Large-capacity gun magazine possession law on pause while Supreme Court petitioned

[ThunderKiss1965]

Sorry, your staged bit of theater does not trump the data, for any rational person.

So you get magazines with more than a 10 round capacity banned causing people with criminal intent to start carrying more magazines and as the video made by a professional proves magazine capacity makes little difference.
There is the issue that criminals won't follow the ban anyway so basically the ban only applies to law abiding citizens. Either your ignorant and actually believe magazine capacity matters and criminals follow the law or this whole bullshit argument is about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Rogue AI]

And yet shootings involving high capacity mags have more deaths.

So, we can go with your little bit of theater and your specious appeals to emotion, or we can go with the data.

Easy call.


"Shootings involving high-capacity magazines have more fatalities and injuries than those that do not. In mass shootings between 2009 and 2018, events that involved high-capacity magazines had 2x as many deaths and 14x as many injuries."

Prohibit High-Capacity Magazines | Everytown

Nine states and D.C. have enacted high-capacity magazine bans. Congress and the remaining states should also ban them to reduce gun violence in America.

www.everytown.org

What an absolute crock of shit. Picking an arbitrary number of rounds that just happens to be less than the standard number of rounds for the vast majority of modern handguns. Tossing in the scary yet rarely used in crimes 'assault' weapons only adds to the stupidity. It has less to do with capacity and more to do with the popularity of most modern weapons.

 

[Abatis]

We’ll take this as you believe the Court won’t hear the case.

No . . . My argument is SCOTUS won't need to hear the case.

If SCOTUS mandates "text, informed by history and tradition" is the only process allowed for a court to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged law, then all these cases in all the lower courts that have sustained laws using the two-step judge empowering process, will be challenged, set-aside, reheard and reversed . . . Without any further action by SCOTUS.

 

[Abatis]

Again, the doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that acts of government are Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.

Consequently, as a fact of law, AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating – or infringing upon – the Second Amendment.

The wrongheaded notion that such measures are ‘un-Constitutional’ is an example of the aspirational/political second amendment, which was addressed in another thread, and not the topic of this discussion.

Last, conservatives will likely remain frustrated with the Court’s Second Amendment rulings – or the lack thereof – even if AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions are eventually overturned, the justices allowing to stand certain firearm regulatory measures such as permit requirements, concealed carry permits, background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on firearms in sensitive locations such as police stations and schools.

None of that jabberwocky addresses anything I said. And as far as your "aspirational 2nd Amendment" turd of a thread, I replied a few times in that thread, taking your theory apart and you were apparently incapable of responding to my challenges and just chose to run away.

 

[Abatis]

There is no consensus among the lower courts as to the constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans.

For example, in 2017 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s magazine ban as Constitutional.

Oh Jeez . . . You aren't really citing Kolbe v Hogan are you? The panel decision first ruled the bans were unconstitutional and strict scrutiny was demanded to be applied to challenged laws. That was appealed and the en banc 4th reversed, using some of the stupidest, most ridiculous reasoning known to man:

"we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach."​

Yeah, hang your hat on that BS. . . .

Absent consensus among the appellate courts – or absent a ruling by the Supreme Court – banning the possession of high-capacity magazines altogether is not an ‘infringement.’

Have you even read the decisions you are pontificating on? Here again, in Duncan v Bonta, the case your OP is about, the 3 judge panel held the law was unconstitutional just like Maryland's in Kolbe, the panel was appealed and the en banc court reversed and gave you your win.

The Duncan en banc court did not dispute the panel's general conclusion that the magazine law offended the RKBA but the en banc court, using that BS two-step, decided the law only minimally impacted the 2nd Amendment right so intermediate scrutiny could be applied and like magic, the law, even though it implicated the 2ndA, was allowable . . . The Duncan court explains the process:

"We first ask “if the challenged law affects conduct that is protected by the Second Amendment.” Id. If not, then the law is constitutional, and our analysis ends. Id. If, on the other hand, the law implicates the Second Amendment, we next choose and apply an appropriate level of scrutiny. Id. at 784. Ten of our sister circuits have adopted a substantially similar two-step test. "​

On page 3 the summary of the en banc Duncan decision says:

"The court assumed, without deciding, that California’s law implicates the Second Amendment, and joining its sister circuits, determined that intermediate scrutiny applied because the ban imposed only a minimal burden on the core Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held that section 32310 was a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence. "​

​

Do you understand that if the two-step process (entirely a product of the lower federal courts, invented and employed for the singular purpose to allow them to ignore SCOTUS) is squashed by SCOTUS in NYSRPA, all these decisions get their bells unrung and remain in their respective Circuits?

The en banc Duncan decision will be infirm, improperly decided on invalid judicial reasoning, it will be re-challenged in the 9th, set aside by the 9th, reheard by the 9th and reversed by the 9th, reinvigorating the 9th's Duncan panel decision rendering the magazine law unconstitutional . . . ALL WITHOUT EVER REACHING SCOTUS?

Do you hear me now?

 

[Abatis]

“The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday to the advocates’ request to stay the possession part of the law for 150 days to allow time for the writ of certiorari to be filed. If the petition is filed during that period, the stay will be extended until the high court makes a determination on whether it will consider the case.” ibid

This is a relatively short period of time – a matter of months, not years.

Which means, if the appeal is filed, the ban on possession of high-cap mags can not be enforced, and given the decision by SCOTUS in NYSRPA is expected in June of 2022, the stay will probably be moot well before SCOTUS ever holds a conference on Duncan.

Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?

SCOTUS doesn't need grant cert in 150 days, the petition for writ of certiorari needs to be filed with the Court in 150 days. Once the appeal is accepted by the SCOTUS clerk, the 150 day hard expiration on the stay evaporates and the stay on the mag ban's enforcement is extended indefinitely until the Court denies the writ of certiorari.

I would assume if the Court takes the case, the stay would convert to an abeyance of Duncan, but as I said, it's more likely Duncan is forced to be set-aside shortly after NYSRPA is handed down in June of '22.

Essentially there is no extended magazine possession ban in California right now and there won't be for quite a while . . .

 

[Colin norris]

The Founding Fathers wanted and allowed citizens to own every weapon the military had.
If Iran can have nukes, so can everyone on my street.

That is a lie and nowhere does it say that.
Another very poor justification for you pop guns. You're as mad as a hatter.

 

[Abatis]

“The 9th Circuit agreed . . .

Just as a point of information, Duncan (hi-cap mags) isn't the only case the 9th has essentially suspended.

Rupp v Bonta (assault weapon ban) is being held in abeyance until SCOTUS decides NYSRPA:

"The panel unanimously believes that resolution of this appeal may be impacted by any opinion of the Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen"​

​

And then Miller v Bonta, (another assault weapon ban appeal) is being held in abeyance until the 9th finally decides Rupp.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you get magazines with more than a 10 round capacity banned causing people with criminal intent to start carrying more magazines and as the video made by a professional proves magazine capacity makes little difference.
There is the issue that criminals won't follow the ban anyway so basically the ban only applies to law abiding citizens. Either your ignorant and actually believe magazine capacity matters and criminals follow the law or this whole bullshit argument is about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Oops, you forgot the important part: fewer injuries and deaths,in mass casualty events.

Dude, you are not going to put words in "just the right order" and make the facts evaporate. So you can stop trying now.

You can say "I would rather be able to carry 11 rounds in my weapon than reduce mass casualty deaths,", or you can put on a transparent song and dance to avoid admitting this. I see you have made that choice.

 

[2aguy]

Oops, you forgot the important part: fewer injuries and deaths,in mass casualty events.

Dude, you are not going to put words in "just the right order" and make the facts evaporate. So you can stop trying now.

You can say "I would rather be able to carry 11 rounds in my weapon than reduce mass casualty deaths,", or you can put on a transparent song and dance to avoid admitting this. I see you have made that choice.

Wrong.....you, of course, are not telling the truth......

I posted attacks where shotguns and pistols were used that killed more people than AR-15s and other rifles.......and the other attacks, except for Vegas, could easily have substituted pistols and shotguns for the AR-15 and achieved the same number of deaths...

It wasn't the rifle or the magazine...it was the gun free location that allowed the killer free reign to kill before someone with a gun stopped them.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Oops, you forgot the important part: fewer injuries and deaths,in mass casualty events.

Dude, you are not going to put words in "just the right order" and make the facts evaporate. So you can stop trying now.

You can say "I would rather be able to carry 11 rounds in my weapon than reduce mass casualty deaths,", or you can put on a transparent song and dance to avoid admitting this. I see you have made that choice.

That comprehension problem again. I'll say it again magazine size has no significant impact on fire time so the stats you posted don't mean shit. Criminals will ignore the law or just carry more magazines. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand. Your ban only effects law abiding citizens which is an infringement on a Constitutional right. It's like arguing with a retarded rock.

 

[2aguy]

That comprehension problem again. I'll say it again magazine size has no significant impact on fire time so the stats you posted don't mean shit. Criminals will ignore the law or just carry more magazines. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand. Your ban only effects law abiding citizens which is an infringement on a Constitutional right. It's like arguing with a retarded rock.

LIke any leftist they are lying and trolling....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That comprehension problem again. I'll say it again magazine size has no significant impact on fire time so the stats you posted don't mean shit. Criminals will ignore the law or just carry more magazines. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand. Your ban only effects law abiding citizens which is an infringement on a Constitutional right. It's like arguing with a retarded rock.

Oh,sorry, your divine declarations and staged theater youtube videos do not trump the data. Or maybe you didn't understand the first 3 times.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Oh,sorry, your divine declarations and staged theater youtube videos do not trump the data. Or maybe you didn't understand the first 3 times.

A Law Enforcement Officer produced that video so I would call him a subject matter expert.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A Law Enforcement Officer produced that video so I would call him a subject matter expert.

And yet law enforcement has long supported high capacity magazine bans.

So I guess my 10s of 1000s of cops trump your one cop.

Also, his staged theater does not trump the data.

You're not making any progress.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thread topic:

Fact remains:
You believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, the doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that acts of government are Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.

So, again, you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SCOTUS doesn't need grant cert in 150 days

No one said they did.

Currently the appellate courts are in agreement with the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions.

As such it is likely the Supreme Court will continue to refuse to hear such a case until there’s disagreement among the appellate courts.

The same is true concerning AWBs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No . . . My argument is SCOTUS won't need to hear the case.

If SCOTUS mandates "text, informed by history and tradition" is the only process allowed for a court to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged law, then all these cases in all the lower courts that have sustained laws using the two-step judge empowering process, will be challenged, set-aside, reheard and reversed . . . Without any further action by SCOTUS.

‘If.’

A distinction without a difference.

Whether the Court hears a ban case or instructs the lower courts how to evaluate firearm regulations, absent the Court’s involvement, the bans will remain in place.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not really, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. There is also the matter of enforcement. The potential for abuse far outweighs any possible benefit.

You’re entitled to your personal, subject opinion – provided you understand it's devoid of legal merit.

Needless to say, if a law you supported was subject to a court challenge, you’d be an aggressive advocate of the doctrine of presumed constitutionality.