Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....

[Crepitus]

Wait, so you're upset that the criminals wouldn't out gun the cops?

No. Why do you insist every gun owner is a potential criminal?

Why do you want law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves?

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time.

Really? So what are you protecting yourself from?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Another claim you cannot prove.

 

[Blues Man]

No. Why do you insist every gun owner is a potential criminal?

Why do you want law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves?

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time.

Really? So what are you protecting yourself from?

I'm not naive enough to think that I am immune to crime.

I know I'm not. I have been the victim of a violent crime.

 

[Crepitus]

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

Your statement is false.

No, it's not.

It is, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Sure I can, here let me Google that for you.

"Look it up" does not prove your claim .
Thus, my statement stands: your claim is false and you cannot prove otherwise.

I looked it up for you genius. Click the link.

 

[Crepitus]

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Another claim you cannot prove.

I don't know what county he lives in.

 

[Blues Man]

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Another claim you cannot prove.

I don't know what county he lives in.

And I'm not going to tell you.

 

[Crepitus]

Defend yourself from what? Do you not realize that your greatest risk statistically is that you will be in jured or killed by your own gun?

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time.

Really? So what are you protecting yourself from?

I'm not naive enough to think that I am immune to crime.

I know I'm not. I have been the victim of a violent crime.

How does that reconcile with this?

"Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time."

 

[Blues Man]

HArdly.

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time.

Really? So what are you protecting yourself from?

I'm not naive enough to think that I am immune to crime.

I know I'm not. I have been the victim of a violent crime.

How does that reconcile with this?

"Funny how I have lived in my county for over a decade where gun ownership is higher than average in my state and there hasn't been a murder, a suicide or any accidental shootings in all that time."

I was living somewhere else at the time

Gee that was tough to figure out wasn't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your statement is false.

No, it's not.

It is, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Sure I can, here let me Google that for you.

"Look it up" does not prove your claim .
Thus, my statement stands: your claim is false and you cannot prove otherwise.

I looked it up for you genius. Click the link.

Sorry -- I don't do your homework.
You can prove your claim, or you can't - right now you;re at "can't"

 

[M14 Shooter]

If that were true then there would be people shot with their own guns all over my county where gun ownership is quite high.

There undoubtedly are.

Another claim you cannot prove.

I don't know what county he lives in.

And so, when you said "There undoubtedly are" you willfully spoke from ignorance.
Nice.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So now we know where the limit of the Heller Test is. It's 15.

I must have missed this - when did the USSC rule on this, and in what decision?

Stop trolling. It's an unwritten ruling....

Ah. The USSC has -not- ruled on the size of magazines protected by the 2nd.
Why do you have to lie to make a point?

And they won't. The SCOTUS has avoided this issue like a plague. But the lower courts have used the Heller ruling to come up with what they feel is a common sense or normal ruling they are now calling the Heller Test. So far, 10 rounds does not pass the Heller Test but 15 does. So we have a new standard now and it's pretty well spelled out without spelling it out.

 

[Crepitus]

No, it's not.

It is, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Sure I can, here let me Google that for you.

"Look it up" does not prove your claim .
Thus, my statement stands: your claim is false and you cannot prove otherwise.

I looked it up for you genius. Click the link.

Sorry -- I don't do your homework.
You can prove your claim, or you can't - right now you;re at "can't"

Ok, so you're too stupid to click a link.

Noted, poster dismissed as irrelevant.

Have a nice day kid.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

only amateurs would use a large capacity magazine. They jam way more often and it takes only a couple seconds to change a magazine if you know what you are doing.

But 20 and 30 round mags aren't large capacity. They are and always have been standard sizes

When you purchased an AR-15, the standard mag was the 20 round. The 30 round was a special order. Therefore, using the Heller Test, the 20 round meets the test while the 30 does not. I happen to like using the 20 round heller test. The reason the 30 round isn't offered as standard is that it puts more of a stress on the AR than it's designed to take when you have to handle it a little rough. Whereas the 20 round is designed to take rough punishment in the same gun. I have seen the AR with the 10 round mag and it really looks odd.

Plus, due to some of the handguns having up to 17 round capacities, I like the 20 round mag for the Heller Test but they didn't ask me to be a Federal Judge once again this time around. But it appears that 15 seems to be the overall accepted minimum and meets the Heller Test that's pretty well been established.

 

[Rustic]

only amateurs would use a large capacity magazine. They jam way more often and it takes only a couple seconds to change a magazine if you know what you are doing.

But 20 and 30 round mags aren't large capacity. They are and always have been standard sizes

When you purchased an AR-15, the standard mag was the 20 round. The 30 round was a special order. Therefore, using the Heller Test, the 20 round meets the test while the 30 does not. I happen to like using the 20 round heller test. The reason the 30 round isn't offered as standard is that it puts more of a stress on the AR than it's designed to take when you have to handle it a little rough. Whereas the 20 round is designed to take rough punishment in the same gun. I have seen the AR with the 10 round mag and it really looks odd.

Plus, due to some of the handguns having up to 17 round capacities, I like the 20 round mag for the Heller Test but they didn't ask me to be a Federal Judge once again this time around. But it appears that 15 seems to be the overall accepted minimum and meets the Heller Test that's pretty well been established.

Lol
Gibberish

 

[daveman]

This is a great ruling. Commie California's high capacity magazine ban has been overturned by the court.

It is about time Liberty prevailed after all this silly oppressive Libtard SJW bullshit.

The Legal Definition of what is Prohibited under California Penal Code 32310. Under Penal Code 32310(a), it is a crime if any person: manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine.

"Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Wrong.

‘Liberty’ has nothing to do with magazine capacity – or guns, for that matter.

Our liberty is protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, not guns.

Guns are for individual self-defense from crime – not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence that authorizes insurrectionist dogma – the Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had created.

No, they intended the Second to authorize the destruction of the tyranny which would destroy the Constitution and Republic. They quite clearly said so.

At least make a token effort to keep up.

That’s strange
It says something about well regulated militias
It is the Constitution that destroys tyranny

Did the Founding Fathers just write documents to free themselves from the British?

No.

They shot them. With guns.

 

[Rustic]

This is a great ruling. Commie California's high capacity magazine ban has been overturned by the court.

It is about time Liberty prevailed after all this silly oppressive Libtard SJW bullshit.

The Legal Definition of what is Prohibited under California Penal Code 32310. Under Penal Code 32310(a), it is a crime if any person: manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine.

"Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Wrong.

‘Liberty’ has nothing to do with magazine capacity – or guns, for that matter.

Our liberty is protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, not guns.

Guns are for individual self-defense from crime – not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence that authorizes insurrectionist dogma – the Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had created.

No, they intended the Second to authorize the destruction of the tyranny which would destroy the Constitution and Republic. They quite clearly said so.

At least make a token effort to keep up.

That’s strange
It says something about well regulated militias
It is the Constitution that destroys tyranny

Did the Founding Fathers just write documents to free themselves from the British?

No.

They shot them. With guns.

 

[rightwinger]

Founders did not know jack shit about modern societies

People don't change

They sure do

People today recognize the equality of blacks, women and native Americans

SOme people

SOme people did back then too.

Name some founders who advocated equal rights for women, blacks or Indians

So you're saying that only the founders thoughts mattered?
It's obvious that some people thought slavery was wrong because we ended it.

They made the rules

 

[daveman]

I live in a very "safe" area in an affluent suburb. However, we do have home invasions, car jackings, robberies, and the occasional drug related crime. When these crimes occur there are often multiple attackers as criminals are cowards and don't like resistance nor bad odds. You try to put rounds on target, effectively and make every one count in a life threatening situation with multiple attackers whom are also armed. See what happens. You will be glad you had a standard capacity magazine of 15 rounds or more in those situations. Why limit only the law abiding?

Because at the end of the day, gun-grabbers don't care about victims of guns. Never have, never will -- indeed, are thankful to have a pile of fresh bodies from which to preach gun control.

No, the aim has always been to have people unable to defend themselves from tyranny.

And if people want you defenseless from tyranny -- they want to control you. History proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[rightwinger]

This is a great ruling. Commie California's high capacity magazine ban has been overturned by the court.

It is about time Liberty prevailed after all this silly oppressive Libtard SJW bullshit.

The Legal Definition of what is Prohibited under California Penal Code 32310. Under Penal Code 32310(a), it is a crime if any person: manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine.

"Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Wrong.

‘Liberty’ has nothing to do with magazine capacity – or guns, for that matter.

Our liberty is protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, not guns.

Guns are for individual self-defense from crime – not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence that authorizes insurrectionist dogma – the Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had created.

No, they intended the Second to authorize the destruction of the tyranny which would destroy the Constitution and Republic. They quite clearly said so.

At least make a token effort to keep up.

That’s strange
It says something about well regulated militias
It is the Constitution that destroys tyranny

Did the Founding Fathers just write documents to free themselves from the British?

No.

They shot them. With guns.

They wrote a Constitution to make armed insurrection unnecessary

They made the first amendment more powerful than the second

 

[Rustic]

This is a great ruling. Commie California's high capacity magazine ban has been overturned by the court.

It is about time Liberty prevailed after all this silly oppressive Libtard SJW bullshit.

The Legal Definition of what is Prohibited under California Penal Code 32310. Under Penal Code 32310(a), it is a crime if any person: manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine.

"Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Wrong.

‘Liberty’ has nothing to do with magazine capacity – or guns, for that matter.

Our liberty is protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, not guns.

Guns are for individual self-defense from crime – not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence that authorizes insurrectionist dogma – the Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had created.

No, they intended the Second to authorize the destruction of the tyranny which would destroy the Constitution and Republic. They quite clearly said so.

At least make a token effort to keep up.

That’s strange
It says something about well regulated militias
It is the Constitution that destroys tyranny

Did the Founding Fathers just write documents to free themselves from the British?

No.

They shot them. With guns.

They wrote a Constitution to make armed insurrection unnecessary

They made the first amendment more powerful than the second

Lol
The first amendment is powerless without the Second Amendment you ******* retard