Originally Posted by phamkl
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.
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
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom