Large-capacity magazines are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are not essential to the use of firearms… Additionally, large-capacity magazines are not protected “arms” because they are not commonly used for self-defense. [More]
Since that directly follows an “Overview of Bruen’s text-and-history standard for analyzing Second Amendment claims,” I wonder what Tench would say to that…?
Legal weasel Rob Bonta proves the point that if you limit arguments to “self-defense” and ignore core purpose, you’re not using every means at your disposal.
[Via Jess]
I live in an English speaking country (USA) so why can’t we use simply English, 70+ pages of lawyers BS and I’m not sure what it says. I’m sure it could be summed up in a paragraph if it was intended to be understood.