Tag: magazine bans

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…

‘There Can Be Only One’

“High-capacity magazines were designed for one purpose and one purpose only — high-capacity killing — and have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings in America,” Menendez said in a statement. [More]

Is that why you oath-breaking scumbag treasonous, tyrannical POS Democrats demand your trigger-happy enforcers be the “Only Ones” having them?

Any Person

“Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a fourth degree felony.” [More]

“Any person” would seem to include any person traversing the state on these interstates.

But don’t worry. Any person will be protected as a traverser. Maybe.

For this and other “concessions” on illegitimate claims against our birthrights “we” accepted the “voice vote” Hughes Amendment…?

Does any person doubt it will pass?

[H/T Henry]

UPDATE

Gun and Magazine Ban Bills Scheduled for Committee Hearings [More]

NMSSA says “It is absolutely imperative that gun owners speak out on these bills.”

Unintended Consequences

[T]he Attorney General’s Office has filed suit against Federal Way Discount Guns claiming that they unlawfully sold high capacity magazines in violation of RCW 9.41.370. However, while this is certainly bad news for that business, did the Attorney General just hand the plaintiffs in Sullivan v. Ferguson and Brumback v. Ferguson, the very “standing” that the AG claimed that the plaintiff’s lacked? [Watch]

Be nice to think the grabbers screwed up and in doing so screwed themselves…

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights