Tweet
While I appreciate the sentiment, we already have the 2nd Amendment. What the hell value does the Constitution have if its plain language isn't enfirced? What Congress needs is a law that punishes State legislative representatives who pass laws violating the Constitution.
-
-
sigpic
NRA Patriot Life Member, Benefactor
CRPA: Life Member
FPC: Member
It's 2025. Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and Goofy has left the White House.Comment
-
Thank you for your well thought response. I appreciate it!Comment
-
As much as I don't like them. I wish Ruger/Magpul would add a magazine disconnect to the RXM and get it tested.
There are other Glock clones on the Roster, so it can't be that hard to do.sigpic
DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"Comment
-
Be careful. What is actually being argued is that "large capacity magazines" are optional accessories, not that all magazines are 'accessories.' In other words, as stated in the case (bold emphases mine)...
Thus, it's not about whether a magazine is an inherent part of a firearm needed to allow function. It's about whether a 'large capacity' magazine is also protected under the 2nd Amendment as the Court concluded that a firearm can function with a lower capacity magazine....Employing the methodology announced in Bruen and recently applied in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), we again conclude that California’s law comports with the Second Amendment, for two independent reasons. First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear “Arms,” not a right to keep and bear “Arms and Accoutrements,” a common expression at the time of the Founding. Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an “Arm” in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24 (instructing courts to ask whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct”).
Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of an optional accessory like a large-capacity magazine, California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm. Plaintiffs understate the extent to which our forebears regulated firearms to promote public safety. California’s law is relevantly similar to such historical regulations in both “how” and “why” it burdens the right to armed self-defense. Like those historical laws, California’s law restricts an especially dangerous feature of semiautomatic firearms—the ability to use a large-capacity magazine—while allowing all other uses of those firearms. So far as California’s law is concerned, persons may own as many bullets, magazines, and firearms as they desire; may fire as many rounds as they like; and may carry their bullets, magazines, and firearms wherever doing so is permissible. The only effect of California’s law on armed self-defense is the limitation that a person may fire no more than ten rounds without pausing to reload, something rarely done in self-defense. The justification for California’s law—to protect innocent persons from infrequent but devastating events—is also relevantly similar to the justifications for the historical laws. California’s law is not a precise match to the historical laws, “but it does not need to be.” Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 698. By prohibiting only an especially dangerous use of a modern weapon, the law “comport[s] with the principles underlying the Second Amendment.” Id. at 692. We reverse the district court’s contrary conclusion and remand with the instruction to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California...
But a large-capacity magazine—the only type of accessory regulated by California—is not necessary to operate any firearm. Most firearms that accept detachable magazines can be equipped with a large-capacity magazine, but the record contains no example of a firearm that requires a large-capacity magazine to function normally. To the contrary, firearms that accept magazines operate as intended when equipped with magazines containing ten or fewer rounds. Accordingly, the Second Amendment’s plain text does not encompass a right to possess large-capacity magazines.
Plaintiffs point out that a magazine is attached to the firearm when the shooter fires a shot. Unlike some other accessories, then, a magazine is an integral part of the firing mechanism of some firearms. Plaintiffs contend that, for that reason, the Second Amendment’s text necessarily encompasses a right to possess a magazine for firearms that require one. We agree, for the reasons described above, that the Second Amendment’s text encompasses a right to possess a magazine in that circumstance.
Plaintiffs further contend, however, that the Amendment’s text also encompasses a right to possess a large-capacity magazine because, when a shooter chooses to use a large-capacity magazine, it, too, is attached to the firearm when the shooter fires a shot. We reject that reasoning for two independent reasons. First, the function of the large-capacity magazine is completed once the magazine automatically places a new round into the chamber. The large capacity of the magazine plays no role in the firing mechanism of the firearm. In this way, a large capacity magazine is no different than other items that hold additional ammunition, such as cartridge boxes and belts that hold bullets, yet were classified historically as accoutrements, not arms.
Second, and more fundamentally, Plaintiffs’ contention misunderstands the relevant test. The proper inquiry for an item that is not an arm itself is whether the component or accessory is necessary to the ordinary operation of the weapon, not whether, when one voluntarily chooses to use an optional accessory, the accessory is attached to the weapon. Many optional accessories—such as a highpowered scope for a rifle, a gun sling, or a silencer—may be attached to a firearm without necessarily falling within the scope of the text of the Second Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1186 (10th Cir. 2018) (“A silencer is a firearm accessory; it’s not a weapon in itself.”).
A large-capacity magazine undoubtedly provides a benefit for a shooter: it allows firing an eleventh round or more without having to pause for a few seconds to reload. But the enhancement of a person’s ability to fight or to defend is a fundamental attribute of any accessory for a weapon. A sword sheathed in a scabbard, a rifle equipped with a high-powered scope, a six-shooter nestled loosely in a holster—all are superior in some way to the same weapons without the accessory. The mere fact that an accessory enhances an attribute of a weapon does not bring the accessory within the scope of the Second Amendment’s text...
In one sense, it's tap dancing on the head of a pin. In another sense, it's plausible sounding enough for many to buy into it; including many gun owners. What you have to defeat are the 'logical' underpinnings, such as...
Just from those quotes, one of the ways is to demonstrate that it is not 'rare' to have more than ten rounds fired in self-defense and that a far greater number of 'large capacity' magazines are legally carried and used in self-defense circumstances than illegally used in 'mass shootings,' not to mention the reload times in terms of swapping magazines making negligible or no difference rather than the illusory difference being claimed....A large-capacity magazine—which enables a shooter to fire more than ten bullets rapidly and without reloading— has almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home, but it has devastating effects in mass shootings. A shooter equipped with a large-capacity magazine may kill and injure many people in rapid succession, not only because the shooter can fire many bullets quickly but also because the shooter can fire without pausing to reload. Those pauses are crucial because they allow intended victims and law enforcement personnel to flee, take cover, and fight back. More than twice as many people have been killed or injured in mass shootings that involved a large-capacity magazine than in mass shootings that involved a smaller-capacity magazine. And in the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with ten or more deaths and in every gun massacre with twenty or more deaths...Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 08-03-2025, 10:05 PM.Comment
-
Just from those quotes, one of the ways is to demonstrate that it is not 'rare' to have more than ten rounds fired in self-defense and that a far greater number of 'large capacity' magazines are legally carried and used in self-defense circumstances than illegally used in 'mass shootings,' not to mention the reload times in terms of swapping magazines making negligible or no difference rather than the illusory difference being claimed.
Also to mention that any reload pause, meant to give an oprtunity to attack the criminal, is also a net negative to a person in a self defense situation trying to reload.
Carrying many 10 round magazines throughout the daily routine (in case a criminal(s) may attack with more ammo than their victim) is a burden. Whereas the criminal(s) only nneed to plan accordingly for the crime they intend to perpetrate. If they know they are going to commit aviolent crime at 730pm on Friday at xyz place, they can bring (50) 10 round magazines to that event. Where the law abiding has no clue when the self defense event is going to take place and has no idea if there is 1 or more criminal and whether the criminal(s) will abide by the magazine law while commiting their violent attack.Comment
-
^^^^^^^^
Anyone using a box magazine fed semi-auto firearm should have at least one extra mag.
Because the #1 cause of malfunctions is caused by the magazine. If that happens, you need another magazine to stay in the fight.sigpic
DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"Comment
-
Quoting TrappedInCalifornia: "...What is actually being argued is that "large capacity magazines" are optional accessories, not that all magazines are 'accessories.' In other words, as stated in the case (bold emphases mine)..."
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but the court's logic is deeply twisted. They appear to agree that a magazine of some capacity is required for the firearm to operate, but give the state the discretion to determine the maximum capacity. It is hard to see how this squares with Bruen.Comment
-
-
In one sense it could be considered 'twisted.' In another sense, it is trying to take advantage of something which isn't necessarily there.
You see the problem. They are imposing something while not banning something. That's why they can, in their minds, claim to not be infringing on the 2nd Amendment. You have the right to own magazines and they stipulate that in the decision, noting it as 'necessary' for the firearm to function. What they are also saying is that there is nothing which prevents them from 'limiting' the capacity of the magazine based on placing it under the rubric of 'dangerous;' i.e., the capacity of the magazine does not impart functionality to the firearm, just the existence of a magazine allows the firearm to function.
To them, the 'historical tradition' is that the Government can stipulate restrictions. To us, the 'historical tradition' is that the Government is limited on the restrictions it can impose. As I indicated, it's tap dancing on the head of a pin, but it's plausible sounding enough for many to buy into it, including by many gun owners. The difference is which premise you accept as valid and/or true.
It's similar to what you see in the majority and the dissent in Heller. Both sides can claim they 'support' the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that each side has a different working understanding of what the 2nd Amendment means.Comment
-
At the risk of asking something that's already been covered in this thread (I looked through and couldn't find anything), I'll ask anyway. For those of us in possession of freedom week mags, assuming the SCOTUS rejects the case on or before the new deadline of August 17th, do we all instantly become criminals in the state? Is there some timeframe or window we would be given to comply?Comment
-
The ‘Flaw’ in the 9th Circuits logic (if we can call it that), is that they’ve essentially stated that a magazine with at least a single round is the minimum ‘required’ for the firearm to be operable, and that any threshold above that is an ‘optional’ threshold within the State’s power to “regulate accessories”. I.e., they used it as a backdoor to bring back “interest balancing”. The State of CA claims arbitrarily that anything above 10 rounds is a danger to public safety. NY claims its 7 rounds. Regardless of whatever the arbitrary threshold is, it is rooted in the State making an interest balancing argument of some critical public good justifying the threshold. THAT is the failure that the 9th Circuit refuses to recognize. Yet again, the 9th Circuit evades Bruen’s mandate (in Step 2 of the test) to establish a historically analogous regulation. And they use the ‘accessory’ argument as the means of evasion.Comment
There are currently 5148 users online. 126 members and 5022 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment