Federal judge says California's ban on high capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment.

[In It to Win It]

Gabriel Malor
@gabrielmalor

Fed. judge (again) rules California's ban on high capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment.

Held: [High capacity magazines] are protected arms and there was no historical tradition of banning them (or an historical analogue) in the Nation's early decades.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.149.0_1.pdf

Link to tweet

[Amishman]

1. Not surprising, Thomas give them a sledgehammer in Bruen

There isn't a gun safety law that can stand up to the scrutiny test Thomas crafted in Bruen, and he did that intentionally.

[Conjuay]

2. OH GOODIE!

More blood in the streets and schools!

[struggle4progress]

3. W appointee from Cuba

[Midnight Writer]

4. There was also no tradition of regulating bazookas, grenade launchers, or surface-to-air missiles.

Odd that he cites militia regulations while denying that the term "well-regulated militia" has any meaning in modern times.

[CharleyDog]

5. Come the huge Blue Wave that I expect 2024, let us begin to whittle down the 2nd Amendment

to pea size.

[Aristus]

7. We won't have the kind of supermajority we would need in the House, the Senate

and in the fifty statehouses to alter or amend the Constitution. Which is what we would need to do to change the gun laws. And trying to change the 2nd Amendment is exactly what those 400lb, soft-bellied suburban Rambo-wannabees want us to do. Give them what they perceive as justification for making the streets run with blood; or with more blood than there is now.

[roamer65]

6. I'm sure gun shops in CA have a lot of undiscovered violations of state law.

It’s time for a crackdown!

If red states can do it with abortion clinics, CA can do it with gun shops.

[Zeitghost]

11. Gun shops in CA

Are highly regulated and face regular inspections by state officials as well as the ATF. If paperwork is not pristine they get shut down.

[roamer65]

14. ...

👍👍

I would hope more inspections are coming.

[TexasDem69]

17. Why do they need more inspections?

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Yep, there were no high capacity muskets.

[Initech]

9. Sigh... fuck the 2nd Amendment lunatics.

[SCantiGOP]

10. There was no history of regulating magazine capacity

Because in late 1700s there wasn’t a weapon on Earth that could hold or fire more than one round without being reloaded.

[sarisataka]

18. Incorrect nt

[EX500rider]

20. Not entirely true

There was the East India Company Seven shot musket.

Belton then began making superposed load flintlocks, which used a sliding lock mechanism, with the London gunsmith William Jover, and sold them to the East India Company in 1786. An example of a seven shot sliding lock flintlock musket made by Jover and Belton may be found in the Royal Armouries Museum collection in Leeds. This musket, rack numbered 124 (indicating a purchase and issue of at least 124 of the rifles), also has a replaceable chamber section. The replaceable chamber makes this example both a breechloader, and effectively gives it a seven shot replaceable magazine. It is not known if multiple magazines were issued per gun, though this was possible (see here for a similar scenario with percussion revolvers). The lock slides from front to rear, with a second trigger provided that slides the lock from touch hole to touch hole, allowing each successive charge to be ignited. The lock did require cocking and priming between shots; while this would take time, the sliding lock would have provided a much higher rate of fire over a typical single shot musket of the era.[5]

The Belton sliding lock design was later improved and used in slightly more successful designs, such as Isaiah Jenning's repeating flintlock rifle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

[Dave says]

12. Let's play their game

Since there was no mention of AR15, high-capacity magazines, etc., in our early history, how does the 2nd amendment even apply?

We at any level should be free to regulate the hell out of these then non-existent arms. The only thing the second amendment applies to are muskets. We can’t regulate muskets as they existed in our early history.

Our nation is a joke (probably most nations are similar unfair, sadistic, racist, upper-class protecting jokes).

[MichMan]

13. What then would the 1st amendment be limited to?

Only the type of printing presses in use when it was ratified ?

[Amishman]

15. Or would the 4th not apply to electronic search?

Digital records didn't exist in 1792 after all.

It's just not a good road to go down.

[Dave says]

16. The human larynx

Pen and paper. Those printing presses you mentioned. Note, I said let’s play a game. I try to push through the absurdity of Thomas’ decision over NY’s 100 year old law regulating concealed carry outside the home (Bruen, 2020?).

Clown Thomas “changed the test courts are to use when analyzing the constitutionality of such regulations. Only firearm regulations that are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition” comply with Second Amendment’s protections, he wrote, in an assertion that puts in jeopardy any restriction that does not have a historical parallel to the nation’s founding.”

Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent:

“Laws addressing repeating crossbows, launcegays, dirks, dagges, skeines, stilladers, and other ancient weapons will be of little help to courts confronting modern problems, and as technological progress pushes our society ever further beyond the bounds of the Framers’ imaginations, attempts at ‘analogical reasoning’ will become increasingly tortured. In short, a standard that relies solely on history is unjustifiable and unworkable.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/second-amendment-gun-rights-supreme-court-new-york-test/index.html

[jeffreyi]

19. Wait.

I recall, from my waterfowl hunting days, your shotgun could not hold more than some minimum number of shotgun shells, forgotten how many. Somebody here knows this hunting regulation.

[jmowreader]

21. It's three