason, anyway.

  • ThomasD||

    I'd further add, that if your assertion were true, or at least accepted as truth by the State of California then the first thing they would do is limit all of their armed employees to ten round magazines.

    No court fight required there.

    That they do not rather puts the truth to your position.

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    Do you hold police officers to the same standard that you'd like to hold private citizens to? What if you've hit your target, but they didn't go down? What if there's more than one target?

    You don't really know anything about guns, or shootouts, do you?

    Btw, "mass-shooters" are usually stopped when police arrive and they decide to kill themselves because armed resistance has finally arrived.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    How pretentious do you have to be to claim that 10 rds is enough to hit what you're shooting at? How many gun fights have you been in with adrenaline coursing through your bloodstream trying to hit a moving target? Who are you to make a decision for 100 million other gun owners? How can you possibly know of all the potential incidents?

    Let's look at statistics from NYC cops. They hit their targets less than 30% of the time & it typically takes 3 hits to stop an attacker (unlike the single shot typically shown in the movies). That's a minimum of 9 rounds to take out a single attacker. If there are multiple attackers... well that's why you need magazines with more than 10 rounds.

    http://tinyurl.com/y8ermtql

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    You are incorrect about mass shootings 'usually' being stopped during reloading. The FBI report put out for 2016-2017 shows out of 50 incidents, 13 committed suicide, 11 killed by police, 8 stopped by citizens, & 18 apprehended.

    The truth is, most mass shooters either kill themselves (or suicide by cop) or surrender when met with force, i.e., someone else armed.

  • AmosArch||

    Comments are not showing up for some reason

  • James Pollock||

    Yes, it is.
    My guess is you're trying to say something that the comment system is set up to censor.

  • Rigelsen||

    So being forced to turn the magazines in in does not comprise a taking according to Judge Wallace because they can move them out of state instead? What the hell? Is there any precedence for this in any other area of constitutional law?

  • James Pollock||

    During prohibition, some production of beer and spirits was allowed for export. Of course, there was no question as to whether prohibition was Constitutional.

  • ||

    Yes, because they passed an amendment specifying that.

  • James Pollock||

    Yes, I was aware of this.

  • Kazinski||

    "But here, LCM owners can comply with § 32310 without the state physically appropriating their magazines. Under § 32310(d)(1), an LCM owner may "[r]emove the large-capacity magazine from the state," retaining ownership of the LCM, as well as rights to possess and use the magazines out of state."

    Not much of a substantial burden at all. A state with 10% percent of the population and 5% of the land area, everyone can effortlessly move their offending magazines to another state. Despite the fact all the population centers are separated from any other state by some of the most imposing mountain and desert barriers anywhere in the US.

    I suppose you could UPS your magazines to another state but where? Do they have a MagazineStorageRUs.com already set up? I know Google will give me 15gb of storage for free but I don't know how many magazines it will hold, or how to upload my magazines in the first place or whether Google drive stores them out of state anyway.

  • James Pollock||

    What happens if you have a car that can't meet Califormia emissions standards? You can still own it, you just can't register it to drive on California public roadways, is all.

  • PeteRR||

    A "car" in this case that did comply with previous state law is only now made illegal to possess. The "car" didn't change, the law did.

  • James Pollock||

    Yes. The idea of passing the new emissions standards was to get the cars that couldn't pass off the road. You do, of course, have the option of taking that car to, say, Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona, and continuing to operate it on the roadways there (assuming that none of those states have yet passed the same emissions standards as California.) Might have to drive it over the border to Mexico. But it's still your car, and you're free to do with it what you wish, except, you know, drive it in California.

  • PeteRR||

    All older cars are always grandfathered in the US.

  • James Pollock||

    Like hell they are. In Oregon, only part of the state is covered by mandatory emissions testing. In those regions, you either pass your DEQ emissions test or you don't get any tags.

  • PeteRR||

    Oregon has mandated stricter regulations for older cars than previously required? And fails them even if they meet those previous emission requirements?

  • James Pollock||

    ORS 815.295 et seq.

  • PeteRR||

    Well. Your link doesn't back up your point. Perhaps you could quote the portion that bans cars that met previous levels of legality.

  • James Pollock||

    If you'd like me do legal research for you, I'll have to bill you. You can probably get a paralegal to do it for you cheaper.

  • PeteRR||

    I figured you had nothing.

  • James Pollock||

    You asked questions about the law, and I pointed you where to find the answers.

    You didn't want to do the work, and that's MY failing? Fuck off, hoser.

  • Careless||

    Given your frequent proven falsehoods in this and other threads, do you think people will actually believe you waving vaguely at some law, James?

  • FlameCCT||

    Are you like CNN? Can't tell the difference between apples and oranges?

    This is more like CA passing a law that the gas tank can only hold 5 gallons when 16-20 gallon tanks are standard for passenger vehicle and 50-100 gallon tanks are standard for large trucks. You can still own the car or truck however CA law has basically made it unusable.

  • James Pollock||

    You're not very good at analogies.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Should we expect to hear from Prof. Volokh as much about Maria Butina -- the Russian who moved so easily and boldly among Republican, conservative, right-wing circles in America, with a particular interest in gun nuts, before she was arrested and charged -- as we have heard from Prof. Volokh about Judge Kozinski (Kozinski after the revelations, not Kozinski before the revelations).

  • BillyG||

    Should we expect to hear from Prof. Volokh ..... as we have heard from Prof. Volokh....

    Hmm...

    Carry on, Tyrant.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If this material is difficult for you to apprehend, BillyG, ask someone with an education to try to explain it.

  • James Pollock||

    Actually, tyrants have historically been on your side, the side of people who can't or won't read for content, rather than on the side of the people who do.

  • ||

    Why? Its a nothing burger. No story there.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Which is "no story," in your judgment -- the arrest of an ostensibly ready-to-flee Russian plant who was in it up to her flirty earlobes with American conservatives and gun nuts, or the prospect that a couple of prominent Russian gun enthusiasts immersed in America's right-wing politics might have intersected during Ms. Butina's years of operations in the United States?

  • James Pollock||

    Make it a conservative issue.
    She was here on a student visa. Student visas do not permit employment.

    She was here TAKING AMERICANS' JOBS!

    Mr. Gorbachev! BUILD THAT WALL!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is a conservative issue.

    She requested Russian funding to attend Republican Party events.

    She was part of a Russian "back channel" through the National Rifle Association.

    The flabby old dude she shacked up with -- while, apparently, telling her handlers how repulsive he was and offering to get busy with another right-wing goober in exchange for information -- was a conservative and Republican Party operative.

    She spoke to conservative audiences at right-wing events.

    Maria The Russian Moll was as conservative as a guy wearing a NASCAR jacket and Trump hat while eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich and sucking snuff at a revival meeting.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Should we expect the Rev. Arthur Kirkland to expound on the involvement of foreign plutocrat George Soros with US anti-gun groups?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Anti-gun, or anti-gun nut?

  • Sarcastr0||

    When Soros starts trading sexual favors for access, we can talk.

    Until that point, we have something quite like a Russian spy versus a philanthropist whose causes you don't care for.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    Create your own blog to pontificate about whatever topic suits you. Prof. Volokh had made it clear many times that he covers the topics he is interested in, not what you want him to cover.

    Of course, you're really just trying to smear him

    Carry on, slaver.

  • Marley44||

    Why is Judge Batts's status as "the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge" relevant to her reasoning in this case? Don't her arguments stand on their own?

  • James Pollock||

    In today's America, a substantial number of news consumers need to know which partisan/ideological faction a person belongs to in order to assess their reliability. Oh, you're in that other faction? You're lying, then, and I'm against anything you say.

  • rsteinmetz||

    I'm more interested in how she got on this panel. It seems a long way from her home court. Unless she moved to CA, after taking Senior Status.

  • jph12||

    How else was she going to get a free trip to California?

  • ||

    It's relevant because LGBT and blacks, even individually, tend to be evil leftists who hate the West and our Constitution. The point is that if even a black gay judge rules against this ban, it must be really unconstitutional.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What about women? Should they even be permitted to vote?

  • ||

    No, and no.

  • James Pollock||

    This is why nobody values your opinion.

    Well, one of the reasons.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I value his opinion. I believe the more conservatives can be persuaded to express their true positions -- especially the opinions they have become guarded about in public -- the better.

  • BillyG||

    Should we expect to hear from Prof. Volokh ..... as we have heard from Prof. Volokh....

    Hmm...

    Carry on, Tyrant.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Prof. Volokh stopped talking about Judge Kozinski when Judge Kozinski's career-capsizing conduct was publicly revealed, and in particular when people started asking those who had been cozy with Judge Kozinski what they knew and when they knew it. We probably won't know the truth until Billy Wayne Ruddick Jr. broadcasts the interview.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Why should Prof Volokh comment on Butina, of whom neither you nor I had ever heard prior to the day before yesterday?
    Why would you expect a person to stomp on a former colleague who is no longer in the public eye?
    Why haven't you explicitly disavowed Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Donna Brazile, and James Hodgkinson?
    (Once you are through with that list I have hundreds more people whom you can disavow or risk being labelled a shill.)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why would you expect a person to stomp on a former colleague who is no longer in the public eye?

    Why do you conclude that telling the truth would constitute "stomping on a former colleague" (whom Prof. Volokh readily discussed before the inconvenient information emerged).

    Carry on, clingers.

  • James Pollock||

    "Why should Prof Volokh comment on Butina, of whom neither you nor I had ever heard prior to the day before yesterday?"

    Because yesterday, she became substantially more newsworthy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Oh, I think it is relatively safe to assume the Volokh Conspiracy will not consider Maria Butina to be worthy of mention.

    Unless she took time off from being a Russian conduit to American right-wingers long enough to take a job at a strong university and do something that offends the sensibilities of movement conservatives, in which case we can expect the Volokh Conspiracy to be all over her like . . . well, like an affection-starved, flabby, balding, white, gun-fondling, right-wing goober and longstanding Republican operative from one of our can't-keep-up states, such as South Dakota.

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    These aren't even "Large Capacity Magazines."

    They're the standard-sized magazines sold for the last 40+ years, now being labeled "Large Capacity" in an emotional fallacy to illegally restrict the Second Amendment.

    California needs to fall into the Pacific already and do the US a favor.

  • James Pollock||

    "These aren't even 'Large Capacity Magazines."'"

    Depends on what you compare to.
    Compared to a muzzle-loading musket, 10 rounds is very large capacity, indeed.
    Compared to an M61A1 ammunition reserve, that's not even enough to warm up the gun.
    YMMV

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    Fun fact:

    Muzzle-loading muskets, and the Vulcan minigun, are not magazine-fed weapons. Therefore, using them in comparison to determine what is a "standard size magazine" is fallacious.

    Care to try again?

  • Charles Nichols - CRTC||

    There are thus far 243 comments, mostly by the same handful of "people" and mostly arguing about things which have nothing to do with the decision handed down.

    I suppose I should be thankful that the time spent and wasted by the tinfoil crowd here is time they can't spend inflicting actual harm elsewhere.

  • Carlos Jose||

    Good on the judges for upholding the Second Amendment.

    In time, more people will appreciate having the Second Amendment ... particularly if there are presidents like Trump willing to broaden the unspeakable powers afforded within the Patriot Act, wireless wiretapping, War Powers Act, attacks on a free press, and incarceration without a right to trial or representation. Yeah, all of those levers are NOW available to a president and don't think for a moment that a man like Trump would not use military forces to bring down mass protests and work stoppages.

    And a power-lusting president isn't the only enemy where the Second Amendment could be an unthinkable but necessary tool for the citizenry. We have a State government that has already attacked other states with sanctions, moved to nullify the Constitution (which is counterproductive of civil rights decisions e.g. anti-segregation rulings like Cooper v. Aaron), and seized even basic liberties e.g. pet buying restrictions, bans on natural furniture products like lemon or orange oil, forced buying of more ammo than hunters would normally buy, and even forcing gramma living in the sticks to buy a shopping bag because Santa Monica has a landfill crisis.
    And honestly, I have zero idea why it matters that the appellate court includes a black, LGBTQ judge. All people have been created as equivalent during embryogenesis, and as delivered at birth.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online