Tag: magazine bans

Seriously?

Polls reveal most Americans favor laws limiting the capacity of firearms magazines to 10 rounds, and the New York Times reports that several generally pro-gun federal legislators have expressed support for such legislation. [More]

I read that and my immediate thought was “Who?” and to go kick some Vichycon @$$.

So to prove that he links to a 10-year-old article and the “pro-gun federal legislators” were Harry Reid and other Democrats?

This is “thinking seriously”…?

[Via bondmen]

Wrong Things on Trial

“The Fifth District’s ruling is a victory for The Buckeye Institute and its clients, and all residents of Columbus who want to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. The ruling means Judge Gormley’s preliminary injunction barring the city from enforcing its unlawful gun magazine ban stands and that our clients will have their day in court.” [More]

When will the rights deniers under cover of false authority have THEIR day in court?

Enduring the Interminable

While we are gratified and encouraged by the recent victory in Harney County, it’s important to note that legal efforts to protect the most fundamental rights of gun owners are a long way from over. [More]

Unless the tunnel being dug is redirected, I’m not sure seeing light at the end of it would be a good thing.

Flight of the Nazgûl 

Ninth Circuit issues partial stay in California large-capacity gun magazine case – The four dissenting judges railed against the majority decision, calling the Ninth Circuit’s attitude about the Second Amendment “laughably absurd.” [More]

Except this is no laughing matter.

The Ninth Circuit wrote the book on Second Amendment absurdity going back to their “no individual right” days when the late, dunderheaded Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote:

Moreover, even if we determined that Hickman had standing to sue for violation of the Second Amendment, his suit would nevertheless fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

[Via Jess]

We’re the Only Ones with Diminished Capacity Enough

LAPD has sent out a memo notifying officers that they can no longer carry any handgun magazines with a capacity of more than 18 rounds, on or off duty. [More]

I’ll be looking for corroboration because I don’t see this linked to a verifiable LAPD source.

[Via Jess]

The Ghost is Clear?

In Vanderstok federal case involving challenges to ATF’s rulemaking concerning Biden’s Ghost Gun regulations redefining frames and receivers, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to uphold the lower court’s preliminary injunction pending the outcome of this lawsuit. [Watch]

There’s still a way to go, but for now, it’s the antis that are set back.

Tangentially-Related UPDATE

THIS KEEPS GETTING WORSE: Anti-Gun 9th Circuit Judges Playing Games With the 2nd Amendment [Watch]

Judicial Nazgûl continue to circle…

[Via Jess]

Judicial Skulduggery

So the Ninth Circuit has immediately declared they’re going to handle this case en banc without allowing a three judge panel to hear it first… [Watch]

The only real question: Will the Supreme Court let 9th Circuit Democrat apparatchiks get away with how they’ve signaled they intend to rule?

[Via Jess]

Magazine Cover

Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [More]

Judge Benitez had better stay healthy.

Related UPDATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) launched a savage attack on a federal judge on social media Friday evening, calling U.S. Judge Roger T. Benitez “an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to [sic] human life.” [More]

Rhetoric like that ought to inspire the unhinged…

[Via bondmen]

Out with the Old

Iverson rolled over for virtually everything the far left wanted. Her “leadership” set back Oregon in ways that would be hard to calculate. [More]

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when the best you can say about whoever will replace her is there’s a chance they may not be as bad.

In tangentially related news, it looks like the judge is seeing how the law can result in “disparate policing” and discriminatory enforcement.

Something in Common

Just as they chose handguns in Heller, the American people in large numbers have chosen to arm themselves for their protection with ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than ten rounds. Because the arms at issue are “in common use” and typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, Washington’s ban violates the Second Amendment. [More]

The common use the Founders were interested in is by the military. That’s why they said “arms.”

[Via Jess]

The Irony is Lost

The state has been relying on “expert witnesses” who are attempting to prove that early firearms do not have the capacity of modern firearms. Why you need “expert” witnesses to prove this is hard to understand. But the notion that our constitution only protects things in existence 200 years ago is odd when the argument is taking place in a courtroom filled with computers and flat screen TV’s, fed by the internet, and protected by metal detectors. [More]

Add a Catch-22 on “ripeness” and you get a feel for what they’re up against.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to hold fast on denyng a quorum, so “Attaboys” to them.

Time for a Change

Yesterday, the state presented an “expert” witness who hilariously claimed that it takes 5 seconds or more to change a magazine. This false and absurd statement was made in an effort to convince the court that low capacity magazines will protect people in mass shootings by giving them time to run away. [More]

A moron presenting himself as an expert testifying that an abomination bent on slaughter would nonetheless obey magazine restrictions did not result in his being laughed out of the courtroom? Who is this guy?

Unconditional Surrenders Only

NY Anti-Gun Attorney General Files Lawsuit Against Gun Accessory Manufacturer [More]

Of course, it’s wrong.

I’m just trying to work up sympathy for companies and citizens that try to comply with tyranny in the first damn place. I’m also wondering why, aside from a few notable individuals like Barrett and Hornady, the industry and its trade association are committed to arming the disarmers.

Oh, It’s the Safety Dance

In particular, the court explained, “the text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected.” Id. at 18. “Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition.” [More]

So it was the Founders’ contention that only “safe” arms were “necessary to the security of a free State”?

[Via Jess]

A Good First Step

Delaware County judge blocks Columbus gun ordinance enforcement [More]

But there are still miles to go, this is not the only road to travel, and municipal governments have virtually unlimited tax plunder to throw at this, while rights defenders need to scrape for nickels.

If you’re an Ohio gun owner, are you helping with the load, either financially or through activism?

Judge Contrarian

In the case of Hanson v. District of Columbia, in the District Court of the District of Columbia, on April 20, 2023, federal Judge Rudolf Contreras issued an opinion holding standard capacity magazines which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are not protected under the rights which the Second Amendment was written to protect. [More]

This is the same robed Obama apparatchik who ruled against me and for Hunter Biden, so I guess I’m the one who’s “biased.”

“Confirmed by voice vote,” so all we really know is those “A”-rated Senate Republicans didn’t much care how their supporters would be treated…

Verified by MonsterInsights