• Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines
    32 replies, posted
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-california-s-ban-high-capacity-magazines-over-2nd-n989136
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXqgI1fZDjE Gonna repost this here. Seriously, hopefully this goes for all states as well. This crap about guns not needing "High capacity" magazines is absolute nonsense.
The order, if anyone cares to read it: https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf And the mic-drop moment at the end: This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now. 
FUCK YES.
DAMN. That's not even a burn, that's a fucking fire-bombing.
If there's one thing I will never understand, it's you Americans and your guns.
Guns are fun as long as it hurts no one. There are always those assholes who ruin it for all the other gun owners that are responsible.
Magazine bans are pointless anyway. If you think they work you've never seen how quickly someone can change a mag.
High capacity magazines vs low capacity magazines make pretty much a 0% difference on how long it takes to put rounds down range Here's a good brief video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU It also shows you're not going to be leaving cover to tackle anyone during a reload
"We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he stuck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said. Good, mag bans are fucking stupid and nobody complied with it anyway. Everyone just drove to Nevada and bought 30-round pmags there.
What about bullet buttons?
That's an absoloutely abhorrent quote.
How so?
I'm not that anti-gun any more but doesn't that quote basically insinuate that massacres are the price you pay for freedom?
No? Its standard "rights of the people bs government overreach" statement number 45. Your interpretation is reaching, to put it mildly.
So it's meant as in cost to the government then?
What I don't get is what is the main point of having higher capacity magazines? Convenience? Less space needed to store ammo?
Mostly convenience. Bigger mag = the same amount of mags have up to like double the ammo for not really that much more space. This is important because when you eventually run out of full magazines at the range you kinda just either go home, resort to single shots, or go sit down and reload your magazines
Convenience and looking cool not much else.
Larger magazines matter if you're in a firefight where split seconds count (i.e your defending yourself) or in a shooting competition, but don't matter if you're murdering defenceless civilians that can't shoot back.
Firing more rounds before having to meticulously load magazines, shit hurts your fingers
The 9th Circuit is going to overrule this, and then make sure to tell gun owners what unhinged madmen we are for daring to want these horrible murder machines. The SCOTUS needs to start hearing gun rights cases again. They can't run from AWBs and mag caps forever.
This was a federal judge out of San Francisco striking it down, so I think it is the 9th Circuit court doing this.
Isn't that compensated by the fact you have to load more rounds per magazine anyway? Also I've found reloading magazines between sessions to be kind of fun, but I've only done that a couple times. I guess it gets boring quite quickly.
No, the 9th Circuit is the next step in the appeals process after this, and the step before the SCOTUS.
Lol get fucked. Now THIS is what “common sense gun reform” should look like.
The only reason this failed catastrophically is because the Attorney General accidentally assigned a high schooler to the case: This is federal court. The Attorney General has submitted two unofficial surveys to prove mass shootings are a problem made worse by firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Do the surveys pass the Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 test for relevance? Yes. Are the surveys admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 802? No. They are double or triple hearsay. No foundation has been laid. No authentication attempted. Are they reliable? No. Are they anything more than a selected compilation of news articles – articles which are themselves inadmissible? No. Are the compilers likely to be biased? Yes. Where are the actual police investigation reports? The Attorney General, California’s top law enforcement officer, has not submitted a single official police report of a shooting. Instead, the Attorney General relies on news articles and interest group surveys. Federal Constitutional rights are being subjected to litigation by inference about whether a pistol or a rifle in a news story might have had an ammunition magazine that held more than 10 rounds. They actually cited a Mother Jones article: This Court has observed that the quality of the evidence relied on by the State is remarkably thin. The State’s reliance and the State’s experts’ reliance on compilations such as the Mother Jones Magazine survey is an example. The survey is found in the Attorney General’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit 37. It purports to be a survey of mass shootings. It does not indicate how its data is selected, or assembled, or tested. It is unaccompanied by any declaration as to its accuracy. It is probably not peer-reviewed. It has no widely-accepted reputation for objectivity. While it might be something that an expert considers in forming an admissible opinion, the survey by itself would be inadmissible under the normal rules of evidence. The State says that the survey “has been cited favorably in numerous cases,” citing three decisions. Of the three cases listed, however, the survey is not mentioned at all in one case, mentioned only as something an expert relied on in the second case, and mentioned only in passing as “exhaustive” but without analysis in the third. On the other hand, after the Attorney General’s brief was filed, the Third Circuit noted issues with the Mother Jones Magazine survey, remarking, “Mother Jones has changed it definition of a mass shooting over time, setting a different minimum number of fatalities or shooters, and may have omitted a significant number of mass shooting incidents.” In another case about prison conditions, a Mother Jones Magazine article was stricken as inadmissible for purposes of summary judgment, which is how such writings would usually be treated.
How is this supposed to instill confidence in my law makers?
It is a good video that proves a point, however the shooters are not emptying the magazines to the point that the slide needs to be released (by grabbing of the slide or using the catch) and the magazines are not being drawn from being stowed. Overall that stuff would probably add about 5-10s of time to their overall 18-22s. Still not enough time to escape or disable the shooter though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.