Federal appeals court strikes down California's ban on high-capacity

[RDN]

HUGE VICTORY (for now) FOR GUN OWNERS!

Federal appeals court strikes down California's ban on high-capacity magazines, says restrictions violate 2nd Amendment

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down California’s ban on high-capacity magazines on the basis that its restrictions violate the Second Amendment -- noting that it would criminalize half the magazines in the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

NEXT STOP SCOTUS! HOPE THEY CHOOSE TO VIEW THE CASE

 

[SomeSoldier]

Dupe.

 

[Chevusa]

Oh boyyy...... again? @GOPerfect

 

[GOPerfect]

Oh boyyy...... again? @GOPerfect

I cancelled mine. We just need better thread titles!

 

[RDN]

Ammo capacity limits are purely arbitrary.
If 10 rounds is ok, why not 12 or 16 rounds?
Wouldn't 5 rounds be safer than 10??
I need 20 -30 rounds (standard cap) to keep me safe - IMO

 

[Chevusa]

I always have an extra mag or 2 on me so I have 20 or 30 rounds anyhow. It's just feel good bullshit from people who have never held a gun before and have no clue. If I'm limited than so should police be and those providing protection that we pay for to those politicians.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Ammo capacity limits are purely arbitrary.
If 10 rounds is ok, why not 12 or 16 rounds?
Wouldn't 5 rounds be safer than 10??
I need 20 -30 rounds (standard cap) to keep me safe - IMO

NYPD and other agencies that carry AR's feel safer with 30 round mags.

My family probably would, too.

 

[Defilade]

 

[Grimscale]

Ammo capacity limits are purely arbitrary.
If 10 rounds is ok, why not 12 or 16 rounds?
Wouldn't 5 rounds be safer than 10??
I need 20 -30 rounds (standard cap) to keep me safe - IMO

Just remember....Skretny's decision wasn't that 7 rounds was arbitrary. His decision was that 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was arbitrary.
The only reason we all aren't having to go out and buy 7 round magazines is that, with limited exceptions, firearms manufacturers don't MAKE them, and The Tyrant decided it wasn't worth trying to legislate them into existence. Maybe he thought he might actually lose a court case if he tried.


But Skretny's decision de facto supports arbitrary mag limits.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Just remember....Skretny's decision wasn't that 7 rounds was arbitrary. His decision was that 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was arbitrary.
The only reason we all aren't having to go out and buy 7 round magazines is that, with limited exceptions, firearms manufacturers don't MAKE them, and The Tyrant decided it wasn't worth trying to legislate them into existence. Maybe he thought he might actually lose a court case if he tried.


But Skretny's decision de facto supports arbitrary mag limits.

In re the other post I made replying to you, lol- this is what makes me hesitate to say we want this California case in front of the big Court.

They could very well say that 10 rounds is a "reasonable" limitation- and essentially green light imposing that in any other state that wants to that doesn't currently.