PDA

View Full Version : TIRED OF HI-CAP THREADS?


CAL.BAR
05-07-2009, 3:12 PM
It has been debated here as to what is the most worthy endeavor for CG and the other firearms organizations to pursue here in CA. While we had attempted to get "shall issue" passed we all knew it was a long shot. But more importantly (IMHO anyway) it was also not on the "front burner" for most of our rank and file. Statistics from other states (and even CA counties where you can freely get CCW) show that a relatively small number of gun owners WANT (or maybe NEED) to carry CCW. (no hate mail - it's a fact)

However, based upon the number and depth of the constant high cap mag threads I venture that this is where we should focus our efforts again (after the roster and AW/OLL of course). High cap mags seem to fascinate/haunt us. They have been illegal to make, import and sell for nearly a decade now. A large number of our new shooters have never been able to obtain one, yet we constantly ask and post about them. HC's being put in evil feature OLL's are usually the cause of AW arrests. Why? b/c we ALL want them. Every M4 OLL build screams for them, yet most will never get them. Even with a featureless build, you can't use a HC if you can't obtain one. All the crazy hypotheticals, "what ifs" and "found in the trash" scenarios are getting old (aren't they?)

CG - take this as an open letter. In the relatively short time I have been a member, I have seen many times more hi-cap threads than I ever have "please I need a CCW" threads. What says the group?

PatriotnMore
05-07-2009, 3:20 PM
I would really enjoy being able to walk into a store and buy a hi cap mag. However, I trust our legal eagles working for pro 2A change in CA, they know better than us laymen how to approach the challenges, and the order of those challenges.
So for me, I am content waiting till that court challenge comes.

Untamed1972
05-07-2009, 3:27 PM
It seems like they are following an orderly progression.

Step 1) challenges laws the restrict access to guns

Step 2) challenges laws that restrict one's right to carry those guns

Step 3) might be attacking restrictions on where one can carry there gun since they will soon hopefully be able to carry in public.

or

Perhaps restrictions to access of ammo.

Although I'm totally with you on the hi-cap issue.....there are more fundamental issues that need to be established first. For now I'd rather have the right to carry a pistol with 10rd mags.....especially since the hi-caps for the pistol I would like to carry are only 12rds. I'd rather have the 10+1 for now...I can always carry extra mags! :)

paul0660
05-07-2009, 3:41 PM
I don't think it's an either/or CCW vs. Hicaps. Easily available CCW, with proper controls, would change this state for the better. As for hi caps.................I see a lot of them, all legal I assume.

KCM222
05-07-2009, 3:43 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with the combination of "low hanging fruit" (hereby referred to as LHF) and what will actually save lives.

The roster suit to mirror the DC suit is obviously LHF. Shall issue CCW doesn't feel like LHF to me, but this could potentially save innocent people's lives which arguably is the most important issue.

Having an extra round or twenty would be great, and would certainly be helpful, but actually being armed in the first place is obviously more important.

Given those assumptions I would agree with Untamed1972 in that the most important issues are going to be access to guns and the ability to use/carry them.

Dr Rockso
05-07-2009, 4:07 PM
Remember that Alan Gura has said that hi-cap bans may be one of the few gun-control regulations that might actually withstand constitutional muster. It is going to be one of the most difficult battles, I'm sure.

Flopper
05-07-2009, 4:31 PM
Remember that Alan Gura has said that hi-cap bans may be one of the few gun-control regulations that might actually withstand constitutional muster. It is going to be one of the most difficult battles, I'm sure.

that's one thing that i never understood.

high cap mags are DEFINITELY in common use and not unusual or dangerous. since high cap mags pass these basic tests that were set forth in Heller, how could the ban NOT be struck down???

yellowfin
05-07-2009, 5:08 PM
It is harder to prove that depriving someone of 10, 20, or even 1 extra round constitutes significant legal injury worthy of attention and remedy when having a gun on your person at all in the first place is impaired by law.

Ford8N
05-07-2009, 5:11 PM
that's one thing that i never understood.

high cap mags are DEFINITELY in common use and not unusual or dangerous. since high cap mags pass these basic tests that were set forth in Heller, how could the ban NOT be struck down???

It's kinda like a "speed limit". I would rather be able to "buy any type of car" and have a speed limit. Right now California restricts/bans the "type of car".

Don't ya just love euphemisms.:p

bwiese
05-07-2009, 5:17 PM
Mention was made above about fighting hicap bans and methods of attack.

Do note that hicap mag bans are almost unenforceable in CA, esp for mags that existed (by design/implementation) before 2000, and owned by people of reasonable age that shut up and call lawyers if questioned.

Thus, it's a lower priority.

hoffmang
05-07-2009, 5:20 PM
Gents,

The factors that go into the timing of a challenge to the controls on large-capacity magazines run something like this.

1. The law is almost unenforceable.
2. Possession is not prohibited.
3. The case is not a slam dunk on 2A grounds (especially in the 9th Circuit.)

As such that counsels that it's not yet time to challenge this in California. It may very well time to challenge it in a friendlier place. Either way, as other important things get taken care of it makes California less unfriendly and moves up the priority list.

-Gene

yellowfin
05-07-2009, 5:22 PM
It's kinda like a "speed limit". I would rather be able to "buy any type of car" and have a speed limit. Right now California restricts/bans the "type of car".

Don't ya just love euphemisms.:p That's a very good model of it, and you can see then how this makes much more sense when put in terms of cars. Right now the issue is:

1. Can you buy a car? Yes--with annoying extra fees and strings attached, but yes...for the most part
2. Can you drive the car? Theoretically, yes but in practice not really.
3. Where you need to go? No.
4. Can you buy the type of car best for you? Not always, no.
5. Can someone else buy cars you can't for the same reason you want to? Yes.
6. Can you buy a car where you live? Not always.


Now how exactly much water is arguing the speed limit going to hold when you haven't gotten at least 2-6 answered the right way?

evan69
05-07-2009, 5:24 PM
It is harder to prove that depriving someone of 10, 20, or even 1 extra round constitutes significant legal injury worthy of attention and remedy when having a gun on your person at all in the first place is impaired by law.

While we are talking about proof, we should have made them prove that a ban would have done anything in the first place. Actually, the fact that the ban didn't do anything is proof enough to have it deemed a useless law. Occam's razor would say that it should be lifted if it isn't fulfilling a purpose.

aileron
05-07-2009, 6:06 PM
However, based upon the number and depth of the constant high cap mag threads I venture that this is where we should focus our efforts again (after the roster and AW/OLL of course). High cap mags seem to fascinate/haunt us. They have been illegal to make, import and sell for nearly a decade now. A large number of our new shooters have never been able to obtain one, yet we constantly ask and post about them.

What ever is thought to be the best strategic way to get there, is more important than our frustrated reality of the moment.

I'm with you on really, really, really wanting highcaps back in this state. But I really, really, really, don't want to lose an advantage by taking a risk that places us at a disadvantage with the anti's and losing something we might of easily won in the future.

Just think about it before we try to insist on a strategy change. Because we might not understand the bigger picture that makes a lot of stuff fall like domino's in our path. That is really, really important to us all.

damon1272
05-07-2009, 7:48 PM
Well one of the issues is that the anti gun forces are allowed to define guns and what is "hi capacity". I think the way to argue this point is to go back to the original design of magazine that the manufacturer designed for that particular gun. In respect to"hi cap" mags they should be refered to as standard capacity while 10 rnd and under should be refered to as reduced capacity magazines. My 2 cents.

glock_this
05-07-2009, 7:53 PM
/start hijack

I would say there are more Walmart threads if things are being based "upon the number and depth of" threads ;) I am far more tired of those

end hijack/

damon1272
05-07-2009, 7:56 PM
I would have to agree with Gene and Bill. The hi cap mag is a lower issue of priority considering some of the bigger battles that they/we have won lately.

MKE
05-07-2009, 8:20 PM
Maybe after the high cap mag, I'd like to see us challenge what constitutes an assault weapon here in California. Things most of us would like to see go away are barrel and total length of the rifle rule that constitutes an assault weapon as well as getting rid of the bullet button.

I like the direction we're attacking the laws. Kudos to the guys who are making this happen.

Timberline
05-07-2009, 8:32 PM
They're not "high" capacity mags... they're Standard capacity.

KWA-S
05-07-2009, 11:39 PM
They're not "high" capacity mags... they're Standard capacity.

While we may know that when we say "high cap" we mean a normal size, people who are not familiar may not know. Please refer to them as standard caps because "standard capacity" is harder to ban than "high capacity" (Footage of Hollywood automatic guns that have infinite ammo here)

Either way, its semantics, but thats what the antis go for.

p24
05-08-2009, 12:01 AM
That's a very good model of it, and you can see then how this makes much more sense when put in terms of cars. Right now the issue is:

1. Can you buy a car? Yes--with annoying extra fees and strings attached, but yes...for the most part
2. Can you drive the car? Theoretically, yes but in practice not really.
3. Where you need to go? No.
4. Can you buy the type of car best for you? Not always, no.
5. Can someone else buy cars you can't for the same reason you want to? Yes.
6. Can you buy a car where you live? Not always.


Now how exactly much water is arguing the speed limit going to hold when you haven't gotten at least 2-6 answered the right way?

:thumbsup:

If someone makes a T-shirt with the aforementioned Euphemism on it, I'll buy ten, and hand them out to my friends..

Not to mention cars kill more people than guns...

wildhawker
05-08-2009, 12:13 AM
Gents,

The factors that go into the timing of a challenge to the controls on large-capacity magazines run something like this.

1. The law is almost unenforceable.
2. Possession is not prohibited.
3. The case is not a slam dunk on 2A grounds (especially in the 9th Circuit.)

As such that counsels that it's not yet time to challenge this in California. It may very well time to challenge it in a friendlier place. Either way, as other important things get taken care of it makes California less unfriendly and moves up the priority list.

-Gene

Might this be one of those cases brought first in D.C. before challenge here?

Untamed1972
05-08-2009, 9:50 AM
Gents,

The factors that go into the timing of a challenge to the controls on large-capacity magazines run something like this.

1. The law is almost unenforceable.
2. Possession is not prohibited.
3. The case is not a slam dunk on 2A grounds (especially in the 9th Circuit.)

As such that counsels that it's not yet time to challenge this in California. It may very well time to challenge it in a friendlier place. Either way, as other important things get taken care of it makes California less unfriendly and moves up the priority list.

-Gene

But on those grounds could not an equal protection issue be argued? If something is available to some because they had them before, but not to others because they weren't old enough at the time or didn't live here yet and so, does that not create an inequity by matter of law?

Couldn't the same be argued for RAWs? People who had them before were allowed to register them, but if you didn't have one then, or weren't old enough you're SOL now?

Table Rock Arms
05-08-2009, 9:55 AM
Nope.

HotRails
05-08-2009, 10:07 AM
Without shall issue CCW, our RKBA is essentially useless from a self defense perspective unless attacked in your home.

CAL.BAR
05-08-2009, 10:11 AM
Remember that Alan Gura has said that hi-cap bans may be one of the few gun-control regulations that might actually withstand constitutional muster. It is going to be one of the most difficult battles, I'm sure.

I absolutely agree BTW - I don't think we have any constitutional protection for high caps, but my point was more people care about that than CCW. Although "regular" CA citizen I think are equally terrified of either issue.

CAL.BAR
05-08-2009, 10:14 AM
They're not "high" capacity mags... they're Standard capacity.

Yeah yeah - tell it to "the man". . .

CAL.BAR
05-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Seriously, irrespective of the relative desires, can we stop with the high cap scenarios. We all know the law now and if you don't know the law don't play with fire. If you do know the law you know you're playing with fire!

Publius
05-08-2009, 1:24 PM
They're not "high" capacity mags... they're Standard capacity.

Actually, some 10-round magazines ARE "high capacity" magazines, because standard capacity is less than 10. For example, magazines for the M1911, which has a standard capacity of 7. Ideal terminology is complicated because there are weapons with standard capacities on both sides of the legal limit. If I were drafting the law (ignoring the fact that I wouldn't write a stupid magazine ban in the first place), I would pick an adjective more closely related to its actual significance. Maybe "prohibited capacity magazine."