Well, at least it shows other states realize they have a stake in the game even though they don't have AWB's.
That's some glass half empty shit right there.Or... They're waiting for the green light to institute a ban ; )
should be 30 roundThey stated very clearly that they believe the ten round magazine and the gun they fit in are constitutional protected. It should be heard.
Robin
I mistyped, yes, 30 rounder.should be 30 round
Not the states in that list.Or... They're waiting for the green light to institute a ban ; )
Wasn't there already a case where large numbers of attorney's general wanted SCOTUS to take a similar AWB case and they didn't?
Is a magazine limit not "arbitrary and capricious" ? A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational.Magazine restrictions are NOT a violation of the 2A! Period. Don't get me wrong, I hate the laws that restrict capacity but it is not a 2A violation.
The rest of the case is in direct violation.
Well, at least it shows other states realize they have a stake in the game even though they don't have AWB's.
Is a magazine limit not "arbitrary and capricious" ? A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational.
Sure it is. The magazine is a necessary part of the "arms", required for proper function. Banning the magazine is in effect banning the "arms".Magazine restrictions are NOT a violation of the 2A! Period. Don't get me wrong, I hate the laws that restrict capacity but it is not a 2A violation.
The rest of the case is in direct violation.
Sure it is. The magazine is a necessary part of the "arms", required for proper function. Banning the magazine is in effect banning the "arms".
I don't believe in willingly giving an inch to the gun banning scumbags.
Yes they are. They are a functioning part of an arm that requires one.Magazine restrictions are NOT a violation of the 2A! Period. Don't get me wrong, I hate the laws that restrict capacity but it is not a 2A violation.
The rest of the case is in direct violation.
Is an AK in the Constitution? If you think that's ridiculous then well...That is an opinion and feeling, not fact of law and not in the Constitution.
That depends on whether you are liberal or conservative.Wow. Does freedom of speech applies to no more than 500 words?
A gun that requires a magazine to function as designed will not work as designed without the magazine.No, no they are not. Nearly all guns will work without a mag. All you have to do is research and understand the 2A to realize that this is not about the 2A.
This is a lot like Free Speech, not all Free Speech is free. Go on keep saying the same stuff over and over.
That is an opinion and feeling, not fact of law and not in the Constitution.The magazine restriction may or may not be a violation of a Right, just not the 2A.
I have to agree here @GOPerfect . It is an "arm" designed to function a certain way (full, semi or single shot) with a magazine of a certain (not arbitrary) capacity.A gun that requires a magazine to function as designed will not work as designed without the magazine.
You are being ridiculous.
Then show us. If you cannot, then don't say the whole expert nonsense. Inform us. Show us where it says in the courts and the Constitution that a magazine is not a functioning part of a gun that was built to function with one.I am not going to continue this discussion. As usual, each and everytime we discuss the Courts, every one turns into an expert. Read, study and understand the Bill of Rights. A magazine is NOT an Arm that is protected.