[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DC mag ban struck down. (Page 3 of 5)
|
Quoted: The dissenting opinion was massively weak. 1. The Majority Misapplies Bruen and Heller 2. 30 Round Magazines Are Not "In Common Use" for Self Defense 3. Historical Analogues Support the Ban 4. The Majority Breaks With Every Court to Consider the Issue 5. 30 round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings. 6. Treating popularity as constitutional immunity encourages manufacturers to "race" to normalize dangerous items. 7. The majority's "common use" shortcut jeopardizes the District's ability to protect public safety. |
|
Quoted: that dissent by the chief judge is full of "i'll make up shit to get the result i want" like Agreed. And while 17 rounds in a glock 17 is "normal" capacity, why isnt the FN 5-7 with the 20 round magazine an issue? or the kel tech p50 roudn pistol thing, or the Calico 100 round drum of 9mm. (i mean come on who hasn't needed a pistol with 3 lbs of ammo in it??? ) |
|
Quoted: Should've been more clear, I was stating in reference to a SC ruling, not district court. Rather pointless if AWB cases aren't also dealt with. After all, what use is a mag without an AR to load it into? I would have to re-read it, but I think Duncan v. Bonta covers all "ammunition feeding devices". So pistol mags should be covered in any ruling too. It's at SCOTUS right now. I thought there was some AWB case heading to SCOTUS also. |
|
Quoted: [States behind the blue curtain] OK, since we can't ban magazines, we will pass a $25 tax per mag, they have to registered with the state, there will be annual "safe storage" inspections by police, and you can't use them outside your home or off your property. [/States behind the blue curtain] Stop giving MD ideas. Now it’s 11% additional sales tax on ammo an guns being passed. That plus the 6% State tax, $10 background check fee and the 13% Fed fee on guns. |
|
Quoted: Wow, the same second amendment that cites a militia being necessary, and they claim military weapons aren't protected. Quoted: Quoted: Viramontes is on its 7th relist at SCOTUS. It is the cook county ban. Viramontes is not a good case because it lacks record. Barnett or Duncan is what SCOTUS wants and I'm pretty sure they want Barnett most of all. IL's ban is the biggest fattest tuna of them all. Mag bans, virtual ban on all semi auto long guns, threaded barrel ban, registration, equal protection violations, 5th and 9th amendment violations, and it is all tied into the bullshit FOID system. Also, in direct violation of Bruen, the 7th circuit created the military test that stated any gun used by the military is not protected by the second amendment so they don't even need to apply the Bruen standard. Also violates language in Miller which clearly stated that there was no evidence that a sawed-off SG had a "reasonable relationship" to a militia's efficiency or was part of "ordinary military equipment", making it not covered by the 2A (BTW, this was a false assertion, because sawed-offs were being used by the military, but Miller's attorneys literally did not appear at the hearing, so they couldn't inform the court of its error). Thus, according to the court's own assertion in Miller, categories of arms used in military service are protected by the 2A. |
|
"30 round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings." There is so much bad logic but the "disproportionate" argument always gets me. It's as if everything is supposed to happen "proportionate" to a population of people or things. In this instance though, "disproportionate" dispels the judge's own argument. Assuming 30 round magazines are used at all in mass shootings, they are "disproportionately" represented because THEY ARE UBIQUITOUS AND IN COMMON USE relative to any other magazine for an AR15. Am I going to have to come over there and smack someone? |
|
Quoted: "30 round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings." There is so much bad logic but the "disproportionate" argument always gets me. It's as if everything is supposed to happen "proportionate" to a population of people or things. In this instance though, "disproportionate" dispels the judge's own argument. Assuming 30 round magazines are used at all in mass shootings, they are "disproportionately" represented because THEY ARE UBIQUITOUS AND IN COMMON USE relative to any other magazine for an AR15. Am I going to have to come over there and smack someone? I almost wish that when proportionality is brought up in regards to 30 rounds mags being used in mass shoots, can we respond citing that FBI crime statistic note that black people are disproportionality responsible for these mass shootings in urban areas, would this mean that we could revisit the 13th and 14th amendments to show how absurd this argument is. |
|
Quoted: The dissenting opinion was massively weak. 1. The Majority Misapplies Bruen and Heller 2. 30-Round Magazines Are Not “In Common Use” for Self-Defense 3. Historical Analogues Support the Ban 4. The Majority Breaks With Every Court to Consider the Issue 5. 30-round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings. 6. Treating popularity as constitutional immunity encourages manufacturers to “race” to normalize dangerous items. 7. The majority’s “common use” shortcut jeopardizes the District’s ability to protect public safety. Remember some lawyers wrote this and believe it to be true.  |
|
Quoted: Va would be a hell of a lot better off if DC was made a square. Quoted: Quoted: This is DC. It’s not a state. It only has about 6 hundred thousand residents (less than a million). It cannot grow much inside its border because there is a ban on building height (nothing taller than the Washington Monument). https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2X66GJA/washington-dc-political-map-district-of-columbia-capital-city-and-federal-district-of-the-united-states-located-on-the-potomac-river-2X66GJA.jpg Notice how it’s completely surrounded by Maryland to the northeast (mag ban in place) and my home, the Commonwealth of Virginia (aka the Old Dominion), to the south west? Virginia just passed a magazine ban (we are now a single-party rule state) and it is headed for signature by our communist governor, a former CIA analyst who duped voters into believing she is a moderate when she’s actually a far-left progressive. The few DC residents able to benefit from this decision won’t be driving out here for normal-capacity magazines for long. Let’s hope DC is dumb enough to appeal this case to the current S.Ct as fast as possible. This may be our best chance at eliminating magazine bans nationwide. Va would be a hell of a lot better off if DC was made a square. it used to be |
|
Quoted: I would have to re-read it, but I think Duncan v. Bonta covers all "ammunition feeding devices". So pistol mags should be covered in any ruling too. It's at SCOTUS right now. I thought there was some AWB case heading to SCOTUS also. There are a number of cases listed/relisted to today's SCOTUS conference day. Some are a mix of AWB and mag ban, some are just AWB or mag ban. Cases below have links to their SCOTUS docket pages where one can find updates and case documents/filings. Duncan v. Bonta - No. 25-198 (Mag ban) Viramontes v. Cook County - No. 25-238 (AWB) Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington - No. 25-153 (Mag ban) NAGR v. Lamont - No. 25-421 (AWB/Mag ban) Grant v. Higgins - No. 25-566 (AWB) |
He seems to think it will cause a circuit split HUGE BREAKING NEWS! FEDERAL COURT DESTROYS TERRIBLE MAGAZINE BAN! |
|
Quoted: Viramontes is on its 7th relist at SCOTUS. It is the cook county ban. Viramontes is not a good case because it lacks record. Barnett or Duncan is what SCOTUS wants and I'm pretty sure they want Barnett most of all. IL's ban is the biggest fattest tuna of them all. Mag bans, virtual ban on all semi auto long guns, threaded barrel ban, registration, equal protection violations, 5th and 9th amendment violations, and it is all tied into the bullshit FOID system. Also, in direct violation of Bruen, the 7th circuit created the military test that stated any gun used by the military is not protected by the second amendment so they don't even need to apply the Bruen standard.  Do they not know what a militia is? That's some pretty twisted "logic" to come to that conclusion. |
|
Quoted: "Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment. " "... we apply that (Bruen, Heller, Rahimi) framework to the parties’ three central disputes: (1) whether 11+ magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment; (2) the extent to which 11+ magazines are in “common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense; and (3) whether there is any history and tradition of banning similar arms. To preview our answers to those central questions, they are that (1) 11+ magazines are unquestionably arms, (2) they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and (3) there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use, so that the District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment. " Fuck. Yes. |
|
Quoted: that dissent by the chief judge is full of "i'll make up shit to get the result i want" like Quoted: that dissent by the chief judge is full of "i'll make up shit to get the result i want" like The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use. The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not. The particularly lethal 30-round magazine…..what a fag. |
|
Quoted: https://media3.giphy.com/media/iAYupOdWXQy5a4nVGk/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cvzzyj6bhxgqdx3h348fzgkg87ru7a4f3x7sc45wx&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Do they not know what a militia is? That's some pretty twisted "logic" to come to that conclusion. Like I stated. The 7th circuit came up with an entirely new test in order to not have to even apply Bruen. It was Easterbrook who came up with it and he is a notorious anti gun judge. Of course, when he came up with this test everyone saw what he was trying to do. He was laying a new precedent that would allow for the banning of all guns, because pretty much every type of action has been used by the military at one point or another. |
|
Quoted: Also violates language in Miller which clearly stated that there was no evidence that a sawed-off SG had a "reasonable relationship" to a militia's efficiency or was part of "ordinary military equipment", making it not covered by the 2A (BTW, this was a false assertion, because sawed-offs were being used by the military. But Miller's attorneys literally did not appear at the hearing, so they couldn't inform the court of its error). Thus, according to the court's own assertion in Miller, categories of arms used in military service are protected by the 2A. In deference, SBS were not a common military arm, especially in the mid-1930s. If they were in use, they would have been a more specialized weapon than the conventional rifles and handguns that would have been a standard infantry arm. Even the riot-type shotguns that saw significant use in WWI typically had 18" or 20" barrels. (Some M1 carbines- which were issued heavily about 7 years after (passage of the NFA)- would have met the definition of an SBR. The dimensions of surplussed M1 carbines- sold to citizens directly by the Army (DCM) as conventional rifles- were a driving factor behind the congressional decision to change the SBR barrel dimension from 18 inches to 16 inches.) |
|
Quoted: https://media3.giphy.com/media/iAYupOdWXQy5a4nVGk/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cvzzyj6bhxgqdx3h348fzgkg87ru7a4f3x7sc45wx&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Do they not know what a militia is? That's some pretty twisted "logic" to come to that conclusion. Quoted: Quoted: Viramontes is on its 7th relist at SCOTUS. It is the cook county ban. Viramontes is not a good case because it lacks record. Barnett or Duncan is what SCOTUS wants and I'm pretty sure they want Barnett most of all. IL's ban is the biggest fattest tuna of them all. Mag bans, virtual ban on all semi auto long guns, threaded barrel ban, registration, equal protection violations, 5th and 9th amendment violations, and it is all tied into the bullshit FOID system. Also, in direct violation of Bruen, the 7th circuit created the military test that stated any gun used by the military is not protected by the second amendment so they don't even need to apply the Bruen standard. https://media3.giphy.com/media/iAYupOdWXQy5a4nVGk/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cvzzyj6bhxgqdx3h348fzgkg87ru7a4f3x7sc45wx&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Do they not know what a militia is? That's some pretty twisted "logic" to come to that conclusion. Nor have they read the Miller decision apparently. Which is a wonky, badly written decision, but it's still precedent. |
|
Quoted: Remember some lawyers wrote this and believe it to be true. Quoted: Quoted: The dissenting opinion was massively weak. 1. The Majority Misapplies Bruen and Heller 2. 30-Round Magazines Are Not “In Common Use” for Self-Defense 3. Historical Analogues Support the Ban 4. The Majority Breaks With Every Court to Consider the Issue 5. 30-round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings. 6. Treating popularity as constitutional immunity encourages manufacturers to “race” to normalize dangerous items. 7. The majority’s “common use” shortcut jeopardizes the District’s ability to protect public safety. Remember some lawyers wrote this and believe it to be true. "Your truth." |
|
Quoted: Also violates language in Miller which clearly stated that there was no evidence that a sawed-off SG had a "reasonable relationship" to a militia's efficiency or was part of "ordinary military equipment", making it not covered by the 2A (BTW, this was a false assertion, because sawed-offs were being used by the military. But Miller's attorneys literally did not appear at the hearing, so they couldn't inform the court of its error). Thus, according to the court's own assertion in Miller, categories of arms used in military service are protected by the 2A. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Viramontes is on its 7th relist at SCOTUS. It is the cook county ban. Viramontes is not a good case because it lacks record. Barnett or Duncan is what SCOTUS wants and I'm pretty sure they want Barnett most of all. IL's ban is the biggest fattest tuna of them all. Mag bans, virtual ban on all semi auto long guns, threaded barrel ban, registration, equal protection violations, 5th and 9th amendment violations, and it is all tied into the bullshit FOID system. Also, in direct violation of Bruen, the 7th circuit created the military test that stated any gun used by the military is not protected by the second amendment so they don't even need to apply the Bruen standard. Also violates language in Miller which clearly stated that there was no evidence that a sawed-off SG had a "reasonable relationship" to a militia's efficiency or was part of "ordinary military equipment", making it not covered by the 2A (BTW, this was a false assertion, because sawed-offs were being used by the military. But Miller's attorneys literally did not appear at the hearing, so they couldn't inform the court of its error). Thus, according to the court's own assertion in Miller, categories of arms used in military service are protected by the 2A. While your point stands, I don't know that the military was using short-barreled shotguns at the time. Military issue shotguns had barrels in the vicinity of 21" long. I know some got used by some Confederate mounted units and in more recent times they have found use, although not necessarily as "ordinary" military equipment as opposed to more limited issue and special purposes, but at the time I don't think it was the case. The only printed source for the claim I have ever come across is the novel Unintended Consequenced when it recounts this court case. |
|
Quoted: That number 6 should be a no-brainer in the "democracy" they claim to love so much. Quoted: Quoted: The dissenting opinion was massively weak. 1. The Majority Misapplies Bruen and Heller 2. 30 Round Magazines Are Not "In Common Use" for Self Defense 3. Historical Analogues Support the Ban 4. The Majority Breaks With Every Court to Consider the Issue 5. 30 round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings. 6. Treating popularity as constitutional immunity encourages manufacturers to "race" to normalize dangerous items. 7. The majority's "common use" shortcut jeopardizes the District's ability to protect public safety. Number 7 shoes that they clearly don't believe that the 2nd amendment is a restriction on government power. Instead they say that the majority ruling interferes with unlimited government power. |
|
Quoted: Stop giving MD ideas. Now it’s 11% additional sales tax on ammo an guns being passed. That plus the 6% State tax, $10 background check fee and the 13% Fed fee on guns. Definitely boiler plate legislation. Kolorado's tax started in at 11% while in our Politburo. However, since tax increases go to the ballot, they played it a little safe and changed it to 6.5%. Of course, no way am I paying that. I have still bought plenty of ammo since that unconstitutional and immoral poll tax went into effect. None of it was from any Kolorado store. |
|
Quoted: Definitely boiler plate legislation. Kolorado's tax started in at 11% while in our Politburo. However, since tax increases go to the ballot, they played it a little safe and changed it to 6.5%. Of course, no way am I paying that. I have still bought plenty of ammo since that unconstitutional and immoral poll tax went into effect. None of it was from any Kolorado store. Commies in Virginia proposed an 11% tax this year too. That is quite a coincidence. It's almost like there is a national billionaire funded organization writing the bills and having their paid minions in the state legislatures impose them on us peasants. |
|
Quoted: "30 round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings." There is so much bad logic but the "disproportionate" argument always gets me. It's as if everything is supposed to happen "proportionate" to a population of people or things. In this instance though, "disproportionate" dispels the judge's own argument. Assuming 30 round magazines are used at all in mass shootings, they are "disproportionately" represented because THEY ARE UBIQUITOUS AND IN COMMON USE relative to any other magazine for an AR15. Am I going to have to come over there and smack someone? |
|
Quoted: Commies in Virginia proposed an 11% tax this year too. That is quite a coincidence. It's almost like there is a national billionaire funded organization writing the bills and having their paid minions in the state legislatures impose them on us peasants. The rate isn't accidental. 11% is the value of the higher of the federal FAET rates. Pistols/revolvers are subject to a 10% federal excise tax. Other firearms and ammunition have an 11% rate. |
|
Quoted: Remember some lawyers wrote this and believe it to be true. Quoted: Quoted: The dissenting opinion was massively weak. 1. The Majority Misapplies Bruen and Heller 2. 30-Round Magazines Are Not “In Common Use” for Self-Defense 3. Historical Analogues Support the Ban 4. The Majority Breaks With Every Court to Consider the Issue 5. 30-round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings. 6. Treating popularity as constitutional immunity encourages manufacturers to “race” to normalize dangerous items. 7. The majority’s “common use” shortcut jeopardizes the District’s ability to protect public safety. Remember some lawyers wrote this and believe it to be true. Liberal lawyers...nah. They know they're wrong and don't give a fuck, the ends justify the means and the courts and agents of .gov will run cover for them. |
|
Quoted: No they make it illegal to INSERT rounds into a magazine, all magazines must be stored empty and individually locked in their own container, a per round retroactive tax on magazines... Please delete this post, stop giving these bastards ideas they are unable to think up on there own. |
|
Quoted: Stop giving MD ideas. Now it’s 11% additional sales tax on ammo an guns being passed. That plus the 6% State tax, $10 background check fee and the 13% Fed fee on guns. Quoted: Quoted: [States behind the blue curtain] OK, since we can't ban magazines, we will pass a $25 tax per mag, they have to registered with the state, there will be annual "safe storage" inspections by police, and you can't use them outside your home or off your property. [/States behind the blue curtain] Stop giving MD ideas. Now it’s 11% additional sales tax on ammo an guns being passed. That plus the 6% State tax, $10 background check fee and the 13% Fed fee on guns. MD is passing new antigun faggotry even now? They’ve been leaving folks alone after 2013, last I heard. |
|
Quoted: The one case, in my opinion, that should go to SCOTUS is the mag limit/ban bullshit. It kills me that they waste time on lesser cases like the stupid possessing weapons while a user of MJ. Duncan Bonta has been dragging way to Fn long. NY, Illinois NJ, etc are all thumbing their noses as well. Justice delayed is justice denied. |
|
[b]A circuit split almost guarantees that the CA and/or IL bans will be heard at SCOTUS. Influential Libs in Illinois have quietly said they don't care what the courts say on 2A. If one law is knocked down, they will pass another, force that through the courts, rinse and repeat. It is lawfare. 2A challenges are privately funded. The state's attorneys are payed for by taxpayers. |
|
Quoted: Influential Libs in Illinois have quietly said they don't care what the courts say on 2A. If one law is knocked down, they will pass another, force that through the courts, rinse and repeat. It is lawfare. 2A challenges are privately funded. The state's attorneys are payed for by taxpayers. Same issue in NY. They absolutely don't care what the Supreme Court says with regards to 2nd Amendment. My pistol permit issuing Judge was literally the Judge who lost the Bruen Decision and they have not changed the way they issue permits and amendments in any way and they are backed by the Governor |
|
Quoted: In deference, SBS were not a common military arm, especially in the mid-1930s. If they were in use, they would have been a more specialized weapon than the conventional rifles and handguns that would have been a standard infantry arm. Even the riot-type shotguns that saw significant use in WWI typically had 18" or 20" barrels. (Some M1 carbines- which were issued heavily about 7 years after (passage of the NFA)- would have met the definition of an SBR. The dimensions of surplussed M1 carbines- sold to citizens directly by the Army (DCM) as conventional rifles- were a driving factor behind the congressional decision to change the SBR barrel dimension from 18 inches to 16 inches.) Why does it matter if SBRs were "standard" military arms? They were in use. The MP7 isn't a "standard" arm, but it has military application. Where does the 2A place a "standard use" prerequisite to the kinds of arms that We, The People can keep & bear? This seems an invention akin to the arbitrary "common use" & "dangerous & unusual" standards that were cooked up by the court, but which have no basis in the 2A. These inventions were grafted into the discussion & the public laps up & regurgitates, thereby legitimizing them through perpetuation. But it still doesn't make them true. |
|
Quoted: Why does it matter if SBRs were "standard" military arms? They were in use. The MP7 isn't a "standard" arm, but it has military application. Where does the 2A place a "standard use" prequisite to the kinds of arms that We, The People can keep & bear? This seems an invention akin to the arbitrary "common use" & "dangerous & unusual" standards that were cooked up by the court, but which have no basis in the 2A. Used this in a different thread but it bears repeating here. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Repeat after me. It's okay. Say it out loud. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Say it a few more times if you need to. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. It's really that simple. Preach it an teach it. There is no “if it’s a certain length. Or caliber. Or other limiting factor such as capacity. It’s just… Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. That’s the law of the land. |
|
Quoted: Used this in a different thread but it bears repeating here. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Repeat after me. It's okay. Say it out loud. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Say it a few more times if you need to. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. It's really that simple. Preach it an teach it. There is no “if it’s a certain length. Or caliber. Or other limiting factor such as capacity. It’s just… Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. That’s the law of the land. What shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and bear arms. These court cases are about definitions. Who are the people? School children? Felons? Illegal immigrants? What is keep? What is bear? What are Arms? A bar of Irish spring in a sock is an effective sap one time. Saps are Arms. But does a ban of a particular brand of soap violate the 2A? When we screech “shall not be infringed” every lawyer, judge, politician and historian think we don’t understand the issue. |
|
Quoted: Why does it matter if SBRs were "standard" military arms? They were in use. The MP7 isn't a "standard" arm, but it has military application. Where does the 2A place a "standard use" prerequisite to the kinds of arms that We, The People can keep & bear? This seems an invention akin to the arbitrary "common use" & "dangerous & unusual" standards that were cooked up by the court, but which have no basis in the 2A. These inventions were grafted into the discussion & the public laps up & regurgitates, thereby legitimizing them through perpetuation. But it still doesn't make them true. That is looking at Miller in the modern context. The case was about the validity of the NFA tax on a "short barreled shotgun". Nothing about whether you could have one or not - the question was if a tax on such a weapon was permissible. The Miller opinion stands on the principle that weaponry used by the military is de facto suitable for militia service and is clearly protected from being taxed by the 2A. Whether non military weaponry could be taxed was an issue that needed to be fully developed via the record at trial, and the case was remanded for trial. What is more concerning to me is how SCOTUS cases become something they never were. Examples are Miller upheld the NFA and Heller upheld the ban on machine guns. Neither of those statement are in the text of the opinion, but they have somehow become fact, even here, in a place that should know better. |
|
Quoted: Influential Libs in Illinois have quietly said they don't care what the courts say on 2A. If one law is knocked down, they will pass another, force that through the courts, rinse and repeat. It is lawfare. 2A challenges are privately funded. The state's attorneys are payed for by taxpayers. Quoted: [b]A circuit split almost guarantees that the CA and/or IL bans will be heard at SCOTUS. Influential Libs in Illinois have quietly said they don't care what the courts say on 2A. If one law is knocked down, they will pass another, force that through the courts, rinse and repeat. It is lawfare. 2A challenges are privately funded. The state's attorneys are payed for by taxpayers. Yep The RIFL Act and maybe mandatory liability insurance. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: In before the en banc or whatever panel of liberal judges overrides it.  |