Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Alan Gura - NY 7-round limit "clearly unconstitutional" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=692736)

acolytes 01-30-2013 9:16 PM

Alan Gura - NY 7-round limit "clearly unconstitutional"
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=SQ0IX74oSuY

Moonshine 01-30-2013 9:29 PM

Gura is amazing. I have no doubt if the Cali AWB is thrown out in court it will be his work.

compulsivegunbuyer 01-30-2013 9:34 PM

I think NY may get the smack down.

kimber_ss 01-30-2013 9:42 PM

The 2A master speaks!

:King:

acolytes 01-30-2013 9:46 PM

Maybe we will hear the steam roller start up in the near future.

dfletcher 01-30-2013 9:48 PM

He did preface his comment by saying Americans have an expectation of 10 rounds as opposed to 20 or 30 when referencing handguns. What I found interesting is that he asserts the magazine is an asset of the handgun and is to be included in the phrase "in common use". That he discusses the concept of magazine capacity without assigning a number, discussing the configuration of the handgun for example, is an excellent approach. He rejects, properly I think, that there is a magic and defensible number of rounds allowed.

I thought his time and place comments were interesting.

Sakiri 01-30-2013 9:52 PM

Time and place was interesting. And I would agree to an extent. You dont carry an AR in Central Park, normally. You should not, and probably do not, need a 30 round mag there. Only thing I see biting butt is like, NY imposing 10 round limits inside city limits for pistols.

kaligaran 01-30-2013 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compulsivegunbuyer (Post 10376816)
I think NY may get the smack down.

I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?

If the NY AWB was struck down on a federal level, would that verdict change anything here in CA? I assume it would just be ammo for the prosecution to challenge other state laws.

I know Woollard v. Sheridan in MD had no impact on CA 'good cause' statement requirement directly, just wondering if a federal ruling on something like this would.

Just really trying to get my head around state/federal rulings and how they impact each other.

Country Woodpecker 01-30-2013 10:02 PM

So when it's mentioned of it "getting struck down" how long can we expect for this to occur? Will it be pushed front and center or drag out over years?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

ke6guj 01-30-2013 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaligaran (Post 10377101)
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?

there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902

kaligaran 01-30-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ke6guj (Post 10377144)
there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902

Thank you for posting these. I had seen them before honestly, forgot all about them.
I guess I had assumed they were more challenging how vague the laws were. I didn't realize they were seeking a ruling on the whole AWB being unconstitutional.

rootuser 01-30-2013 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaligaran (Post 10377101)
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?

If the NY AWB was struck down on a federal level, would that verdict change anything here in CA? I assume it would just be ammo for the prosecution to challenge other state laws.

I know Woollard v. Sheridan in MD had no impact on CA 'good cause' statement requirement directly, just wondering if a federal ruling on something like this would.

Just really trying to get my head around state/federal rulings and how they impact each other.

In my opinion (others may say different) the only thing that matters in California is the Supreme Court (of both the state and the US). The reason is the anti-gun feeling here is so strong that it takes an absolute authority to get anything done.

The California AWB is being challenged (it started at the end of 2011) and nothing has happened of yet, and we'll be lucky to see anything happen in our life time because it is in CAs interest to just drag it out because we can't seem to get injunctive relief.

scootle 01-30-2013 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ke6guj (Post 10377144)
there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902

You know... how do the above play into things when we are faced with the current AWB efforts that are being put into play both at the Fed level (Feinstein) as well as State (Yee)? Things are so complicated!

As for the 7-round magazine circus in NY... the thing that had me curious about the entire thing is how their law compels NY residents to sell all magazines of greater than 7-round capacity "out of state"... hypothetically speaking, in the event their 7-round limit stuck... and the Federal 10-round limit somehow came down... where are NY residents supposed to sell their "high capacity" magazines exactly? :facepalm:

odysseus 01-30-2013 10:23 PM

Clearly the recent NY law is unconstitutional and will face Court arguments.

The NY politicians putting through this horrible law know this. But then they know that it will be groups fighting for our Rights that will have to put up money to fight it and this takes time, and they have the taxpayers money to dip into pay for their end. So they don't care, it is all political theater.

randomBytes 01-30-2013 10:27 PM

There is a fundamental imbalance in the system.
Stupid/unethical politicians and churn out unconstitutional laws several orders of magnitude faster that the judicial system can overturn them.

kyoseki 01-30-2013 10:28 PM

Cuomo has said he's a gun owner...

... anyone else suspect that the only reason they went with a 7 round limit is because that gun is likely a 1911 compact?

sholling 01-30-2013 10:34 PM

I like Gura but his time place and manner restriction comment make me believe that we'll eventually have to find a second legal superstar - someone less willing to bend to the idea of the state being able to limit how much ammo you can carry.

Sakiri 01-30-2013 10:38 PM

I was surprised as I was unaware that Heller involved a .22 9 shot revolver...

Gray Peterson 01-30-2013 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10377397)
I like Gura but his time place and manner restriction comment make me believe that we'll eventually have to find a second legal superstar - someone less willing to bend to the idea of the state being able to limit how much ammo you can carry.

Political grandstanding doesn't win you battles in court.

sholling 01-30-2013 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 10377515)
Political grandstanding doesn't win you battles in court.

Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.

Full Clip 01-30-2013 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaligaran (Post 10377101)
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?

Others have answered this, but the overarching dilemma is that plainly unconstitutional laws can be passed in a matter of days/weeks -- or even hours, in the case of NY -- but then take YEARS or DECADES to undo through the courts. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens must deal with them and the a-hole legislators will be long gone/out of office by the time their foolishness is corrected, so they pay no political price for it.

rootuser 01-30-2013 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10377614)
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.

Go read Sun Tzu and re-evaluate your statement.

hoffmang 01-30-2013 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10377614)
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights.

You mean we've already won the right to carry a loaded handgun in public in California. Wow?! I missed that.

There is a time and place for many arguments and you're missing something.

It may never be legal to carry a loaded AR with a 30 round magazine in Manhattan while you have the right to carry a Glock 17 with a 17 round magazine.

To argue the opposite is... challenging.

-Gene

sholling 01-30-2013 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 10377727)
You mean we've already won the right to carry a loaded handgun in public in California. Wow?! I missed that.

I must have missed that to because it's been a heck of a long two weeks. ;)

Quote:

There is a time and place for many arguments and you're missing something.
-Gene
You're missing the point in your knee jerk defense. No we may never get the right to carry AR15s in the park but his comments in a public forum were a bad screw up because they may embolden our enemies to slap a one or two 10rd or even a single 7rd mag limit on handgun carry licenses (time, place, and manner) and then we spend another 2-3 years after winning shall-issue fighting to get past the Barney Fife Memorial one bullet only while carrying law. His choice of words in his effort to sound reasonable can and likely will be used against us in legislatures.

http://onthetopshelfentertainment.co...ith_bullet.jpg

sholling 01-30-2013 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rootuser (Post 10377726)
Go read Sun Tzu and re-evaluate your statement.

I've read it several times but I still don't see how emboldening legislatures to throw up even more roadblacks to self defense helps. There are times that making "reasonable" doesn't-effect-my-current-case concessions to keep the reasonableness high-ground is good strategy but that doesn't apply here.

Gray Peterson 01-30-2013 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10377805)
I must have missed that to because it's been a heck of a long two weeks. ;)


You're missing the point in your knee jerk defense. No we may never get the right to carry AR15s in the park but his comments in a public forum were a bad screw up because they may embolden our enemies to slap a one or two 10rd or even 7rd mag limit on handgun carry licenses (time, place, and manner) and then we spend another 2-3 years after winning shall-issue fighting to get past the Barney Fife Memorial one bullet only while carrying law. His choice of words in his effort to sound reasonable can and likely will be used against us in legislatures.

20 dead children emboldened our enemies, not a statement 6 weeks after the fact that doesn't do what you're saying it does because you're oversensitive.

You should show more respect to the guy who won 2 SCOTUS victories for your rights, and about to score #3 with Kachalsky, protecting your right to carry in California, too.

Tincon 01-30-2013 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10377614)
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.

Same thing he did during Heller oral arguments. Have a listen for yourself, he is about the least confident person I have ever heard at SCOTUS oral arguments. This guy is no "rock star", he just got lucky, and had a great deal of amicus support. If you ever meet him you might ask him what would have happened had Sandra Day O'Connor not retired before Heller was heard. It was certainly not foreseeable when he filed his case.

I think most people that have actually studied the court realize what a disaster Heller would have been if that hadn't happened. Which of course is the reason the NRA hadn't filed a similar suit. The little known truth here is that thanks to Gura we nearly lost the RKBA forever. But, of course that isn't how history played out...

sholling 01-31-2013 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tincon (Post 10377869)
Same thing he did during Heller oral arguments. Have a listen for yourself, he is about the least confident person I have ever heard at SCOTUS oral arguments. This guy is no "rock star", he just got lucky, and had a great deal of amicus support. If you ever meet him you might ask him what would have happened had Sandra Day O'Connor not retired before Heller was heard. It was certainly not foreseeable when he filed his case.

I think most people that have actually studied the court realize what a disaster Heller would have been if that hadn't happened. Which of course is the reason the NRA hadn't filed a similar suit. The little known truth here is that thanks to Gura we nearly lost the RKBA forever. But, of course that isn't how history played out...

Gura writes brilliant briefs and I won't quibble about his court room arguments because I'm not qualified to do so. But I'm old enough to have watched politicians and the media use public statements like this to justify legislation as reasonable.

sholling 01-31-2013 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 10377853)
20 dead children emboldened our enemies, not a statement 6 weeks after the fact that doesn't do what you're saying it does because you're oversensitive.

They're using 20 dead kids this time and a year ago they were using Zimmerman/Martin to attack carry and stand your ground. They are always attacking something and this gives them ammo to restrict how much ammo you can carry on a license when they eventually have to start issuing them. I can just see ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and MSNBC playing that 10 seconds of the conversation over and over as justification.

nicki 01-31-2013 12:27 AM

As much as I hate to admit it.
 
Alan Gura's strategy of going one piece at a time and building a solid foundation is the way to go.

We are in new constitutional territory where the federal courts are actually applying the 2nd amendment to state and local governments.

This Supreme court is not an activist court, as such, they are not going to make broad rulings and they will avoid cases that will do so.

To me the court has signaled they want "clean plantiffs" and "narrowly tailored clean cases" in 2nd amendment challenges.

The Supreme court obviously knows that there are 20,000 plus gun laws across the country and by selectively picking cases, they can define the scope of the 2nd amendment without invalidating what they see as reasonable gun regulations.

Like it or not, Alan has to get "5" justices to agree with him on any one point. Getting "low hanging fruit" first builds the legal foundation to work our way up the tree for 'higher fruit".

The court is well aware of what happened post Roe vs. Wade with the wholesale invalidation of abortion laws all across the United States and something tells me that the Conservatives on this court don't want to do something similar with gun laws.

A key phase from Justice Scalia of "ordered Liberty" strikes me as the court saying, we will deal with 2nd amendment cases, but don't push us to where we don't want to go.

The court will stay away from cases that can go sideways on other issues.

The "Willits" case from Oregon is a perfect example.

Here the Oregon Supreme court told the sheriffs of Oregon that they had to issue CCW permits to medical marijuana card holders and the sheriffs were complaining that they would be violating federal law.

The case was appealed to the US Supreme court and the court denied cert.

That case could have opened up not only 2nd amendment issues, but "Commerce Clause", 9th, 10th and 14th amendment issues.

While the court is showing restraint in overturning laws, I think the court will take a "dim view" of newly enacted gun laws that are counter to "Heller".

When state and local governments make laws that are counter to the "Heller ruling", the Supreme court has to have a smack down if for no other reason that to force state and local governments to respect the federal courts.

Nicki

Kharn 01-31-2013 2:14 AM

The courts will have a very hard time if they want to avoid confronting the elephant in the room of nearly every police officer's pistol and the standard US military pistol since the 1980s having a 15+ round capacity.

Gray Peterson 01-31-2013 2:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10377931)
They're using 20 dead kids this time and a year ago they were using Zimmerman/Martin to attack carry and stand your ground. They are always attacking something and this gives them ammo to restrict how much ammo you can carry on a license when they eventually have to start issuing them. I can just see ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and MSNBC playing that 10 seconds of the conversation over and over as justification.

The major media only gives a **** about what Wayne LaPierre wants to say, similar to the local news medias interviewing guys with inappropriately worn camo...

Gray Peterson 01-31-2013 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tincon (Post 10377869)
Same thing he did during Heller oral arguments. Have a listen for yourself, he is about the least confident person I have ever heard at SCOTUS oral arguments. This guy is no "rock star", he just got lucky, and had a great deal of amicus support. If you ever meet him you might ask him what would have happened had Sandra Day O'Connor not retired before Heller was heard. It was certainly not foreseeable when he filed his case.

I think most people that have actually studied the court realize what a disaster Heller would have been if that hadn't happened. Which of course is the reason the NRA hadn't filed a similar suit. The little known truth here is that thanks to Gura we nearly lost the RKBA forever. But, of course that isn't how history played out...

I don't even know where to begin with the amount of incorrect statements. Some of it is merely opinion, and some of it is dressed up as fact.

It was well known in DC legal circles that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was looking to retire, and Chief Justice Rehnquist was in failing health. During the 2000 election debacle, she reacted in horror at Florida being called for Gore. Justices tend to want to leave when a President can appoint someone of somewhat similar mentality. She was not a fan of Gore, and her husband's on again off again health problems pushed her to stay on for an extra few years. As soon as 2005 rolled around, she retired off the bunch, was originally replaced by John Roberts, but then Rehnquist died so she was replaced by Samuel Alito.

Here's a little more early history:

Ashcroft’s letter renounced the militia theory of the Second Amendment and endorsed the individual-rights view. The Justice Department now “unequivocally” supported the view that the amendment guaranteed “the private ownership of firearms,” the letter said. Soon afterward, Ashcroft sent around a memorandum to all federal prosecutors officially informing them of the administration’s new position.3 James Jay Baker, the chief lobbyist for the NRA, stood before a raucous crowd at the NRA’s convention in Kansas City to tell them about Ashcroft’s letter. “One year ago, at our last gathering, I warned that we stood at a crossroads,” he began. “I was not exaggerating when I said the 2000 election would determine whether we marched into the 21st century with new hope for our Second Amendment rights—or whether lawful gun ownership in America would slowly be fading to just a faint memory.” With “anti-gun” Al Gore defeated, “we now have a President, and a Vice President, in the White House who respect our rights as gun owners, and who honor the Constitution that guarantees those rights.”

After Baker read an excerpt of the letter, the audience erupted in thunderous applause. “Ladies and gentlemen, fellow gun owners, fellow officers and members of the National Rifle Association, it is indeed a new and better day.”4 In November of that year, a federal appeals court in Texas took Ashcroft’s cue and held that the earlier decisions interpreting the Second Amendment to apply only to state militias had been wrong. The case, United States v. Emerson, involved a man who had been brought up on charges of illegally possessing a firearm. Timothy Joe Emerson’s wife had previously accused him of threatening her, which led her to obtain a temporary restraining order against him. Under federal law, a person under such an order is prohibited from possessing firearms. Emerson, however, refused to give up his Beretta pistol and was indicted. Emerson argued that under the Second Amendment, he should be able to keep his gun because the Constitution guaranteed him the right to have one for personal self-defense. The federal appeals court agreed with the broad outlines of Emerson’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The original meaning of the Second Amendment, the court said, was to guarantee individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. Nevertheless, because people with a history of violence could be legally barred from possessing guns, the court explained that Emerson had to stand trial anyway. Emerson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices decided not to hear the case. As they had for decades, they avoided weighing in on the Second Amendment controversy. Still, the lower court decision in the Emerson case marked a profound shift in the law. For the first time in decades, a federal court had agreed that the Second Amendment guaranteed individuals, at least law-abiding ones, a right to have a gun.5 Sipping his drink at happy hour, Clark Neily wondered what Ashcroft’s letter to the NRA and the Emerson case meant for the future of the Second Amendment. With his square jaw and short cropped black hair, Neily would have looked at home in military garb, but his round, wire-rimmed glasses suggested an occupation in the more traditional professions. His uncanny ability to speak in paragraphs without a stutter or pause gave him away as a well-trained lawyer. And he was notorious around his office for being a fierce and intense litigator. “If there were a black belt in litigation, Clark Neily would own one,” said one of his colleagues. “This is one hard-charging, take-no-prisoner, lay-it-on-the-line kind of guy."...

The libertarian lawyers also thought that the Bush administration’s adoption of the individual-rights theory and the Emerson decision all but guaranteed that a Second Amendment case would eventually be brought to the Supreme Court. Across the country, lawyers for criminal defendants charged with gun crimes were beginning to argue that such laws were unconstitutional infringements of the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment—and they were all pointing to Ashcroft’s letter to the NRA for support. Bob Levy realized that there was a good chance the next Second Amendment case would be brought by a violent criminal. “You don’t want a bank robber or a crackhead up there as a poster boy for the Second Amendment,” Levy observed. If a “good case doesn’t reach the nine justices, a bad one will.” A “good case” was one with sympathetic, law-abiding plaintiffs who had understandable reasons to be armed. Levy wanted the Supreme Court to hear a challenge brought by ordinary people who fear violent criminals.


Winkler, Adam (2011-09-12). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Norton. Kindle Edition.

Heller, which was previously known as Parker in the DC Circuit, was Mr. Gura's first argument in front of the Supreme Court. The amicus wasn't up there making the argument, he was facing both a previous US Solicitor General (Walter Dellinger), he was facing the current Solicitor General at the time (Paul Clement). Solicitor General's are considered the top of their field, statutorily required to be "learned in law", and he defeated both of them to get the win.

It was either Neilly/Levy/Gura's effort, or a criminal effort, that would have made it up. There was a split among the circuits on the application of 2A as an individual or collective right. 5th Circuit said individual, 8 other circuits said collective, and DC Circuit had never made an on point ruling in the matter, as previous litigation's went through the Court of Appeals for DC (the "State" courts in DC) called McIntosh in the late 1970's.

Neilly & Levy were the two who determined the reasoning for getting a good case up to SCOTUS, got the plaintiffs together (with assistance from Kenn Blanchard), and then hired Mr. Gura.

Gura also knows how to correctly write effective briefings. He's formerly a Deputy Attorney General who represented the state of California, so he saw first hand a keen eye as to how most complaints filed against the state.

Quote:

Which of course is the reason the NRA hadn't filed a similar suit.
Actually, they did. It was called Seegars and it was sham litigation designed to derail the libertarian lawyer case which became Parker.

It was skilled work that overturned the Court of Appeals decisions of 8 different circuit courts, not merely chance. O'Connor was not as much of a threat as you say she was, and it took over 4.5 years to get a case to SCOTUS anyway.

What you're stating is revisionist history which downplays Gura's skill in constitutional litigation. What he states in terms of time/place/manner (the AR-15 carry in Manhattan thing) is also shared by Professor Donald Kates, the dean of 2A scholarship, as well as Professor David Kopel, the same Mr. Kopel which skewered Senator Feinstein's ban on standard capacity magazines as violative of Heller just yesterday at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

OleCuss 01-31-2013 5:28 AM

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that Gura is substandard in orals. Honestly, who cares? To me it seems orals are mostly for show - and/or to telegraph where a court is going on an issue (less likely).

It's the stuff that is written down and argued in the briefings that seem to matter most at the appellate level - which may be why Clarence Thomas doesn't even participate in the orals (made national news when he apparently told/made a joke to another justice during orals a few weeks back).


And on damaging statements by Gura? I'm not sure they were damaging, but we have to understand that we are a very small and somewhat specialized segment of society. I doubt 5% of the US population know who Alan Gura is or could pick him out in a line-up. Probably about the same percentage know what SAF is and what it does.

Gura could make all sorts of irresponsible statements and it wouldn't make a ripple in the media - unless he were saying that the Heller and McDonald opinions were wrong and the SCOTUS should have decided for DC and Chicago.

And what Gura says in the press (or in court) is not evidence to be presented in future cases he litigates.

It is kind of weird that he could be such a pivotal force in an issue which is under such intense discussion and still be a media nobody. I think he should treasure that relative anonymity.

phamkl 01-31-2013 6:31 AM

I also don't really like that statement since it could be taken out of context easily, and I think it already has right here. My understanding of that comment is that high cap mags, that is actually large capacity magazines such as the 33 rounder for Glocks, would reasonably be restricted at certain times and places. Gura clearly states that standard capacity is in common use and therefore constitutionally protected.

ddestruel 01-31-2013 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phamkl (Post 10378738)
I also don't really like that statement since it could be taken out of context easily, and I think it already has right here. My understanding of that comment is that high cap mags, that is actually large capacity magazines such as the 33 rounder for Glocks, would reasonably be restricted at certain times and places. Gura clearly states that standard capacity is in common use and therefore constitutionally protected.

his comments sound like he's acknowledging "reasonable restrictions" a phrase used in the heller ruling iirc, but setting up the debate to focus around what the firearm came with. time will tell but denying access vs regulating seem to be two different things and might be what we'll see in the later stages of this game. dangerous and unuasual may be regulated but not banned, high capacity 50 round or 100 round drums may be classified and defines as a regulated item but not eliminated.... time and manner surrounding them might be reasonable.

we'll see.


I care to differ gura may have been a little intimidated in heller but some of his later court cases he seems to be much quicker at coming back against the justices and his sharp tongue in his briefs as well as his come backs are far from timmid

Chatterbox 01-31-2013 7:12 AM

I found his point to be moot. If we're discussing carrying AR-15s in Central Park, does he think that having a 10 round magazine in it will somehow appease the fearful crowd and be accepted as normative?

Mulay El Raisuli 01-31-2013 7:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfletcher (Post 10376977)
He did preface his comment by saying Americans have an expectation of 10 rounds as opposed to 20 or 30 when referencing handguns. What I found interesting is that he asserts the magazine is an asset of the handgun and is to be included in the phrase "in common use". That he discusses the concept of magazine capacity without assigning a number, discussing the configuration of the handgun for example, is an excellent approach. He rejects, properly I think, that there is a magic and defensible number of rounds allowed.

I thought his time and place comments were interesting.


One word for it. I'm going with sholling completely, but I fail to see the advantage to us of giving even a little bit.


The Raisuli

Marthor 01-31-2013 7:24 AM

He was arguing that home possession or going to the range with 20 round magazines was common use, but he also said that going down the street in a city is a different circumstance...

Is he arguing for mag capacity limits on CCW permits? That surprises me!

He talked about physics of how many rounds can fit depending on the bullet diameter. If you banned extended magazines, you'd still have your 33 round 9mm Glock. I don't see magazine limits as viable even on the street. So, I guess I disagree with Gura on that.

OleCuss 01-31-2013 7:37 AM

I see no problem with disagreeing with Gura, but I also don't see how he is harming us in the slightest.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.