« prev   random   next »


Prop. 63: Federal judge declares California’s ban on high-capacity gun MAGAzines unconstitutional

By FuckCCP89 follow FuckCCP89   2019 Apr 2, 6:33pm 887 views   8 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    

San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in his 86-page decision, upholding a lawsuit against the proposed ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, that such a statute “hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe.”

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he wrote.
The magazine restriction was due to take effect in July 2017, but Benitez had issued a statewide injunction against it two days before its start date.

In his Friday ruling, the judge cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and, he said, would have been more effective if they’d had higher-capacity gun magazines. He wrote that although mass shootings are “tragic,” they are far less prevalent than robberies, aggravated assaults and homicides in homes — and those more common crimes sometimes require maximum firepower because “unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late.

“The size limit (on magazines) directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self,” he wrote.

1   FuckCCP89   ignore (6)   2019 Apr 2, 7:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

California reasoned that 10 rounds are plenty for someone firing a gun in self-defense (except, somehow, for active and retired police officers), since the average number of rounds used in such cases is just 2.2. But by the same logic, the state might argue that gun owners do not really need ammunition at all, since firearms are merely brandished in the vast majority of defensive uses. If there are situations where an LCM makes a significant difference in the hands of a mass shooter, there will also be situations where it makes a significant difference in the hands of someone defending himself or others. Benitez suggests a few:

When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.

6   RC2006   ignore (2)   2019 Apr 3, 6:26pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Out of stock for my cz75

Nm found some
8   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Apr 3, 7:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Hugolas_Madurez says

Lol, I love it!

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions