Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

cstanleytech

(28,376 posts)

18. Not really. The feds currently have limits on Armor-Piercing ammo for example and

Reply to hack89 (Reply #16)

Sat May 4, 2013, 08:10 PM

May 2013

as far as I am aware thats not changed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

L.A. bans large capacity gun magazines, draws lawsuit threat [View all] Newsjock May 2013 OP

A militia being necessary the right to large upaloopa May 2013 #1

'Agent' crook will lose this one @ Supremes, imo. elleng May 2013 #3

That poster was joking... adjust your sarcasm meter OKNancy May 2013 #4

Gotcha. elleng May 2013 #5

Well, at least the will of the people is being followed SOMEWHERE. SunSeeker May 2013 #2

How exactly is this an infringement though? cstanleytech May 2013 #6

Super ditto on the ammo comment. SoapBox May 2013 #7

It isn't, of course. Gun nuts only read the part that suits their fetish. PSPS May 2013 #11

Ammo is considered part and parcel of arms hack89 May 2013 #13

Good thing the discussion is about the US Constitution and no mention was cstanleytech May 2013 #15

I am good with magazine limits. hack89 May 2013 #16

Not really. The feds currently have limits on Armor-Piercing ammo for example and cstanleytech May 2013 #18

The 2A does not preclude regulation of ammo hack89 May 2013 #19

There is no infringement. The First Amendment protects the right to publish a story about AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #27

There is no legitimate use in LA Red Mountain May 2013 #8

It's a little known fact that magazines can be swapped quickly with just ... spin May 2013 #9

And our gunner friends practice a lot because they think this is a war zone. Hoyt May 2013 #31

Strangely I agree with most of what you have stated. ... spin May 2013 #33

Although I think it's not necessary, it would be better if those were the kinds of guns people were Hoyt May 2013 #34

Its not just 2nd amendment issues... ProgressiveProfessor May 2013 #10

The described ordinance is an imaginary ex post facto law. It doesn't exist. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #12

yet another post that has everyone wondering what is "Progressive" about you CreekDog May 2013 #23

plenty of local ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws. Love to see the Sunlei May 2013 #14

They did in Chicago kudzu22 May 2013 #20

what ordinances? Sunlei May 2013 #22

Chicago's ban on handguns kudzu22 May 2013 #24

interesting read, McDonald v. Chicago as compared to NRA v. Chicago Sunlei May 2013 #25

Interesting. Do you have a link to where the order might be found? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #26

Bring it, they will lose. nt bemildred May 2013 #17

How will they loose Travis_0004 May 2013 #30

State law can be changed too. This is a progressive state, most of it. bemildred May 2013 #32

Being sued by murderous maniacs. Aristus May 2013 #21

This local ordinance Jenoch May 2013 #28

There is no "This local ordinance." The false story is flame bait. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #29