9th Circuit appeals court strikes down CA magazine ban

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

https://apnews.com/11a1e49886a3143f2db3fbf5b10c5069

The three judge appeals panel sided with the initial judge's ruling in striking down CA's standard capacity magazine ban. CA's only recourse is the eleven judge appeals panel or the SCOTUS, where they will not receive a warm welcome. Welcome news for the constantly infringed "shall not be infringed" 2nd amendment.

[Benton]

Move to Kentucky.

Even the Democrats here pass looser and looser gun laws (one of the last pieces of gun legislation passed was Dem Will Coursey's bill to expand concealed carry; unfortunately, and oddly, he left office to seek another office and was replaced by a Republican who skips out on any firearms bills).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2020, 01:18 AM)Benton Wrote: Move to Kentucky.

Even the Democrats here pass looser and looser gun laws (one of the last pieces of gun legislation passed was Dem Will Coursey's bill to expand concealed carry; unfortunately, and oddly, he lost to a Republican who skips out on any firearms bills).

I'd prefer being able to live in my birth state without losing my constitutional rights.  But I appreciate your point.

[BmorePat87]

I don’t really care about magazine size all that much, but I do think phrases like limiting magazines to 10 bullets “exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of law-abiding citizens” is really silly.

No right is pure and being told you can only fire ten bullets before reloading doesn’t infringe on your ownership rights. Then again, I’ve never seen the appeal of guns.

[Belsnickel]

I was going to post this last evening, but I got lazy. I mostly agree with Pat's post. Granted, I have 15 rd magazines for one of my pistols, but my regular concealed carry is a 7+1 configuration.

[GMDino]

(08-15-2020, 02:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don’t really care about magazine size all that much, but I do think phrases like limiting magazines to 10 bullets “exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of law-abiding citizens” is really silly.

No right is pure and being told you can only fire ten bullets before reloading doesn’t infringe on your ownership rights. Then again, I’ve never seen the appeal of guns.

(08-15-2020, 08:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was going to post this last evening, but I got lazy. I mostly agree with Pat's post. Granted, I have 15 rd magazines for one of my pistols, but my regular concealed carry is a 7+1 configuration.

To cross over to another thread do you guys think this is a byproduct of NRA advertising more than gun owners themselves?

In other words the NRA has attempted to make gun owners afraid that "they" are coming for your guns so many who bought into it feel EVERY attempt to restrict anything is just the first step toward "them" inevitably going door to door and taking the weapons away from people?

I don't.  And I didn't care about this attempt either mainly because I didn't follow it enough to see if there was any logic that would allow it to survive through the courts.  I just get that knee jerk reaction from the 2A guys that every law is that start of that slippery slope that we as a country have never gone down concerning guns ever.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Too bad Americans will never know what it's like to live in a world where NOBODY has a firearm, unless it's a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun and where you never have to live in fear of someone else pointing another weapon at you...

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen someone up in arms about, on this board (and I live in JN).

If you can't kill/maim/whatever your target is, in 10 shots, then you shouldn't even an own a weapon period; will those 5 rounds really make a difference?

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2020, 10:01 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Too bad Americans will never know what it's like to live in a world where NOBODY has a firearm, unless it's a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun and where you never have to live in fear of someone else pointing another weapon at you...

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen someone up in arms about, on this board (and I live in JN).

If you can't kill/maim/whatever your target is, in 10 shots, then you shouldn't even an own a weapon period; will those 5 rounds really make a difference?

I read a study a long time ago that discussed how like 95% or more of self-defense scenarios are done in 5 shots or fewer. I definitely understand where you're coming from, here. Honestly, I rarely carry because I feel pretty safe most of the time, and when I do it is a sub-compact firearm that holds 7+1 9mm. That's all I need. That being said, while 95% or more of scenarios are done in just a few shots, there is still the off chance it will be more. You don't prepare for the statistical likelihood, you prepare for the worst case.

[Benton]

(08-15-2020, 10:01 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Too bad Americans will never know what it's like to live in a world where NOBODY has a firearm, unless it's a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun and where you never have to live in fear of someone else pointing another weapon at you...

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen someone up in arms about, on this board (and I live in JN).

If you can't kill/maim/whatever your target is, in 10 shots, then you shouldn't even an own a weapon period; will those 5 rounds really make a difference?

Yeah, well my 15 round mag comes in handy when I'm swarmed by murder hornets. And it'll be handier when Rona mutates and we've got zombies.

[Benton]

(08-15-2020, 01:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd prefer being able to live in my birth state without losing my constitutional rights.  But I appreciate your point.

My opinion, I like states having some leeway. If a community thinks a right needs to be strict, go for it; if it needs to be looser, go for it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2020, 02:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don’t really care about magazine size all that much, but I do think phrases like limiting magazines to 10 bullets “exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of law-abiding citizens” is really silly.

No right is pure and being told you can only fire ten bullets before reloading doesn’t infringe on your ownership rights. Then again, I’ve never seen the appeal of guns.

Any restriction on law abiding citizens should be subject to considerable scrutiny.  We all know criminals don't obey the law by definition, the guy committing armed robbery won't be overly concerned with the extra 3 years he'll serve, concurrently, for having a standard capacity magazine in the gun he uses to rob you.  The question then becomes what does this restriction prevent?  The answer, in this case, is very little.  You'd "save" far more lives by putting a governor on every vehicle that limits it to 65 MPH.  Why aren't we advocating this life saving measure?!?!

(08-15-2020, 08:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was going to post this last evening, but I got lazy. I mostly agree with Pat's post. Granted, I have 15 rd magazines for one of my pistols, but my regular concealed carry is a 7+1 configuration.

Yeah, but we've long ago established that you're a complete Fudd.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2020, 09:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: To cross over to another thread do you guys think this is a byproduct of NRA advertising more than gun owners themselves?

In other words the NRA has attempted to make gun owners afraid that "they" are coming for your guns so many who bought into it feel EVERY attempt to restrict anything is just the first step toward "them" inevitably going door to door and taking the weapons away from people?

When the Democratic nominee for POTUS flat out states he's backing a person who states he's for outright confiscation it's not the NRA putting this out there.  But check out Joe's gun platform, it's a wish list for every anti-gun organization in existence.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#

Quote:I don't.  And I didn't care about this attempt either mainly because I didn't follow it enough to see if there was any logic that would allow it to survive through the courts.  I just get that knee jerk reaction from the 2A guys that every law is that start of that slippery slope that we as a country have never gone down concerning guns ever.

Yes, you've adequately demonstrated you don't support the 2nd amendment, despite claiming otherwise.  On this we completely agree.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2020, 10:01 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Too bad Americans will never know what it's like to live in a world where NOBODY has a firearm, unless it's a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun and where you never have to live in fear of someone else pointing another weapon at you...

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen someone up in arms about, on this board (and I live in JN).

If you can't kill/maim/whatever your target is, in 10 shots, then you shouldn't even an own a weapon period; will those 5 rounds really make a difference?

(08-15-2020, 10:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read a study a long time ago that discussed how like 95% or more of self-defense scenarios are done in 5 shots or fewer. I definitely understand where you're coming from, here. Honestly, I rarely carry because I feel pretty safe most of the time, and when I do it is a sub-compact firearm that holds 7+1 9mm. That's all I need. That being said, while 95% or more of scenarios are done in just a few shots, there is still the off chance it will be more. You don't prepare for the statistical likelihood, you prepare for the worst case.

What if multiple people invade your home (which happens)?  As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Why would anyone be against a law abiding citizen owning such an item to defend themselves?

I appreciate that some people think themselves highly trained marksmen who will hit every target they aim for in a stressful situation.  Unfortunately, reality tends to be somewhat different.

[Von Cichlid]

(08-16-2020, 01:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What if multiple people invade your home (which happens)?  As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Why would anyone be against a law abiding citizen owning such an item to defend themselves?

I appreciate that some people think themselves highly trained marksmen who will hit every target they aim for in a stressful situation.  Unfortunately, reality tends to be somewhat different.

I had an M-4 Carbine the whole time I was in the Army and I am good with an AR-15, but I still would prefer a shotgun in a defensive posture in close quarters.  I always thought of an AR-15 as an offensive weapon for squad operations.  I think it'd be great for rapidly acquiring targets in the 25-100 yard range or when working with a team where precision is needed.

However, if it is just me in the dark and multiple people could be coming from anywhere, I would feel better with a shotgun.  

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 01:42 AM)Von Cichlid Wrote: I had an M-4 Carbine the whole time I was in the Army and I am good with an AR-15, but I still would prefer a shotgun in a defensive posture in close quarters.  I always thought of an AR-15 as an offensive weapon for squad operations.  I think it'd be great for rapidly acquiring targets in the 25-100 yard range or when working with a team where precision is needed.

However, if it is just me in the dark and multiple people could be coming from anywhere, I would feel better with a shotgun.  

 

To each their own.  I keep my Benelli M4 loaded for home defense.  I don't, personally, prefer a high velocity round for home defense due to over penetration.  Of course, 00 buck will tend to cause peripheral damage as well.  But my property is replaceable, my loved ones are not.

[Von Cichlid]

(08-16-2020, 02:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To each their own.  I keep my Benelli M4 loaded for home defense.  I don't, personally, prefer a high velocity round for home defense due to over penetration.  Of course, 00 buck will tend to cause peripheral damage as well.  But my property is replaceable, my loved ones are not.

I sleep on the couch each night, so peripheral damage to loved ones doesn't need to be considered!   

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2020, 01:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any restriction on law abiding citizens should be subject to considerable scrutiny.  We all know criminals don't obey the law by definition, the guy committing armed robbery won't be overly concerned with the extra 3 years he'll serve, concurrently, for having a standard capacity magazine in the gun he uses to rob you.  The question then becomes what does this restriction prevent?  The answer, in this case, is very little.  You'd "save" far more lives by putting a governor on every vehicle that limits it to 65 MPH.  Why aren't we advocating this life saving measure?!?!

A governor would save more lives, and proponents of lower speed limits will attest to that. We should have lower speed limits.

People not making a big deal over automobile deaths, however, isn't a good argument for not looking into good gun safety regulations. 

Most people accept the possibility that an accident can occur when they drive. They're far less likely to accept that someone might shoot them and 40 others on a whim. I think most people will agree that the intent and motive of an accident versus mass murder will always invoke different responses. Most people also see car companies tout new safety features, something we aren't seeing from the gun lobby.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-16-2020, 01:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What if multiple people invade your home (which happens)?  As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Why would anyone be against a law abiding citizen owning such an item to defend themselves?

Americans... I'm not even going to start to pick apart the ridiculous notion of this sentence.

Do keep in mind that you and 300+ million of the rest of Americans, aren't these, "special people," like you think you all are; nobody is going to go after your home, especially, "multiple people," unless you live in a very affluent neighbourhood or you have Fort Knox in your basement and a bunch of robbers become privy to that fact: you're going to be left alone. You're not special.

Where I grew up (Maple, Ontario), which is an upper-middle-class neighbourhood, we not only had a fair amount of home invasions, but our house was also broken into, a week after we moved in; you think anybody was clamoring for a law to be passed to carry guns or did you see a spike in gun sales at our local Bass Pro soon after?

The obsessive gun culture in the States is (part of) the problem with all the violence and crime you guys have and you're the only 1st-World/Fully-Developed country in the world that has this problem.]

But that's a discussion for another day :)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 02:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A governor would save more lives, and proponents of lower speed limits will attest to that. We should have lower speed limits.

People not making a big deal over automobile deaths, however, isn't a good argument for not looking into good gun safety regulations.

Why not?  "If we can save even one life!" 

Quote:Most people accept the possibility that an accident can occur when they drive. They're far less likely to accept that someone might shoot them and 40 others on a whim. I think most people will agree that the intent and motive of an accident versus mass murder will always invoke different responses. Most people also see car companies tout new safety features, something we aren't seeing from the gun lobby.

And they should see it that way, seeing as you're more likely to be struck by lightning than be involved in a mass shooting.  Fear, especially an irrational one, is a piss poor reason to draft legislation, especially when it takes away the rights of citizens.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 10:49 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Americans... I'm not even going to start to pick apart the ridiculous notion of this sentence.

Do keep in mind that you and 300+ million of the rest of Americans, aren't these, "special people," like you think you all are; nobody is going to go after your home, especially, "multiple people," unless you live in a very affluent neighbourhood or you have Fort Knox in your basement and a bunch of robbers become privy to that fact: you're going to be left alone. You're not special.

Well, I certainly wouldn't use the word "special" but I have had considerably more training with firearms than most Americans have and ever will.  I do find your comment about no one invading your home interesting, seeing as the odds of being the victim of a home invasion robbery are far higher than being the victim of a mass shooting.  Yet you utterly discount, even mock, the possibility of the far more likely incident ever occurring.  Interesting.

Quote:Where I grew up (Maple, Ontario), which is an upper-middle-class neighbourhood, we not only had a fair amount of home invasions, but our house was also broken into, a week after we moved in; you think anybody was clamoring for a law to be passed to carry guns or did you see a spike in gun sales at our local Bass Pro soon after?

I honestly don't care what laws Canada has or does not, seeing as I'm not Canadian.  You also have no rights in your country, only what the government allows you to have at the moment.  The US is not set up that way, thank god.  Also, your assertion that home invasions only occur in high end neighborhoods is false.  Seeing as I have investigated home invasions, several, and not one of them occurred in a "high end" neighborhood.

Quote:The obsessive gun culture in the States is (part of) the problem with all the violence and crime you guys have and you're the only 1st-World/Fully-Developed country in the world that has this problem.]

Not really.  The US has a gang violence problem.  Of the ~12,000 homicides with a firearm per year around 8,000 of them are criminals killing other criminals (and, unfortunately an innocent bystander on occasion).  Around another 1,000 of those are law enforcement killing a criminal.  So, if you're not a criminal, or hang out with criminals, you're talking 3,000 deaths a year.  While it's certainly tragic and horrible for any family affected by such a crime 3,000 deaths out of 300 million people is statistically insignificant.  Medical malpractice kills over a 100k per year.  Maybe we should defund the doctors?

Quote:But that's a discussion for another day :)

Or today, since it's the topic of the thread and all.