[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DC mag ban struck down. (Page 2 of 5)
|
|
I recognize my magazines by the pronoun "ready storage modules" since like 2020 or therabouts, so none of this bullshit applies to me specifically. But I applaud and ratify this decision of the courts for those of you who aren't woke yet with the guns n shit. All of your magazines are belong to YOU, and I would have thought that was self-explanatory, under the language of "shall not be infringed". It's a little behind the times with all of the identity politics, but I can wholeheartedly and enthusiastically approve this ruling in a historical sense.  |
|
Quoted: Hopefully. We had that thread in GD yesterday where the NYS member was trying to get mags in accordance with a law that was impossible to comply with. That was me...I learned that not only did my mags have to be 50 years old but so did the AR15. So there was no way for me to utilize them. Prior to the SAFE act you could have preban mags. So we all spent hundreds/thousands of dollars to comply but turns out they refuse to grandfather them. |
|
Quoted: Okay, not as good news then. There won't be a federal circuit split. That means SCOTUS can refuse to hear the case and there won't be anything that is particularly helpful to the other federal cases. My guess is DC will not appeal in order to limit the damage to just D.C. Imagine me getting a storage space in DC because it has better magazine laws than Virginia. Whoda thunk? |
|
Quoted: Imagine me getting a storage space in DC because it has better magazine laws than Virginia. Whoda thunk? Quoted: Quoted: Okay, not as good news then. There won't be a federal circuit split. That means SCOTUS can refuse to hear the case and there won't be anything that is particularly helpful to the other federal cases. My guess is DC will not appeal in order to limit the damage to just D.C. Imagine me getting a storage space in DC because it has better magazine laws than Virginia. Whoda thunk? I was just thinking about the VA guys and how nutty this is. |
|
Quoted: Okay, not as good news then. There won't be a federal circuit split. That means SCOTUS can refuse to hear the case and there won't be anything that is particularly helpful to the other federal cases. My guess is DC will not appeal in order to limit the damage to just D.C. They did not due that with heller, they will appeal it and try to use the wording in the circuits that mags they are not arms. |
|
Attached File Oh if this helps us strike the CO mag ban ole Tantrum Tommy isn't going to be happy. |
|
Quoted: ...[one day later] DC institutes ban of magazines greater than ... 11 rounds... No they make it illegal to INSERT rounds into a magazine, all magazines must be stored empty and individually locked in their own container, a per round retroactive tax on magazines... |
|
"Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment. " "... we apply that (Bruen, Heller, Rahimi) framework to the parties’ three central disputes: (1) whether 11+ magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment; (2) the extent to which 11+ magazines are in “common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense; and (3) whether there is any history and tradition of banning similar arms. To preview our answers to those central questions, they are that (1) 11+ magazines are unquestionably arms, (2) they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and (3) there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use, so that the District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment. " |
|
Quoted: No they make it illegal to INSERT rounds into a magazine, all magazines must be stored empty and individually locked in their own container, a per round retroactive tax on magazines... Quoted: Quoted: ...[one day later] DC institutes ban of magazines greater than ... 11 rounds... No they make it illegal to INSERT rounds into a magazine, all magazines must be stored empty and individually locked in their own container, a per round retroactive tax on magazines... With written consent from Major League Baseball to even think about loading it. I like it! |
|
Quoted: Please, kick Maryland in the nuts next! Be nice, but it might spur them into doing shit again. As of right now, and since 2013, the MD bans are pedantic and mostly toothless. The biggest annoyance is the permit and registration faggotry, which scrotus has refused to strike down, but it doesn’t apply to non-regulated rifles. You can have any AR you want so long as it’s a pistol, or has a mid-weight barrel with HBAR marking. There’s at least a handful of shops that cater to this, and piston AR’s are GTG. Standard mags are a quick trip over the border to acquire. VA’s horseshit might mean heading up to WV instead. |
|
Quoted: Except that DC is not a state, so a separate state case would still need to be heard in order to quash state bans. Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully this bodes well for other locations with stupid mag restrictions. Except that DC is not a state, so a separate state case would still need to be heard in order to quash state bans. Generally any case is only going to directly apply to whoever the litigants are in the case that is decided. The decision becomes a precedent that other courts are supposed to use to decide similar cases. DC cases do present a shortcut into SCOTUS, if they're so inclined to take a case. I could be wrong, but has SCOTUS had a pure magazine capacity ban case come up, that's not also an AW ban? |
|
Quoted: Generally any case is only going to directly apply to whoever the litigants are in the case that is decided. The decision becomes a precedent that other courts are supposed to use to decide similar cases. DC cases do present a shortcut into SCOTUS, if they're so inclined to take a case. I could be wrong, but has SCOTUS had a pure magazine capacity ban case come up, that's not also an AW ban? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully this bodes well for other locations with stupid mag restrictions. Except that DC is not a state, so a separate state case would still need to be heard in order to quash state bans. Generally any case is only going to directly apply to whoever the litigants are in the case that is decided. The decision becomes a precedent that other courts are supposed to use to decide similar cases. DC cases do present a shortcut into SCOTUS, if they're so inclined to take a case. I could be wrong, but has SCOTUS had a pure magazine capacity ban case come up, that's not also an AW ban? Yes. Duncan. |
|
Quoted: The one case, in my opinion, that should go to SCOTUS is the mag limit/ban bullshit. There are a hell of a lot of bullshit anti gun laws out there that infringe plenty that the SC also needs to slap down. You almost make it sound like you are OK with some of those other laws….. |
|
Quoted: Generally any case is only going to directly apply to whoever the litigants are in the case that is decided. The decision becomes a precedent that other courts are supposed to use to decide similar cases. DC cases do present a shortcut into SCOTUS, if they're so inclined to take a case. I could be wrong, but has SCOTUS had a pure magazine capacity ban case come up, that's not also an AW ban? Quoted: Generally any case is only going to directly apply to whoever the litigants are in the case that is decided. The decision becomes a precedent that other courts are supposed to use to decide similar cases. DC cases do present a shortcut into SCOTUS, if they're so inclined to take a case. I could be wrong, but has SCOTUS had a pure magazine capacity ban case come up, that's not also an AW ban? Should've been more clear, I was stating in reference to a SC ruling, not district court. Quoted: The one case, in my opinion, that should go to SCOTUS is the mag limit/ban bullshit. Rather pointless if AWB cases aren't also dealt with. After all, what use is a mag without an AR to load it into? It all needs fixing, followed by enforcing state compliance. |
|
Quoted: Hopefully this bodes well for other locations with stupid mag restrictions. [States behind the blue curtain] OK, since we can't ban magazines, we will pass a $25 tax per mag, they have to registered with the state, there will be annual "safe storage" inspections by police, and you can't use them outside your home or off your property. [/States behind the blue curtain] |
|
|
Quoted: The one case, in my opinion, that should go to SCOTUS is the mag limit/ban bullshit. I agree, but only due to pragmatism. Any victory at SCOTUS would be welcome. We've had some significant ones, but for the most part, even those big wins failed to protect the 2A in states behind the blue curtain. It really does seem that SCOTUS as a whole is generally timid about taking on a case that could have wide-ranging ramifications to outright bans of hardware. Because of this, perhaps a simple mag ban case would be the best bet for relief of any sort with respect to hardware bans. A ruling that struck down any ammunition storage device wouldn't be the grand slam we want, but it'd be a pretty nice triple with two RBIs. |
|
Quoted: Be nice, but it might spur them into doing shit again. As of right now, and since 2013, the MD bans are pedantic and mostly toothless. The biggest annoyance is the permit and registration faggotry, which scrotus has refused to strike down, but it doesn’t apply to non-regulated rifles. You can have any AR you want so long as it’s a pistol, or has a mid-weight barrel with HBAR marking. There’s at least a handful of shops that cater to this, and piston AR’s are GTG. Standard mags are a quick trip over the border to acquire. VA’s horseshit might mean heading up to WV instead. As of 2 days ago, the roster board in md has become so extrmeme, they have refused to add any new handguns, including all gen 6 glocks and even refusing to add a bolt action handgun. Md is trying to pass a bill to allow the roster board to go back in time and disapprove previously approved handguns. If that happens say bye to pistol versions of rifles, all glocks, ect. The bill also requires new submissions to go through 500 rounds of testing at a cost that's estimated to be around $3500 per gun. Anyways, doesn't SCOTUS typically take cases coming out of DC, something about a duty regarding home rule, makes it less likely they deny cert from DC cases? |
|
Quoted:
Except the court specifically said "11+" mags are covered by the 2A and cannot be outlawed. |
|
Quoted: Except the court specifically said "11+" mags are covered by the 2A and cannot be outlawed. Backstop strategy: label mag-wielding gun owners "domestic terrorists", either collectively, or 1 at a time. Terrorism is the modern bug bad evil, even among gun owners. You never heard of hunters finger-wagging at AR "spray guns"? They'll drop a dime on all of us. For "safety". |
This is DC. It’s not a state. It only has about 6 hundred thousand residents (less than a million). It cannot grow much inside its border because there is a ban on building height (nothing taller than the Washington Monument). Notice how it’s completely surrounded by Maryland to the northeast (mag ban in place) and my home, the Commonwealth of Virginia (aka the Old Dominion), to the south west? Virginia just passed a magazine ban (we are now a single-party rule state) and it is headed for signature by our communist governor, a former CIA analyst who duped voters into believing she is a moderate when she’s actually a far-left progressive. The few DC residents able to benefit from this decision won’t be driving out here for normal-capacity magazines for long. Let’s hope DC is dumb enough to appeal this case to the current S.Ct as fast as possible. This may be our best chance at eliminating magazine bans nationwide. |
|
Quoted: Viramontes is on its 7th relist at SCOTUS. It is the cook county ban. Viramontes is not a good case because it lacks record. Barnett or Duncan is what SCOTUS wants and I'm pretty sure they want Barnett most of all. IL's ban is the biggest fattest tuna of them all. Mag bans, virtual ban on all semi auto long guns, threaded barrel ban, registration, equal protection violations, 5th and 9th amendment violations, and it is all tied into the bullshit FOID system. Also, in direct violation of Bruen, the 7th circuit created the military test that stated any gun used by the military is not protected by the second amendment so they don't even need to apply the Bruen standard. |
|
that dissent by the chief judge is full of "i'll make up shit to get the result i want" like The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use. The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not. |
|
Quoted: This is DC. It’s not a state. It only has about 6 hundred thousand residents (less than a million). It cannot grow much inside its border because there is a ban on building height (nothing taller than the Washington Monument). https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2X66GJA/washington-dc-political-map-district-of-columbia-capital-city-and-federal-district-of-the-united-states-located-on-the-potomac-river-2X66GJA.jpg Notice how it’s completely surrounded by Maryland to the northeast (mag ban in place) and my home, the Commonwealth of Virginia (aka the Old Dominion), to the south west? Virginia just passed a magazine ban (we are now a single-party rule state) and it is headed for signature by our communist governor, a former CIA analyst who duped voters into believing she is a moderate when she’s actually a far-left progressive. The few DC residents able to benefit from this decision won’t be driving out here for normal-capacity magazines for long. Let’s hope DC is dumb enough to appeal this case to the current S.Ct as fast as possible. This may be our best chance at eliminating magazine bans nationwide. Va would be a hell of a lot better off if DC was made a square. |
|
Quoted: Except the court specifically said "11+" mags are covered by the 2A and cannot be outlawed. Quoted: Quoted:
Except the court specifically said "11+" mags are covered by the 2A and cannot be outlawed. If the court said 11 plus, then the revised, more generous, limit shall be 11 times 1.  |
|
The dissenting opinion was massively weak. 1. The Majority Misapplies Bruen and Heller 2. 30-Round Magazines Are Not “In Common Use” for Self-Defense 3. Historical Analogues Support the Ban 4. The Majority Breaks With Every Court to Consider the Issue 5. 30-round magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings. 6. Treating popularity as constitutional immunity encourages manufacturers to “race” to normalize dangerous items. 7. The majority’s “common use” shortcut jeopardizes the District’s ability to protect public safety. |
|
Quoted: Aww bless your heart, you think now that VA is fucked that your special.... Quoted: Quoted: We really need some ban cases to go to the SCOTUS because Virginia is the roadmap for the anti 2a community. Aww bless your heart, you think now that VA is fucked that your special.... I don't understand why you're taking umbrage with my sincere desire that SCOTUS takes some state ban cases and rules in the 2a community's favor. |