Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:16 AM
Sig Sauerkraut's Avatar
Sig Sauerkraut Sig Sauerkraut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 126
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
Gura is amazing. I have no doubt if the Cali AWB is thrown out in court it will be his work.
I agree. When the anti-2A beast is finally slain it will be this man, or a man just like him, who is holding the sword.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:33 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
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
...and don't forget that the wheels of justice only turn when lubricated judiciously with large amounts of cash.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:04 AM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Clip View Post
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.
A VERY accurate analysis.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:26 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,168
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The little known truth here is that thanks to Gura we nearly lost the RKBA forever.…
Wrong. First, we can’t lose our natural right to arms. Second, we have still yet to win our civil right to arms in states like California and New York.

The polite, legalistic battle must be fought and won now, or a bloody, ruinous battle will be fought and likely lost tomorrow.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:45 AM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

(I'm using Gura to support Gura here, so before y'all attack realize I know)

Gura says that the 100%, most important, above-all-else thing in winning before SCOTUS is credibility. He says the court absolutely must believe you are a credible person who is presenting an honest argument. He acknowledges that lobbyist types will occasionally win, but he's talking about consistent victory.

So if he runs around like the NRA saying everything restricting gun rights in any way is unconstitutional, and we should all have rocket launchers and machine guns in Federal Courtrooms, he loses that credibility. It's fine to believe that, but he must present a credible persona to be at maximum effectiveness.

So he's walking the walk of a reasonable person. He's talking the talk. It's building / maintaining his credibility. That way, when he goes against something extreme (such as "no, your right to keep and bear arms ends at your front doorstep because we say so") he comes across as the reasonable one.

I totally get that giving up ground is a controversial tactic, but 1) it sure worked for the Russians, and we gun owners, like the Russians, are def the underdogs here and 2) Gura has earned our trust with his results. Let him play it his way, his record sure indicates that he has a superior grasp of the situation.

Last edited by stamina; 01-31-2013 at 10:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-31-2013, 12:15 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,921
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
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.
In short, a 30 round Glock magazine at the range is OK, for defense of one's home is OK. But perhaps not walking about downtown.

What I find interesting is the approach - no reliance on an arbitrary number and the creative "time & place" argument. I'm capable of an automatic dislike of all lawyers, but sometimes I do marvel at the way their swampy little minds work.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-31-2013, 1:13 PM
pdq_wizzard's Avatar
pdq_wizzard pdq_wizzard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Around Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 3,479
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

tagged
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Steele View Post
There used to be an old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.."
My new saying is, "when the last informed shooter gets fed up setting the record straight from all the trolls, only trolls will be on Calguns.."
Close to the edge here brother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
More what? More crazy?
You live in California. There's always more crazy. It's a renewable resource.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-31-2013, 1:21 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,050
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On the giving ground thing? Saying that there can be restrictions on PDMs is actually not giving ground.

We've already got those restrictions all over the place. That's the reality right now.

Gura is trying to gain ground.

I'm not always comfortable with everything he says, but there is no way that he is giving ground.

After all, without Heller and McDonald we wouldn't have the ground we're currently standing on. I mean, without Gura's relatively recent court victories is there anyone on the forum who doesn't think that after the Sandy Hook psychotic slaughter that we wouldn't already have had a complete ban on non-governmental PDWs here in California?

We have an unhinged anti-freedom government here in Kalifornia and without Gura's work Brown probably wouldn't have stopped/slowed the legislation. As it stands right now, I'd bet that Brown told the legislature's leaders that if they passed a PDW ban as emergency legislation that he'd shove it down their throat - and he cited Heller and McDonald to make his point.

If you are a praying man or woman, every day you should get down on your knees and thank whatever god/God you worship for Alan Gura and for all that he has done and will do to protect your freedom. Darned close to the same for the likes of Gene, Bill, Brandon, Don, Jason, Sean, Gray, Kestryll, and a whole bunch of others.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.

Last edited by OleCuss; 01-31-2013 at 1:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-31-2013, 1:30 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,887
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please bear with me, what are PDMs, and PDWs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
On the giving ground thing? Saying that there can be restrictions on PDMs is actually not giving ground.

We've already got those restrictions all over the place. That's the reality right now.

Gura is trying to gain ground.

I'm not always comfortable with everything he says, but there is no way that he is giving ground.

After all, without Heller and McDonald we wouldn't have the ground we're currently standing on. I mean, without Gura's relatively recent court victories is there anyone on the forum who doesn't think that after the Sandy Hook psychotic slaughter that we wouldn't already have had a complete ban on non-governmental PDWs here in California?

We have an unhinged anti-freedom government here in Kalifornia and without Gura's work Brown probably wouldn't have stopped/slowed the legislation. As it stands right now, I'd bet that Brown told the legislature's leaders that if they passed a PDW ban as emergency legislation that he'd shove it down their throat - and he cited Heller and McDonald to make his point.

If you are a praying man or woman, every day you should get down on your knees and thank whatever god/God you worship for Alan Gura and for all that he has done and will do to protect your freedom. Darned close to the same for the likes of Gene, Bill, Brandon, Don, Jason, Sean, Gray, Kestryll, and a whole bunch of others.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-31-2013, 1:37 PM
Haplo's Avatar
Haplo Haplo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 534
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Please bear with me, what are PDMs, and PDWs?
A PDW is a Personal Defense Weapon, a term used for what is usually an SBR in a rifle caliber like 5.56, 6.8, 5.7, and .308.

I think recently someone in the gov said that the M4 is also a PDW for the police, in stark contrast to how it's an "assault weapon" in civillian hands, that comment sparked some controversy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-31-2013, 1:39 PM
newbee1111 newbee1111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 508
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm just happy to hear him mention magazine round limits and clearly unconstiutional in the same sentence. It sounds like there is a plan, I don't need to know the details. I have faith in the man that basically forced DC to open a gun store in their own police station. It sounds like that check from Rahm is going to a good use.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-31-2013, 2:05 PM
ZombieTactics's Avatar
ZombieTactics ZombieTactics is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Roseville area, or wherever they pay my confiscatory rates for things only I know how to do (lol)
Posts: 3,684
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The giant takeaway here is that a chess-like approach to this narrow question of magazine capacity WORKS. Sadly, appearances and first impressions DO matter. So, a case brought before SCOTUS over 100-round Surefire magazines would lilkely be a loser for our side, regardless of the merits of the case or brilliance of the argument. We'd end up with a decision allowing almost ANY manner of capacity restrictions, because the context of the case would be formed around the first impressions of the particulars in evidence.

A 7-round magazine capacity restriction gives an impression of gross overreach on the part of New York, and puts them in the position of having to defend the indefensible. A SCOTUS challenge - based upon this arbitrary restriction - tilts the question towards the arbitrary nature of such restrictions, and forces the question to become one of what is ordinary, natural and common ... rather than a freak show full of 100-round drums.
__________________
|

I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-31-2013, 2:18 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,360
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Tagged.
__________________
WTB:
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Marlin 1894C
Colt Python
Colt Series 70
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-31-2013, 3:39 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I saw this post in another thread today, and I felt like it belonged over here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Connors View Post
I teach cognitive behavorial techniques, and the distinction between rationalization and reasoning that I make is as follows: when we rationalize, we search for evidence to support a conclusion at which we have already arrived emotionally, while when we reason we look at the evidence and then come to a conclusion based upon that.
Tread carefully when you follow blindly...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:23 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stamina View Post
(I'm using Gura to support Gura here, so before y'all attack realize I know).
stamina: this is the second post of yours that I've read now, and I gotta say, you have a fan.

I couldn't agree more with your analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:30 PM
b_k b_k is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 157
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNN7_TOvaUo

lol at the last question
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:49 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,050
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Please bear with me, what are PDMs, and PDWs?
Yup, as Haplo indicated, PDW (Personal Defense Weapon) is the terminology advanced by DHS/Obama for what used to be referred to as an Assault Weapon. PDW is a better description and a more politically acceptable term, so I'm adopting it.

A PDM (Personal Defense Magazine) would be the popular magazines used in PDWs and other firearms intended for self defense.

And if you look at the reason why so many of us use semi-auto pistols rather than revolvers? It is because we believe that more rounds in the magazine means better personal defense.

Seriously, even in my registered PDW I prefer to use 10 round magazines rather than 30 rounders. But for self-defense situations I prefer the 30 rounder magazines.

Net effect is that I prefer low round-count magazines for the range, and magazines with greater than 10 rounds for personal defense.

So PDM is a great term for describing a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds. Not a bad term for smaller magazines, but more suited to the larger magazines.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:55 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Country Woodpecker View Post
Will it be pushed front and center or drag out over years?
Yes & Yes.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:56 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,025
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

yeah he says it like it is. i have posted several pro 2A videos on my Facebook. and the gun banners that i talk with are amazingly silent.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:56 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,087
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieTactics View Post
The giant takeaway here is that a chess-like approach to this narrow question of magazine capacity WORKS. Sadly, appearances and first impressions DO matter. So, a case brought before SCOTUS over 100-round Surefire magazines would lilkely be a loser for our side, regardless of the merits of the case or brilliance of the argument. We'd end up with a decision allowing almost ANY manner of capacity restrictions, because the context of the case would be formed around the first impressions of the particulars in evidence.

A 7-round magazine capacity restriction gives an impression of gross overreach on the part of New York, and puts them in the position of having to defend the indefensible. A SCOTUS challenge - based upon this arbitrary restriction - tilts the question towards the arbitrary nature of such restrictions, and forces the question to become one of what is ordinary, natural and common ... rather than a freak show full of 100-round drums.
I'm in 100% agreement. We were unlikely to get SCOTUS to accept a case anytime soon that involved challenging 10rd limits but the 7rd limit and the 2 mag per weapon in the home might just give them the excuse to throw out magazine limits entirely.

I'll make one last point on the comments (not to flog Gura) and that is nobody takes answers to hypotheticals in put forth in court arguments seriously because it may or may not be the attorney's actual opinion and the assumption is that it's just a "for the sake of this argument" statement. What can come back to bite any of us is what we put forth in front of a camera as our actual opinion on the limits of the 2nd and to the media the opinion of the attorney that won the Heller case is worth his weight in gold - if it's what they want to hear. Again I'm not trying to flog Gura I'm just cautioning that his choice of words during an interview is every bit as important as WLP's. FWIW I completely support his one bite at a time strategy.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-31-2013, 5:00 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Again I'm not trying to flog Gura I'm just cautioning that his choice of words during an interview is every bit as important as WLP's. FWIW I completely support his one bite at a time strategy.
I agree. It is a difficult line to draw; you never know what is going to end up dicta. But there is no real alternative.. can't win w/o taking risks.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-31-2013, 5:42 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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.
Thanks Gray:

That actually pulled a lot of stuff together for me!
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:04 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Gura is on another level and he's playing a game of chess few minds can even comprehend.

Nuff said.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:34 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,152
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Magazine issues.

If we argue "No Limit" when our opponents are crying about how our semi automatic machine assault weapons of war and mass destruction arms that fire up to 30,000 rpm, we put ourselves in a bad situation.

New York pushed things too far, had our opponents been smart and kept the mags at something like 15 rounds, our position would be much more shakier.

We don't have to argue that we need 15 rounds, all we have to argue is that 7, even 10 rounds is an undue burden on our self defense arms.

One can show that famous picture of Malcolm X guarding his home after it was firebombed with a 30 round M1 carbine.

The magazine capacity issue is a "tricky issue", one that needs to be handled carefully and I think Alan Gura is taking the "wise approach".

We get the restricted capacities ruled unconstitutional and then if they try for restrictions on above normal capacity mags, we have the ban subject to strict scrutiny review.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:42 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

There is a big difference between arguing "no limit" and suggesting limits yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
We don't have to argue that we need 15 rounds, all we have to argue is that 7, even 10 rounds is an undue burden on our self defense arms.
Exactly. We also don't need to argue that we don't need 20 rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:12 AM
b_k b_k is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 157
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

http://youtu.be/_IPneHIo6KU?t=41m50s

Alan Gura commenting on choosing plaintiffs in litigating law of public interest.

"Not everyone whose rights deserve to be vindicated makes a good plaintiff."
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:47 AM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 1,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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 ................... ( Detailed Story Follows ) .............

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.
Gray, Thx for taking the time for this. Very informative.

Noble
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-01-2013, 2:55 AM
The Wingnut's Avatar
The Wingnut The Wingnut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,120
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acolytes View Post
Maybe we will hear the steam roller start up in the near future.
It's already warmed up and idling.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wernher von Browning View Post
I just checked. Change is all I've got left, they took all the folding money.
Quote:
A people whose only powers, liberties & remedies are those strictly defined by the State is not a free people at all.
Wanted: pre-war Colt Detective Special and commercial 1911.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:16 AM
Tarn_Helm's Avatar
Tarn_Helm Tarn_Helm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Post 20 rounds is normal handgun magazine capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthor View Post
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.
(Bold emphasis above added by me.)

"The 5.7×28mm projectile potentially poses less risk of collateral damage than conventional pistol bullets, because the projectile design limits overpenetration, as well as risk of ricochet. [Three footnotes omitted.]"

I really dislike magazine capacity discussions unless they emphasize how unreasonable, irrational, and unconstitutional the restrictions are.

The normal capacity for the weapon I'd choose is 20 rounds.

I could not carry (in CA and other states) a full-capacity magazine loaded with the best, most modern self-defense round available, a caliber less likely to inflict unintended harm, because of magazine restrictions and not caliber restrictions.

This is irrational.

This situation also shows that public safety is being jeopardized by magazine restrictions on false pretenses which fail to take into account the latest advancements in personal defense weapon technology.
__________________
"The Religion of Peace": Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776

NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO


Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:38 AM
steamerjames steamerjames is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am remined what the old man said in "The treasure of the Sierre Madre", "if you don't take a risk, you can't make a gain".Truer words were never said.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:03 AM
A-J's Avatar
A-J A-J is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Say what you will about Gura, but he has gotten the job done. A LOT of people, and I stress a LOT did not want him to take on Heller. We could speculate for some time on what might have happened, or what could have happened, but that is meaningless in the context of what actually happened. He won, and that means WE won.

IIRC, there were "other" pro-gun groups who were not supportive of the suit. I think everyone is entitled to their own views and mthods, and I won't denigrate any progun group, sometimes you have to let things take their course, even when it is *in your opinion* a bad course of action. It's hard to argue with actual tangible results, even when they were achieved through methods you did not endorse or approve of.
__________________
It was not a threat. It was an exaggerated response to an uncompromising stance. I was taught never to make a threat unless you are prepared to carry it out and I am not a fan of carrying anything. Even watching other people carrying things makes me uncomfortable. Mainly because of the possibility they may ask me to help.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:04 AM
Jarrod Jarrod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 303
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
Gura is on another level and he's playing a game of chess few minds can even comprehend.

Nuff said.
Gura

Attached Images
File Type: jpg 3d%2Bspock%2Bchess.jpg (43.1 KB, 10 views)
__________________
NRA member, SAF member, CalGuns contributor
NRA Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:53 AM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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.
"we" really need to come to terms/peace with the FACT that some limitations on our 2nd amendment rights WILL be held constitutional. doesn't matter if we agree or not, if the holding is right or not, it will happen. And we WILL have to live with it.

my personal feeling is most "gun control" laws would/will pass constitutional tests. Things like back ground checks, and buying through dealers due to the interstate commerce clause. maybe even 1 handgun in 30 days, some magazine limits may pass muster. etc

We are only now reaching the limits of what will pass muster. I think California hit and crossed that line around 1999. DC and Chicago passed those lines years earlier. for example, but many, many places in the US they aren't even close to the limits yet.

I actually disagree the vast majority of gun control laws, even if they do pass "muster", but I came to terms long, long ago the reality is if there can be limits on the 1st, there can be limits on the 2nd too.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:07 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,087
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
"we" really need to come to terms/peace with the FACT that some limitations on our 2nd amendment rights WILL be held constitutional. doesn't matter if we agree or not, if the holding is right or not, it will happen. And we WILL have to live with it.
I suspect that just like holdings that the 10th and POI Clause of the 14th Amendment and the takings clause are pretty much null and void there will be SCOTUS holdings on the 2nd that are unconstitutional and we may have to live with them for a time. That doesn't mean that the fight stops, it just means that we have to fight harder to get our friends elected to office and unashamedly pack the courts with freedom-friendly judges the same way that Progressives have packed the courts with anti-freedom judges. African-Americans had to live with slavery but they never had to accept it as right and freedom loving men and women got that wrong righted and if we can do the same to peacefully save the 2nd Amendment - it'll just take time and education.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:29 AM
Jarrod Jarrod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 303
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
"we" really need to come to terms/peace with the FACT that some limitations on our 2nd amendment rights WILL be held constitutional. doesn't matter if we agree or not, if the holding is right or not, it will happen. And we WILL have to live with it.
I cannot think of a Constitutionally enumerated right that doesn't have restrictions on them. The question is, Which standard of review will SCOTUS decide is appropriate for restrictions on the 2A?

We want Strict Scrutiny.
__________________
NRA member, SAF member, CalGuns contributor
NRA Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:33 AM
Jarrod Jarrod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 303
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I this this article will help clarify some issues.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-co...rticle/2519971
__________________
NRA member, SAF member, CalGuns contributor
NRA Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-01-2013, 11:06 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarrod View Post
I this this article will help clarify some issues.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-co...rticle/2519971
Gura has a far better handle on things that he does, IMO.

In any case, there is a discussion about that article here:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=692641
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:12 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,774
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The problem with any law that limits magazine capacity is threefold:
  1. Such a law will have a detrimental effect on the defensive capability of a firearm. The question is not whether it will have an effect, but how much. The fact of the matter is that defensive situations are greatly varied across a number of factors: location, number of attackers, how the attackers are armed, etc., and any restriction on magazine capacity will reduce the usefulness of the firearm (quite possibly to the point that the defense fails because of it) in at least some subset of those situations. All other things being equal (reliability, mainly), the greater the magazine capacity is, the wider the defensive scope of the firearm will be. Conversely, the smaller the magazine capacity is, the narrower the defensive scope of the firearm will be. This is because the pause required to change the magazine is long enough that the bad guys can use it as an offensive opportunity, provided they are sufficiently armed.
  2. Such a law will not have a beneficial effect from its effect on the offensive capability of a firearm in the hands of an evildoer intent on attacking any number of unarmed targets. The bad guy will simply carry more magazines. The amount of time required for a magazine change is not sufficient to improve the ability of the unarmed victims to effectively respond. Experience has already shown this to be the case (those situations in which unarmed victims were able to effectively respond were those in which the firearm jammed).
  3. Such a law will not even have a beneficial effect in situations where the bad guy comes up against armed targets, because someone intent on doing evil will simply ignore the ban (what they are intent on doing is already quite illegal, so legality is of no consequence to them) and, just as he will be able to get whatever firearm he wishes (even when such firearms are banned), he will also be able to get whatever magazines he wishes. Bans do not work in the general case because the bad guys have their own supply chain that they can and do make use of when necessary (as proven by their ability to easily get their hands on mass quantities of drugs that are banned in full and against which over a trillion dollars has been spent by our various governments in the last 30 years with no notable effect).


As a result, not only does a magazine capacity limit infringe on the core of the 2nd Amendment (self defense) to at least some degree, it doesn't even have a rational basis! Controlling the magazine capacity available to law abiding citizens has no beneficial effects whatsoever (there is no decreased safety to the population when the magazines which would otherwise be banned are in the hands of the law abiding), and will have some detrimental effect.

The fundamental question that a magazine capacity limit raises is this: does the government have the legitimate power to arbitrarily and unpredictably (because nobody can say what defensive situations will be made harder for the citizenry to deal with) limit the situations in which the citizenry can mount an effective and successful defense, most notably when the limit in question would have no significant benefit to the citizenry?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-01-2013 at 4:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:44 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
to at least some degree, it doesn't even have a rational basis!
Again, the English definition of "rational basis" differs from the legal definition of "rational basis"

You of all people, kc, should know this

We all know what the courts have historically done with "rational basis".
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:19 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,774
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Again, the English definition of "rational basis" differs from the legal definition of "rational basis"

You of all people, kc, should know this

We all know what the courts have historically done with "rational basis".
Yes, of course.

In the courts, "rational basis" means "the legislature proposed the law".


That means we'll have to show that a law which limits magazine capacity must pass some greater test than the "rational" basis "test".
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:57 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.