U.S. District Judge William Alsup (courtesy therecorder.com)

“I see precious few cases where a homeowner has warded off an intruder with 10 or more bullets.” So sayeth U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at the outset of a hearing in San Francisco, where the NRA and four CA gun owners are challenging San Francisco’s ban on standard-capacity ammunition magazines. “You have zero evidence … that these oversize magazines are used for common self-defense.” I never cease to be amazed by the amount of fail a judge can fit into so few words. With apologies to the Black Eyed Peas, let’s get it started in here . . .

Homeowner? Intruder? Judge Alsup’s pronouncement assumes that the only place an armed citizen might encounter a potentially lethal threat from a bad guy is at home. It singularly fails to recognize Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

Attackers tend to do their business outside the home. In packs. If you have ten rounds in your self-defense gun and two attackers and your hit ratio is no better than the New York City Police Department (18%), you may well be SOL. As in dead. Theoretically? Sure. Unless it isn’t. Here’s a map of 20 homicides in The City By The Bay in 2013.

SF homicides 2013 (courtesy Google Maps)

I wonder if any of these twenty victims would be alive today if they’d had been carrying a gun with more than 10 rounds. Or maybe even a gun (which they are not allowed to do legally in SF). Anyway, who cares? Is our natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms based on statistics? Anecdotes? I don’t think so. And if it is, well, as the antis like to say, if carrying more than ten rounds saves even one life . . .

“Precious few” that.

Meanwhile, I like (i.e. hate) how the judge uses the term “warded off.” As if showing a bad guy a gun is all that’s needed to stop them from posing an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. What sort of world does Judge Alsup live in? I presume not one where bad guys break down doors and attack inhabitants or sneak up on hapless victims late at night and cause them death or grievous bodily harm. Actually, he does. He just doesn’t know it.

What does Judge Alsup mean by “over-size” magazines? I’m thinking the term indicates that the Judge is unfamiliar with the fact that manufacturers sell guns with ammunition magazines specifically designed for the firearm. That some 15-round magazines (and up) come as “standard.” Then again, who cares how many rounds are in or near a legally owned firearm? If I handed the judge a GLOCK loaded with a 30-round magazine would he be any more likely to shoot it at bystanders than if I gave him a GLOCK with a 10-round mag?

Equally, does the Judge not understand that if you ban something it’s a Catch-22 to turn around and say the ban’s OK because the banned item’s not in “common use” (the same logic used in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision to justify the ban on machine guns)? Lastly, what’s this common self-defense he keeps talking about? The Second Amendment is not use-specific. It’s an entirely clear prohibition on ANY law infringing on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their motivation for doing so.

Quick test for Judge Alsup (modified from a comment by JeefR underneath our Quote of the Day): why do Americans have a right to keep and bear arms?

1) Because guns are cool and fun to shoot
2) Because I use them to put food on my family’s table
3) For self-defense against criminals of the non-governmental variety
4) For self-defense during a period of civil unrest, i.e., a temporary loss of rule of law
5) To oppose tyranny
6) All of the above – and anything else you can think of

The correct answer: 6. The even more correct answer is: as long as I do not commit a crime with a firearm it’s none of your damn business.

The San Francisco law, which the Board of Supervisors passed in November, requires owners of gun magazines that carry more than 10 rounds to surrender them to police by April 8. Alsup said he would rule at a later date on the NRA’s request to block the ordinance from taking effect.

The suit before Alsup was filed on behalf of the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association and four individual gun owners. It argues that high-capacity magazines are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” and that banning their legal possession would give “violent criminals an advantage.”

Not that it matters when you’re talking about a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right, but yes, there is that. Isn’t there Judge?

143 Responses to SF Judge Disses “High Capacity” Magazines

  1. I see precious few cases where a homeowner has warded off an intruder with 10 or more bullets.

    What was the line from earlier today? Something about how law abiding citizens rarely committing a crime warrants all hands on deck, but rare violent crime is nothing to worry about….

    • This is why you need to start at the root of the grass (i.e. grassroots). You enlighten more people (i.e. voters) which gets you better choices in elected offices, which in turn takes these sorts of decisions out of the hands of ass-wipes like this judge.

  2. Well, if that is the case, then cops don’t need magazines that carry more than ten rounds either, especially if there is more than one cop involved in a shootout…I bet that guy in New York getting terrorized by a gang of 100 bikers needed more than 10 rounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Right. You don’t need more than 10 rounds … until you do. At that point, it does not matter what happened in the 99.99% of other cases…10 rounds or no.

      • exactly. has anyone ever involved in a DGU situation (or even a cop involved in a shootout for that matter) said “I had way too many bullets for that gunfight. better leave my extra mags & rounds at home next time.”?

      • Easy, they travel in large packs. 911 may not have units available for your prowler call, but throw out an officer needs help call and oddly enough *everyone* suddenly is not only available, but on scene in very short order. So no, they do not need more than 10 rounds in their mags. Hell, using the anti-gun crowd’s very own logic, since LEOs are HIGHLY TRAINED, they should never NEED more than 10. Cause training. And since us lowly “civilians” are NOT highly trained, we should by default have standard AND high capacity mags available.

  3. Your honor, I see precious few cases where an intruder has been warded off by a homeowner in light of your defense of “common sense” gun control laws.

      • c in that equation has a specific value and always has.
        c= speed of light in a vacuum. but for the purposes of the formula being easier to read they put c in place of 299,792,458 m/s

        In other words E=mc^2 Energy = Mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum.

        • Variables only have a specific value when defined (as you
          show). Without definitions the variables can mean anything.
          For instance E= energy in E=mc^2. However in e=mc^2 the e
          could be constant (e = 2.71828…) forcing m and c to be
          recalculated.

          Coincidentally, argument over defined terms is precisely what
          this article is about. The judge has forcibly redefined the
          variable in order to support his position.

    • There doesn’t need to be any justification. This is just another judge using the bench to try to create policy and play politics. They need to learn their place and role and stay with it instead of this political activism. He is suggesting that there be a defined need for a Right.

      • This is where the courts have gone astray–they require the citizens must justify their possession or use of weapons rather than the public entity having to justify its restriction. Intermediate scrutiny is SUPPOSED to place the burden on the State to come forward with evidence justifying the need to restrict the right, not the other way around.

      • ^ This!!!!!

        Why the hell isn’t anyone screaming this during the case?!?!?!?

        What exactly are the attorneys arguing in these cases?

    • Please don’t. The judge most assuredly will NOT read them, as any such communications are improper ex parte communications that the court is precluded from considering.

      • Not to get technical, but improper ex parte communication rules only apply to “parte’s” to a court matter for which a complaint has been properly filed. With some exceptions, the public may properly contact a judge. That is not to say that other communications would be beneficial to the cause.

  4. San Fran is even worse than the rest of CA, which is in turn worse than most of our nation. The statist proclivities and ignorance (or am I repeating myself?) of this judge don’t surprise me, but they do inspire my disdain.

    As I sit here, I’ve got 3 – 11 round mags, plus another 11 round spare, and another 100 rounds of .40. I wish I had a 15 round .40 mag or a 17 round 9mm mag. My AR has 20 round mags, and I wish it had 30. I’ve never once left a shift, particularly one that dealt with any felons, wishing I had *less* ammo. I’ve never left a DGU wishing I had a smaller gun with a smaller mag.

    I’ve told people before, and I’ll say it again: you’ll never wish for a reduced capacity magazine in a critical situation. And that’s exactly what this “judge” wants. Reduced capacity magazines. So he can feel better. Because he doesn’t know any better.

    Its ridiculous that taxpayers are forced to purchase real mags for police, and can be jailed for owning the same thing.

  5. We face two distinct trains of thought here.

    We would be hypocrites to suggest a standard capacity weapon is “necessary” for armed self defense.Again, most defensive cases are resolved with a bad guy running away from a citizen with a drawn gun.The few of those which escalate to shots fired are not drawn out gun battles of the “NCIS -LA ” variety. Bad guys don’t pack heat to re-enact the OK Corral.

    Then there’s the citizens side of things.Whenever a cop mag dumps 17 rounds with one or two hits to a bad guy, we all justifiably cry foul. Spray and Pray is a poor way to manage affairs in a shootout-where did the other 15 rounds go? Into a neighbor’s home? Through a baby’s crib?An old man’s oxygen tank in the building behind the bad guy(s)?

    I would hope all of us believe in being competent enough to not mag dump like that .As the case of the state trooper smoking two SMG packing Bad Guys single handedly with his .357 Magnum -and rounds to spare at that!-demonstrates, one need not pack a huge magazine to defend thenselves ably.

    With that factual point established, we can return to the judges statements.Which are invalidated by a simple and honest truth: No government authority, himself included, has the right to determine what a man or woman does or does not need to carry for self defense.

    End.Of.Story. He may as well decide how many kids we all are allowed to have.

        • So China is running out of people to care for the elderly because of their “One Child” rule. And workers for the factories as well. Suddenly, the CPC has relented, and will allow certain people (with the proper $$$ permit $$$) to have a second child.

          A big-shot file producer recently was discovered to have [GASP] FOUR children. $1.2 mil later all is good, and he doesn’t have to put three of them back.

        • USSR actually paid families for having more children. It also had a tax for people without children after a certain age (unless exempt for medical reasons).

    • You gotta love (hate) the arbitrary round capacity arguments. SF was one of the many cities back in the 80’s to argue that cops shouldn’t have duty issued semi-automatics because they didn’t need more than 6 rounds (among other reasons). California’s current arbitrary number stands at 10, NY is 7, NYC is 5, CO & MD is 15, Joe Bidenville is 2, etc… none of it is based on fact, just emotional opinion. What else is new in the land of “for the children”?

      Side note on the “why does anyone need (insert item here)”, show people this: http://imgur.com/mxpC12D

      • What children? I work in SF fairly regularly and rarely see children at all. People bring their dogs to the park and that’s about it.

        • I’m talking more about the ideology than the location. Besides, everyone knows SF kids are inside doing acid because it’s the only way to escape their parents love of their own farts.

          youtu.be/TMTkedIUX8U

    • with that mindset, maybe he would like to have all gun owners wear emblems on their clothing, then later he can round them up into ghettos, after that they can be shipped of to camps…. for stuff….

    • How many times was 50cent shot? Isn’t he still making (crappy) music? I wouldn’t want to trust a handgun for a 1 – shot stop. There are also real stories of multiple handgun hits not taking the bad guy out of the fight.

      I appreciate your comments about marksmanship, but I also stand by my own training, education, and experience. I don’t want to run out of ammo – not as a cop, or as a citizen. If a cop *needs* all his ammo and hardware whilst wearing a vest and having armed backup on standby, then the citizen / non LEO needs just as much.

  6. He’s a Clinton appointee. I would expect nothing less from him. If you read the whole article he actually put the burden of proof on the citizen and not the state also. He wouldn’t even consider the absolute fact that 10+ round magazines are the standard and 10 round or lower magazines are by far the minority. But fuck it, the children. SCOTUS better overturn all this garbage or the case in which they uphpld will essentially be an “Official Notice of Our Illegitimacy”.

    • At this point I will be stunned if the Supreme Court of the United States hears any Second Amendment cases in the next 40 years. Why not ignore or sit on cases indefinitely like the 9th Circus Circuit? Then chaos reigns and the myriad unconstitutional lower court decisions stand.

      The only thing worse than knowing what the courts have decreed to be illegal is not knowing what the courts will decree to be illegal.

    • “SCOTUS better overturn all this garbage or the case in which they uphpld will essentially be an ‘Official Notice of Our Illegitimacy’.”

      At this point the lower courts are all over the place with their Second Amendment decisions and their level of scrutiny in those decisions. And the Supreme Court has chosen to NOT weigh in. In my opinion the courts have already issued their “Official Notice That Our Courts Are Illegitimate”.

  7. I guess the real question is why does this judge think he has the right to make that decision anyway?

    Who cares how many rounds I’m carrying if I get into a DGU. Is the judge’s premise that I should just carry what he deems a sufficient number and no more?

    This is one of the reasons I don’t like the idea of framing the debate too specifically. Saying we want guns for hunting or home defense or street self defense, or whatever…only fuels them setting the terms of the debate with opinions of what they think we need to accomplish that goal.

    Edit: ST, you and I posted at about the same time.

    • ^ This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      And does this judge also decide the maximum number of words that a citizen can have on a sign in front of City Hall … because there is no evidence that a citizen needs more than the judge’s arbitrary number of words to effectively express free speech?

      Screw you judge Alsup. (I refuse to capitalize his title.)

  8. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

    • I have only two quibbles:

      1) The right to self defense, and hence the right to keep and bear arms, is a natural right and should under no circumstances be equated with any deity. It belongs to all people regardless of their religious philosophy or lack of same. It needs to be viewed as a right by the very truth of our creation we perceive that to have occurred, and not by the assumption that a deity gave it to us. We are a secular society and the Constitution is in all important respects a secular document.

      2) The right to self defense, and hence the right to keep and bear arms, is a natural right and therefore NO government entity has or should have the authority to infringe on the RKBA. While The Constitution of the United States of America in the Second Amendment states specifically that the right may not be infringed, the existence of and acknowledgement of its status as a natural right presumes that no authority exists at any level to restrict or infringe upon this right.

      • I offer for thought:

        You need to expand your thinking in regards to “Right given by God.” Think of it as Supreme Right that exists beyond the laws of men and man’s government.

        The fundamental battle we are fighting resides on the issue of “who determines what are our rights are.” One side believes these rights come from God (or, “above man”) and the other side believes all human rights are determined by and given (or taken) by governments.

        That is…think of God as a concept encapsulating “supreme” rather within the framework of any of man’s religions.

        …as you describe in (2)

        • Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are “life, liberty, and property.”

          John Locke, 1689, “Second Treatise of Government”.

          Even if you don’t believe in God, many that helped create our BOR, and Constitution did.

  9. My letter to the Judge:

    I’m frankly disgusted at Judge Alsup’s recent comments on Firearm Magazine Capacity. There are precious few cases where homeowner’s require more than 10 rounds to “ward off” an attacker, as he puts it. Until there aren’t… Your honor, please focus your efforts on putting real criminals away, instead of making criminals out of law abiding citizens based on your ignorance and fear of firearms. How easily you forget that millions of men and women have fought and died for the freedoms that you so flippantly dismiss.

  10. “I see precious few cases where a homeowner has warded off an intruder with 10 or more bullets.”

    In other words, if only a few people have to die in order to preserve our unconstitutional infringement on the rights of our citizens, then that price is worth it.

  11. We were given the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. Hence, the government has the legal burden of proving why that right should be restricted in any manner. Our only burden is to remind the electorate of that fact.

    • “We were given the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. Hence, the government has the legal burden of proving why that right should be restricted in any manner.”

      James, sorry, you have a misunderstanding.

      The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally PROTECTED right. We the people created the Constitution and the government and the Second Amendment does not give us a right to keep and bear arms, it prohibits the government form infringing on that right that already exists.

      The government CANNOT have the legal burden of proving that the right to keep and bear arms should be restricted for the simple fact that the Second Amendment says very succinctly, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Therefore, the government has no legal authority whatsoever to restrict the RKBA in any manner or circumstance. The one possible exception to this may be the restriction of access to arms to known criminals duly convicted and incarcerated, during the time of their incarceration. The Bill of Rights does seem to imply that some natural rights may be temporarily restricted under due process of law.

      • + 1000!!!!!

        Important point though about government having a “legitimate authority” to infringe rights of ex-convicts through due process of law: we live in a time where government, through legislative fiat, has written enough laws on the books that pretty much everyone is “guilty” of a felony of some sort if a prosecutor cared to dig hard enough. And as for the few who are not somehow felons, almost all of them could be easily nudged to do something that “makes” them a felon. Governments have used this to neutralize anyone they don’t like. We must be on guard for this.

    • The second amendment does NOT grant the right to keep and bear arms! The second amendment forbids infringement on a NATURAL right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the Constitution as a whole does not grant citizens any rights. Citzens by default have all rights. The Constitution defines what limitations and infringements the Governement can place on citizen’s natural rights.

      • From a natural law perspective, I agree. We have an inherent right to bear arms that predates any constitution. However, very few governments in world history have recognized that right – including the one we declared our independence from. It would be more accurate to say that the Constittution enunciates a pre-existing unwritten right rather than “giving” us a right that we already had. However, we were “given” the right in the realm of written law since it did not exist in British written law in 1776 (or 2014). In any case, I’m on your side and I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused.

        • This is exactly what is supposed to be different in America, but has been bastardized by the progressives and growth of Government.
          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–[b]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[/b]”
          The Constitution is our consent to be governed in limited areas, not what the Government permits us to do.

        • donny77,

          I would tweak your statement slightly. Our United States Constitution is basically a contract between “We the People” and our government.

  12. Judge, the test “is” if one life can be saved by the high caps, don’t believe me? just ask the grabbers.

  13. Sooooo if I (could) carry 2 mags besides the one in the gun did I just become high capacity? If I (could) carry more than one gun did I just become an arsenal with the capability of warding off more than one criminal?

    • It’s incremental. First something small like round capacity. Then a smaller round capacity (see NY). Then someone uses two guns (already happened numerous times, but I digress), so you can only have one of each type, then only one, etc. The ultimate goal is total disarmament and the anti’s are very open about it in practice. Look at the actual and proposed gun laws in 5 states around the country and you will see the wet dreams of gun grabbers in various stages of incrementalism.

  14. Wow, that POS is going IN to the damn suit with his mind already made up.

    People like that don’t need to be on the bench.

  15. So, with these statements of personal opinion the “judge” clearly illustrates that he has already reached his legally binding conclusion. Why did the Complainants not simply walk out, the “judge has rendered his final opinion, all the rest is just expensive f*cking bullsh*t.

  16. Do not expect any pro-2A decision to come out of the First, Second or Ninth Circuits. Those circuits are dominated by Democrats and other leftist scum.

    Also, don’t expect the Supreme Court to intervene all that much. The Court is great at resolving conflicts between the Circuits. We have to hope that the Fourth Circuit (Maryland) or the Tenth (Colorado) will help us out and create conflicts with the First, Second and Ninth. I’m not holding my breath.

    Even if a conflict exists, I expect that the Federal courts will uphold some limit on magazine sizes. I’m not sure what the magic number may be. Magazine capacities are like prunes — are ten too few? Are fifteen too many?

    In any case, I do expect that the Courts will be very deferential to the legislatures of the states.

    • If the issue is common use (per Heller) then 15 is too few. No magazine limits are reasonable, but if there was a limit (based on an objective observation of common use) 30 rounds should be more likely (considering the AR-15 is the most common rifle in the U.S. and the vast majority of AR’s are sold with a 30 round magazine). Understand that I don’t expect SCOTUS to be objective. Also, I don’t want any limit, and I believe we should not allow any more infringements upon our rights.

      • But common use by what definition? If, as SCOTUS discusses in the reasoning for Heller, the preservation of the RKBA under the new government was included due to concern with the people having the means to resist government tyranny; shouldn’t common use be defined by common use by infantry? That is, those military forces most likely to be used against the people? The modern equivalent of the colonial era musket?

        • That sounds good to me. If SCOTUS actually took into account the real purpose of the 2A, then the NFA could be completely repealed. I would certainly have to save up for an M240 Bravo.

      • Don’t go crazy with that “common use” business. The Court was addressing only handguns (the weapon in common use) and did not comment in any way on mag size.

    • > I expect that the Federal courts will uphold
      > some limit on magazine sizes. I’m not sure
      > what the magic number may be
      . Magazine
      > capacities are like prunes — are ten too few?
      > Are fifteen too many?

      Whatever the police are allowed to have.

      • Don’t count on that. The cops have a different mission than we do, and the Court isn’t stupid.

        Hey, I’m not commenting on what should happen. I’m commenting only on what I think the Court might do.

      • > The cops have a different
        > mission than we do

        And what mission is that?

        Armed civilians protect (1) themselves, (2) their families, and to a lesser extent, (3) the communities they live in, which is an unintended benefit of protecting themselves and their families.

        What types of bad guys are the police confronting that civilians are not? And who were these bad guys victimizing before they were confronted by the police?

        • If you don’t know the difference between the cops’ mission and ours, there’s no point in me trying to tell you. It would be like me trying to teach calculus to a pig — it would frustrate me and annoy the pig.

        • Thanks for the insult. How ’bout humoring this “pig” and educating me with your opinion…

        • I’ll give it a whorl. (See what I did there?)

          When the local bank is being held up at gun point, does the bank call the police? Or do they call some random guy in the phone book?

        • Well, sure, if you want to cherry pick your situations. However, in the generic situation of a bad guy attacking a good guy, what’s going to have a quicker response: the good guy already carrying his own defense, or the good guy hoping he can get to his phone, or hope a witness can, and call 911 and wait X number of minutes (or longer) before the cops show up.

        • > When the local bank is
          > being held up at gun point

          … who is already there? Who is being victimized? Who has an immediate need to protect themselves? Hint: it’s not the police, who are minutes away.

          How does your example justify special privileges for the police to carry standard capacity magazines, while denying that right to the civilians who are interacting with the same criminals?

          I’m not saying that’s necessarily your position, but that was the context of my question. If the police need standard capacity magazines to deal with the threat of armed bank robbers, then do not any potentially armed victims who are already on the scene?

          PS — Hmmm. OK, if I frame my quesiton “what mission is that” as a matrix, I realize I may have been a bit flippant:

          1. mission: protect themselves
          [ X ] civilians [ X ] police

          2. mission: protect their families
          [ X ] civilians [ X ] police

          3. mission: protect their community
          [ ] civilians [ X ] police

          The “mission” of an armed civilian is not to “protect the community”; that’s just an unintended result. However, I’m being generous in saying that the “mission” of the police is to “protect the community”, when it’s actually to enforce the Will of the State and to gather evidence to assist the prosecution of the accuse; it’s not to find the Truth. Protection of the community may or may not be a result of police work, but I do understand that the courts have a vested interest in promoting the Party’s propaganda.

          ps – FLAME DELETED Ralph.

        • When the local bank is being held up at gun point, does the bank call the police? Or do they call some random guy in the phone book?

          Texas Man Shot Bank Robbery Suspects Who Kidnapped Wife: Cops (Video). March 06, 2014.

          Two brothers who kidnapped a couple and forced the wife to help them rob the bank where she worked got a lethal dose of Texas justice last week.

          Police believe the suspects knew that the wife worked at the bank, but the victims did not know the suspects, Sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Andrew Weido told KHOU.

          The suspects returned to the house and made the husband drive them south in his truck, but the man managed to get a hold of his personal firearm in the vehicle.

    • I believe the strategy in the 2A cases in the 9th, including two pending, are to build enough strong-cases, built on solid precedent, for example Heller, McDonald, and so on,
      that when the 9th does opine (if it doesn’t go en banc to delay)
      that they will be forced to rule according to precedent, for the pro-2A win,
      or more likely, issue a bad decision that conflicts,
      and that sets up the opportunity that the Supremes are waiting for, to resolve the issues.

      Timing wise- that appears to be 2016, as I read the Supremes tend to wind up on big cases, to round out their cycle/season with decisions toward the end.

      I could be wrong on some of this, and terminology- the point being- don’t hold your breath… this takes time, and even the 9th is not past its longest wait times (24 months in past) on the 2A cases already argued in Dec 12.

  17. Of course it’s ok for California to release 10,000 convicted felons on the populas cause of prison overpopulation.But they won’t come to your house,so don’t worry,just keep your slingshot handy!

    • Macaulay Culkin took care of two real bad-ass burglars on several occasions and never fired a shot. What’s the problem?

  18. What about government tyranny? The right isn’t just about self-defense from criminals. The Founding Fathers felt it necessary to specifically include the right to keep and bear arms in the constitution because of the Anti-Federalists concerns. That concern being government tyranny, it was argued at the time that a 2a was unnecessary because the people would always be armed since it wasn’t prohibited by the constitution. The anti-federalists were concerned with the future, that the government would not always respect that understanding of the rights of the people. Hence, the pre-existing right for the people to keep and bear arms is expressly forbidden from being infringed upon by the new government.

    So, the standard infantry weapon/magazine in common use today should be available to ‘the people’.

    • You have eloquently stated the truth, however, to maintain the concept, “…the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed…” [emphasis mine] is the terminology of the amendment. Therefore it would seem logical that no “arms” available to the standing army may be denied to the people.

      Considering the lethality of some arms controlled by the government this is a complex issue, but if we are concerned about tyranny do we really want the government to have weapons for which we have absolutely zero defense or counter? Perhaps the only reasonable solution would be to put the most destructive weapons under the control of a non-political third-party, not either the government or the military. These are issue the Founders obviously did not have to consider.

      I recall that Heinlein wrote a story in which this third-party manned orbiting stations and controlled nuclear weapons. At the verified aggression of any nation they could drop a nuke on the belligerent and stop that in its tracks. Solutions MAY be possible if we are willing to think outside of the box while not infringing on the right in general.

      • Any organization is corrupt-able. There is no such thing as a non-partisan group. Consolidating WMDs under one banner is the recipe for tyranny.

  19. Good news: I agree with the judge that it is highly unlikely that the bag guys will stick around after you the shoot the first guy and the fight will be over before you get past 5 rounds.

    Bad news: So what. The Constitution says I got a right to have it just like I have the right to buy a big house for two people or a car that goes 180mph even I never drive it past 80.

    • Jared Reston’s first gunfight: good guy fired seven (if I recall correctly) rounds, three of which were point blank, muzzle-in-contact-with-skin cranial shots. Good guy was still shot 7 times himself (some in body armor).

      Justin Schnieders gunfight: Good guy fired 7-8 rounds and himself sustained 3 (or four) gunshot wounds.

      Many other examples exist.

      Point being: Real gun fights tend to be a lot “sloppier” and involve a LOT more shooting than popularly thought.

      I don’t know where this judge is getting his data, but there are real cases where the good guys needed more than x rounds (whatever is the flavor of the day).

      1986 FBI gunfight: good guys fired something around 77 rounds at two bad guys.

      1997 North Hollywood Shootout: Good guys fired about 650 rounds at two bad guys.

      So, where’s the standard? What “could” happen?

      The whole mag limit argument is stupid on its face.

    • “…a car that goes 180mph [sic] even I never drive it past 80.”

      You can drive it 180 mph if you’re able to. It’s illegal, and you’ll get a ticket if you’re caught. Same deal works for high-cap magazines. See Connecticut.

  20. Why the hell is 10 the magic number? Oh, that’s right because 10 —-> 7 —-> 5 ——> 3 ——> 1 ——> NONE.

  21. I don’t need “high capacity” magazines to defend myself from criminals, I need “high capacity” magazines to defend myself from a socialist tyrannical government…

  22. Backwards thinking. The people don’t have to demonstrate a need for something in order to justify being allowed it. It’s the government that has to justify banning it.

  23. I guess up in San Francisco, the pony express hasn’t yet brought news of the 1965 Watts riots or the 1992 Rodney King riots. “Ohhh…..those are once-in-a-generation, rare phenomenon. Hardly worth setting policy by.” Well.

    Keep rewriting the Constitution to infringe on people’s God-given right to defend themselves, pal, and the people of this country might start bracing for a re-imagination of the word “rare.”

    • “I guess up in San Francisco, the pony express hasn’t yet brought news of the 1965 Watts riots or the 1992 Rodney King riots. “Ohhh…..those are once-in-a-generation, rare phenomenon. Hardly worth setting policy by.” Well.”

      Someone also should point to the recent (almost yearly) riots in the European cities to which SF commonly compares itself.

    • Yep. I read some interesting stories in a Korean American anniversary collection, of stories told by the various shopkeepers and family members talking about how the AKs they used to defend their stores were the key difference, when LA Police were instructed to pull out.

    • Exactly. Absolutely nothing stops a lynch mob from forming and coming for you, me, or anyone else. If that happens, I want more than 10 round magazines.

  24. The judge also forgets upon what ground these arguments are made. A bad person can shoot too many people with a high capacity magazine. OK.
    We want it so that any one who wants to shoot some will not have a thirty round mag.
    That means that YOU will shoot someone so you can’t have the 30 rounder.
    Sounds like piror restraint.
    In what circumstance is prior restraint a good thing? Maybe if you have already shot someone, and if so we prohibit posession of a gun. But for all us other pre-guilties we will just take away the big mags.
    Except the mass shooter wants and WILL aquire larger capacity mag.
    This is like building a really big prison for ourselves and let the criminals run free. They remain on the otherside of the fence, it’s just that it curves around us instead of them. The base philosophy is,
    If you can’t control the criminal, lock us all up.

  25. Good people don’t belong in the land of the godforsaken, such as the middle east and California. Get out while there is still time.

  26. I seem to recall some Korean store owners in LA some years back who potentially needed every one of the rounds in their 30-rounders to keep rioters from destroying their homes and businesses….but that must’ve been a different California than the one this guy lives in.

  27. Judges are held in *much* too high esteem, in my opinion. Most of them I’ve had contact with are either too incompetent or too lazy to make a decent living in private practice, and they crave the excellent retirement plans that most jurisdictions offer. They are certainly far from the legal scholars and paragons of wisdom and virtue that they would like for us to think they are.

  28. What no one seems to mention is that the judge must secretly agree that civilians have far better marksmanship than the police, otherwise he would be saying that he hopes we just die if more than one person attacks us which couldn’t be true, could it?

  29. Let’s back up and understand some basic facts. For most of us, California state law only allows us to have 10 round magazines. Only police officers (who are statutorily exempt from the mag limit) and those who purchased a magazine prior to a certain date (I think 2001, but not sure) are allowed to possess them. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of retired officers who, although they legally purchased their (nonroster firearms and) magazines, are required by the new ordinance to turn them in, or at least remove them from the City.

    • California contains 10% of the population and 9% of the gun owners of the USA. Like it or not, our sorry state is very relevant.

      • He said “newsworthy,” not “relevant.” It’s no news that a CA judge “thinks” like this. It is, sadly, all too relevant that this is going on in his head.

        In other words BOTH of you are right.

    • Remember the saying on trends – “As California Goes, So Goes the Nation”.

      The good news is Calguns, with SAF, NRA support,in key cases, and CA FFLs, and now FPC steadily gathering alliances with other state orgs,
      what you might notice is increasing effectiveness working together in the quiet, patient, high quality legal effort, to pick and win important legal battles, ground up, in a long-term strategy based on picking the right cases, being patient for decisions in other key cases nationally, to use solid precedent to set up Supreme Court appeal/decision as needed.

      If you were going to give money to long-term success initiatives for the benefit of 2A rights nationally, this is one of the best places to start. http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

  30. I think the Black Eyed Peas original lyrics of “Let’s Get Retarded In Here,” would be more applicable to a San Fran based gun policy.

  31. It’s hard to figure the motivation for his statements. Speculating, I think his whole POV might be that if you’re crazy and go on a rampage you can only kill 10-11 people before you have to reload? Does that sound right? Forget criminals, laws don’t apply there, the judge should at least know that. So is he going after crazy people who are not criminals that do mass shootings? Going after the absolute minimum vector of gun inflicted deaths? Why?

    If so, why not seven as in NY, or six or whatever. In the end we all know that the whole thing makes no sense at all, AT ALL. I just don’t buy the whole thing. There has to be another more deep seated motive.

    NUTS!

  32. “I see precious few cases where a homeowner has warded off an intruder with 10 or more bullets.”

    A completely irrelevant statement. This is the government telling you that they see no “need” for more than x number of rounds in a mag. Who are they to determine “need”.

    This CA law is one that I certainly would not comply with. If I were on a jury with a defendant charged with its violation I would find them not guilty.

  33. Isn’t this where Feinstein (a.k.a. Wicked Witch of the West) comes from? Is there a breeder somewhere in the Bay or something?

  34. Thank you your honor
    I will take your advice and start carrying three hanguns with the 10 round magazines.
    though this may increase the chances of one of them being stolen or otherwise misused

  35. And if it is, well, as the antis like to say, if carrying more than ten rounds saves even one life . . .

    If the Second Amendment saves even one life . . . it’s worth it.

  36. Books should be limited to 150 pages. I see no reason that an author shouldn’t be able to tell the whole story within 150 pages.

  37. He is an elitist of the worst kind. Out of touch with the reality that regular folks have to endure. He’s probably never been mugged, lost hard earned property or been under threat of physical violence.

  38. Where did this judge come from? Has he never so much as glanced at the Bill of Rights? It must take a great deal of will to be so obtuse. Exasperating obtuseness. A definition of “stupidity” btw. The notion of restricting magazine capacity flies in the face of the Second Amendment. Do you see any cops using 10-round magazines? Of course not. This is ridiculous.

  39. Sorry. But this is amazing – poll for anyone visiting this website – which one is the 2nd Amendment:

    a) “Right to bear arms”
    b) “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Therefore, the Bill of Rights does indeed say that there’s a reason for owning a gun – not just because you feel like it. And also, when the Bill of Rights were written, “militia” meant “military,” so really only members of the Armed Forces should be carrying guns if we want to go with what exactly was said by the law. Fortunately, gun control is what we’re talking about – not gun absolution – so even though the Bill of Rights doesn’t guarantee it, you are still free to go hunting, keep a gun at home by your bedside and variety of other reasonable uses of a gun.

    Too often we take some of the truth to use it to our advantage over the entire truth – which doesn’t always support our perspective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *