In Duncan v. Becerra Brief, FPC Argues ‘Large Capacity’ Magazines are Intrinsic Parts of Semi-Auto Guns

high large capacity magazines

Bigstock

Yesterday, the Firearms Policy Coalition, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Armed Equality and other pro-gun rights orgs, filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending case, Duncan v. Becerra which challenges California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines.

The brief makes a rather novel argument. Under Heller, guns “in common use” expressly cannot be banned. The brief goes into great detail explaining why “large capacity” magazines are in common use (hundreds of millions of them in circulation) and are neither dangerous or unusual.

But, you’re probably thinking, magazines aren’t firearms. Not according to the argument presented in the brief. The FPC’s position is this:

Magazines are intrinsic parts of all semi-automatic firearms. A magazine is simply “a receptacle for a firearm that holds a plurality of cartridges or shells under spring pressure preparatory for feeding into the chamber.” Glossary, SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION 23 MANUFACTURERS’ INSTITUTE, https://saami.org/saami-glossary/?letter=M (last visited Sept. 23, 2019).

Magazines are inherent operating parts of functioning semi-automatic firearms, because the firearms are essentially inoperable without them. This is particularly true in California, which requires many models of pistols sold at retail to have “magazine disconnect mechanisms”—making these firearms incapable of being fired without a magazine. See Cal. Pen. Code §§ 31910(b)(4)-(6), 32000, and 16900 (defining “magazine disconnect mechanism” as “a mechanism that prevents a semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine from operating to strike the primer of ammunition in the firing chamber when a detachable magazine is not inserted in the semiautomatic pistol”).

Since California has insisted that modern, semiautomatic firearms be rendered nonfunctional without a magazine, it necessarily follows that the magazine constitutes an inherent operating part of the firearm. “Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106, 116 (3d Cir. 2018).

By that argument, banning certain “in common use” magazines is the same as banning “in common use” firearms, which has been declared unconstitutional under Heller.

Read the whole brief here.

Here’s the FPC’s press release . . .

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (September 24, 2019) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important legal brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org.

FPC’s coalition brief was joined by nine individual gun owners, all plaintiffs in another federal magazine lawsuit, and eight Second Amendment advocacy organizations, including Second Amendment Foundation and Armed Equality—a pro-right to keep and bear arms group that emphasizes armed and responsible self-defense for its LGBTQ+ members, who are especially vulnerable to attacks involving multiple assailants. The brief argues that so-called “large-capacity” magazines are inherent components of functional firearms; that they are constitutionally protected because they are “in common use” for lawful purposes;  and that because they are constitutionally protected, they cannot be banned.

“This case presents the type of Second Amendment challenge the Supreme Court has ruled on more than any other: a challenge to a prohibition on particular arms. And the Court’s precedent is clear: if the arms are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens, they cannot be prohibited,” said FPC Director of Research and brief lead author, Joseph Greenlee. “Evidence presented in this case shows that over 100 million magazines of the type that the State of California bans are owned in America. It is therefore indisputable that the magazines are common, and as such, their prohibition violates the Second Amendment.”

“Magazines are inherent, operating parts of all semi-automatic firearms, and it is indisputable that the so-called ‘large-capacity magazines’ at issue in this case are in common use for lawful purposes and protected by the Constitution,” explained George M. Lee of Seiler Epstein LLP, co-counsel on the brief and lead counsel in a similar magazine challenge in the Eastern District of California Federal District Court. “This brief shows why the court must affirm the decision below and restore the true command of Heller, which holds that these arms cannot be banned.”

Attorney Lee also recently filed a federal constitutional challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” based on the district court’s ruling in Duncan (striking down the California magazine ban) and the State’s definitions of banned “assault weapons” (some of which are based on a firearm’s characteristics, including the use of a so-called “large-capacity” magazine in an otherwise legally-configured firearm). That case, captioned Miller v. Becerra, was assigned to Southern District of California Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, who struck down the State’s magazine ban in Duncan. The parties expect further filings in that case in the coming weeks.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

comments

  1. avatar 2aguy says:

    We need to give Trump the Chance to appoint at least 2 more Supreme Court Justices and to remake the lower courts, in particular the 2nd, 4th, and 9th courts of appeal…….any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…..we need to keep him in office……one to replace ginsburg, the other to cover Roberts who will likely side against the 2nd Amendment because left wingers will call him names.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      He is remaking the 9th as we speak. And all we need is RBG to forget to breath……..I really feel bad about looking at it that way. But when one person is violating human and civil rights for an entire nation, that person needs to go. Maybe she will regain some of her humanity and retire.

      1. avatar 2aguy says:

        Sadly, we need 2 more justices appointed by Trump, one for ginsburg, but we need one to cover for Roberts when he votes against the 2nd Amendment because the democrats will be mean to him…the dems know he buckles to public pressure, hence his ruling in obamacare…..

        1. avatar Grumpster says:

          I was not happy with Justice Roberts on his obamacare vote but he did vote in favor of both Heller and McDonald. I seriously doubt he is going to change his stance on the Second Amendment now. Still it would be good to have another SCOTUS Justice appointed by President Trump.

        2. avatar Lost Down South says:

          Maybe 3 more.

          If/when Trump is re-elected, and if the R’s keep the Senate, Thomas could safely retire, thus opening up a 30-40 seat.

          I base this thought on the hubris of RBG. She’s clearly past her pull-date, and COULD have retired under Barry…BUT…I’m guessing…SHE REALLY WANTED TO SWEAR IN THE FIRST GIRL POTUS.

          It bit her on the ass, and now it’s likely her “legacy” will be replaced by a strict constitutionalist.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        They will need to carry her out.

        I’m willing to bet shes got terminal cancer again and THAT’s why the socialists are going to try and impeach him. They can’t wait much longer. He’ll have a name on deck in an hour.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          If (in their wildest dreams) the Democrats successfully impeach and convict Trump, they get the man in the grey flannel suit; Mike Pence.

          Pence would likely appoint an even more conservative justice(s) than Trump.

          You would think that Mike Pence would be a big deterrent to impeaching Trump (if the Democrats were smart – but that’s in my wildest dream).

        2. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

          It would be funny to see a nominee’s name posted at 1am, the senate republicans convene at 2am, McConnell go on record as quoting pelosi “we have to pass the bill before you can see what’s in it”, and then vote (presumably 51 yes votes and 2 voting present). They have the power to do it, they just need the opportunity and the fortitude.

        3. avatar Lost Down South says:

          Doom scenario:

          The D’s somehow manage to impeach/remove Trump. Pence is now POTUS. Doesn’t have the drive, charisma, spine, or cunning that Trump does. Strong on abortion.

          Pence is immediately taken out by TERRORISTS!, or RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS! Now who’s POTUS? (if no time to swear in a new VP)

          Speaker of the House Pelosi, number 3 in line

          – First woman pres (couldn’t get there legitimately)
          – Machine politician
          – Extreme swamp rat
          – Corrupt to her very soul
          – Would have to, MUST!, disarm citizens because: reasons. (other stuff too, but this is TTAG)

        4. avatar Captain Insano says:

          Interesting theory. Maybe the Dems found out RBG only has weeks to months to live. That would explain Pelosi’s rapid reversal on backing impeachment. Especially with the lame Ukraine case they’re making up. They think if Trump is under impeachment investigation that he shouldn’t be able to nominate a justice.

      3. avatar joefoam says:

        That’s a revealing statement that one person can effect the entire population. Since the legislature is afraid to do its job for fear of not being reelected, legislation is being passed on to the courts where you have to move heaven and earth to get a judge unseated.

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Agree. Trump seemed to come into office without a staffing plan for his administration, but, he seems to have put a strong staffing plan in place for the judiciary. AND, McConnell has done a great job of getting those judicial nominees approved. Not a Mitch fan in general, but in this, he is helping us win.

  2. avatar Jon in CO says:

    I wish them luck with their brief. Hopefully it works out. I’d love to see all of the exploded heads in Denver/Boulder, LA, NYC, Hartford, Seattle, Portland, NJ, and all of the other liberal heartlands. A 100% constitutional ruling that says all of this is ridiculous.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      A lot of us conservatives living in the liberal heartlands would love to see a bunch liberal heads exploding too.

  3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I don’t know about you, but I’m going to carry whatever magazine I please.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      ^^^^^^^^ A MILLION TIMES THIS. I WILL NEVER EVER OBEY A MAGAZINE BAN LAW. EVER. I have a lifetime supply and it will never be surrendered nor made unusable. No man alive tells me how to defend myself.

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        I agree, and will do the same.

        However…

        – Pulled over by a Trooper for: reasons
        – Some jurisdictions allow / call for LE to disarm and hold legal carry firearm for “safety’ for the duration of the stop.
        – OH! Lookie there. Sir, do you know you are in violation of gun law 19,059,723,648,392,039,474,567,239,385,472,034,957,832? You have a magazine that “goes to 11.” Please step out of the car…

        And that’s how it will go. Not standing in a pile of hot brass. You following the law, THEM using the law.

        And your wife and kids go bankrupt trying to get you out.

        Sorry to be a downer. That said…I will carry what I see fit as well. See you in slam.

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      My brother used to shoot at a pistol range in southern New Jersey (south Jersey as the locals say it). He had to make sure all of his Glock 17 mags were pinned so that only 10 rounds could be loaded because a lot of LEOS used that range. He said it was not unusual for them to ‘inspect’ a weapon if they thought it may be non-compliant.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        I drove through New Jersey a couple of times. The State Police would have had a heart attack if they searched me. So would have the NYSP. Among others. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Yup…definately falls under the header “Will not comply”.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        interesting that LEOs would think they could do that. I guess they had probably cause/authority/permission/balls to bother other people about it.
        But it is NJ and the cops are the politicians army there.

        1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

          NJ Leos are some of the sorriest “respect my authoritah i am GOD” lot i’ve ever crossed paths with. Doesn’t surprise me one bit they would do this. My experience is most of them do not like common folk possessing firearms.

          Not anti leo either. All my interactions over the years have been traffic stops, all of which i i readily admit were deserved except for one. The cops in NJ were almost all a-holes, and all the cops who’ve stopped me in AZ have been polite public servants.

          disclaimer: when i say NJ i mean northern NJ. can’t speak for the pineys down south.

        2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          Northern NJ State Troopers are some real jerk wads. I and a few friends were on our motorcycles riding to see a Yankees game back in the mid 90s. 4 miles of the road goes through NJ. One of my buddies had his off duty piece in an ankle holster. Some trooper saw it as we rode by and we all got pulled over and searched. 3 of the guys my friend included were all NY State police. My friend a Lt and the other 2 sergeants one a firearms instructor. Wouldn’t you know it the NJ turds wanted to take us all in and settle it out later. We got back on the road about an hour later after a Captain and a supervisor came by and read the trooper and his cohort the riot act.
          Jersey State police all dress and act like storm troopers. This is the 21 century the uniforms still look like they are from the 30s.

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “He said it was not unusual for them to ‘inspect’ a weapon if they thought it may be non-compliant.”

        As far as I’m concerned, I’d tell them with a warrant, they may…

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Exactly. I keep my CA-compliant 10-rd mags for the tactical reload exercises so I can drop them on the ground and not care. I otherwise use my full capacity 17-rd mags for target training.

      4. avatar In for a Penny, In for a pound says:

        Lifesavor-” He said it was not unusual for them to ‘inspect’ a weapon if they thought it may be non-compliant.”

        That would be a good way for the officer to get justifiable deadly force used on them by a Citizen, who is protecting their Liberty and Life. If a cop tried to stop and frisk a Citizen at a gun range out here in America, they would be legally put down, according to US code 18 242 and the Second Amendment. I would not hesitate to drop the state thug if I over heard that conversation at the range. It would maybe cost me a couple grand off my retainer, but it would be worth it to defend the Constitution. Legally, I would be defending another from imminent harm, and deprivation of rights under color of law by a public servant, which is a felony, and if the state thug is armed, then deadly force is justified.

        A person walking up to me at the range and demanding to see my weapon, is what the loaded concealed weapon on my hip would be used on. I carry a loaded weapon at the range because I’m around armed strangers and I don’t know if they are all good people, and the gun allows me to put them down if they show themselves to be a threat to my Liberty of Life.

        The only person who could safely point a gun at me without experiencing immediate and superior violence would be a uniformed cop in a marked car, and that is only if I”m alone or my wife and kids are with me. That is simply because I would not allow some morally inferior coward to murder me on the side of the road, simply because I’m armed. If a cop pointed a gun at me, then it would be handled when they are off duty, when the presence of their firearm would allow lethal force on them.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          cool story, bro.

        2. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

          Do that and the largest leagalized gang in the nation would kill yo uwithin hours.

          I’ve had a run in with a cop that owned his own dojo. He hated me. One day he decided to attack me. I beat him handily on the dojo floor. To be honest I humiliated him in front of his students. I made him submit to an elbow lock. I was barred from training there again. Understandable based on the circumstances ( I wasn’t innocent of all wrong doing) but I wouldn’t have come back anyway.

          I knew one thing for absolute fact though. If he ran into me on the street I had two choices. Comply or he would kill me & be justified in doing so. Thankfully we never crossed paths after that.

        3. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

          Do that and the largest leagalized gang in the nation would kill you within hours.

          I’ve had a run in with a cop that owned his own dojo. He hated me. One day he decided to attack me. I beat him handily on the dojo floor. To be honest I humiliated him in front of his students. I made him submit to an elbow lock. I was barred from training there again. Understandable based on the circumstances ( I wasn’t innocent of all wrong doing) but I wouldn’t have come back anyway.

          I knew one thing for absolute fact though. If he ran into me on the street I had two choices. Comply or he would kill me & be justified in doing so. Thankfully we never crossed paths after that.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Nice argument, and technically you are correct and I agree with you.

          However, I’m just wondering if you survived after any other plainclothes LEOs present saw you “put down” one of their own?

        5. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

          “However, I’m just wondering if you survived after any other plainclothes LEOs present saw you “put down” one of their own?”

          He didn’t teach any. In that class there were a few asults & a couple dozen kids.

    3. avatar Fred D. says:

      Roger that ! Just another notch in my non-conformity !
      Far to many lawyers & fruits running things !
      And greed & Corruption driving it all ! !
      It’s time for an overhaul ! !

  4. avatar UpInArms says:

    I don’t know. I hope we win this one, but the arguments presented in this article seem to be a little thin.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      UpInArms,

      This train of thought could go either way.

      If the Court views the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “presumptively lawful” and sees wiggle room in Heller’s “dangerous or unusual” wording (both combine to authorize government to take full-auto firearms off the table), then the court will allow magazine capacity restrictions to stand, just as the courts currently allow rate-of-fire capacity restrictions (bans on full-auto fire control groups which limit rate-of-fire). And the key here will be that, just as semi-auto fire control groups allow the firearm to operate in limited rate-of-fire capacity (semi-automatic) mode, a 10-round magazine capacity limit still allows the firearm to operate in “reduced ammunition capacity” mode if you will.

      On the other hand, if the court accepts this train of thought, it could open the door to overturn the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Hughes Amendment of 1986.

      Time will tell.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” a 10-round magazine capacity limit still allows the firearm to operate in “reduced ammunition capacity” mode ”

        Which is why I think it’s a thin argument that the FPC is trying to make. I agree– it’s a legal toss-up how it will play out, but my confidence level is not very high on this one.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          REmeber that you are reading a very thin summary of a lengthy brief. Although it is long, try the trial court’s ruling throwing out the law on for size: https://casetext.com/case/duncan-v-becerra-4

          I think you’ll find a lot more meat to the argument.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Mark,

          In Judge Benitez’ 84-pg ruling on the injunction back in March, he specifically mentioned a case involving a young woman who defended herself against intruders attacking her in her home at night. He said it’s unreasonable to expect a person wearing pajamas (or nothing at all) in the middle of the night to wear a belt with an extra magazine, as well as manipulate a flashlight and phone handset (for 911) while also handling the gun.

          This is exactly why my “nightstand” Glock has a weapons light and 25-rd mag, to allow me to have a gun, light, and plenty of ammo in one hand, so I can continue holding the phone in the other and stay on the line with 911 throughout the entire ordeal if necessary.

          Thank God for Judge Benitez.

      2. avatar TommyJay says:

        As I understand it, it not just that the magazine is an integral part of the semi-auto gun, which could be either 10 round or standard capacity. It is that the magazine is an integral part of the gunand there exist millions of commonly available standard capacity magazine that work with it.

        That’s what Heller requires; that millions of historically legally available stuff must be grandfathered in, excepting the ill define M16 of course. (drat)

        But I agree with you that this is a long shot, at least at the 9th circuit.

        1. avatar Thomas says:

          This is not as ‘thin’ or a ‘long shot’ as you propose.

          The 10 round limit is arbitrary (and unreasonable) and based off an unsubstantiated theory (actually just leftist feelings) that 10 rounds is “safer” than 15, 20, or 30. Therefore, if true, one would then reasonably conclude that 9 rounds is safer than 10, and 8 safer than 9, and so on, until you reach one round.

          At which point, one would then need to ask, what about no rounds? And there you have a de-facto ban on firearms. All firearms mind you, as even single shot guns would therefore be to dangerous.

          I haven’t read the brief beyond the above summary, however, what I mentioned IMHO should have been included.

          Additionally, the fact that a Cali Dem never saw a gun control law they didn’t like no matter how useless is working in FPC’s favor in this case. It was a brilliant argument to use the magazine disconnect against them, as they legally made magazines integral to a firearms workings.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      It seems to me that modern interpretations have strayed from the original intent behind the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is unambiguous. It was clearly written with the intent for an armed citizenry to be able to resist governmental tyranny. Imposing weapons restrictions, magazine restrictions, requiring licenses to own guns and buy ammunition are all arbitrary restrictions on fundamental right of free citizens to be able to defend themselves by force of arms should the need arise. The kinds of weapons armed citizens would need to do this are obviously the best and most powerful available. Restricting how these very weapons can be used militates against the fundamental meanings behind the 2nd Amendment. It either means what it says . . . or it doesn’t. There cannot be a “commonsense” middle-ground.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Hear, hear!

  5. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Magazines, and properly functioning magazines are an integral part of ALL semi-automatic firearms.

    See how a bad magazine, weak spring, distorted follower or body will ruin your home defense day.

  6. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    While there is a little mental gymnastics involved in this, it is well within scope. The fact the there are magazine locks that are special to California even strengthens that argument.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “While there is a little mental gymnastics involved in this, …”

      Irrelevant. Leftists use such ‘tricks’ and interpretation all the time on laws or constitutional issues they don’t agree with.

      What’s good for the goose, etc…

  7. avatar Mark N. says:

    Although I agree that a magazine is an inherent part of a firearm, there are an awful lot of firearms that do not have 10+ mags, and even those that do can be fitted, and have been fitted, with 10 round mags to comply with California law. And that includes ARs and AKs. SO the argument only goes so far. What Judge Benitez established–with references to actual cases–is that 10 rounds is not always enough (I suspect that most LEOs would agree), that larger capacity magazines are in common use throughout the country, and that there was no admissible evidence provided by the state other than pure conjecture that smaller capacity magazines keep “the public” safer. (In other words, he looked through the smoke screen of the typical expert declarations and looked for facts–but found none. Having read any number of Ninth Circuit opinions upholding laws with no more than the assertion of “public safety” without any evi8dence at all that “more guns means more gun crime”, this wa kind of a first.))

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Thank you for that clarification!

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mark N.,

      In other words Judge Benitez rejected “rational basis” and applied either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny to this case.

      I like it.

      Here’s to hoping that the United States Supreme Court rules in December and requires that all courts apply strict scrutiny to Second Amendment cases.

  8. avatar barnbwt says:

    I applaud this approach of tying gun issues together. For far, far too long we’ve allowed courts to play peek-a-boo with conflicting precedents, depending on the details of the case (handguns aren’t militia arms, while assault weapons have no self defense use).

    We’re nearing the point where we need to force our governmental bodies onto the record, once and for all, so they can be held accountable. The way King George was put on record with one, last, final appeal to be denied before the Declaration of Independence was delivered to him.

    Tie as many gun issues together as we can, and force the courts to decide; are we going to uphold our civil right to keep and bear firearms, uninfringed, as directed by the 2nd Amendment? Or are we going to ban civilian arms outright and bear the consequences? We’ve boxed authorities & courts into several unresolved corners on gun issues, to the point that the only remaining question is the one I have just posed.

    Either we accept at-will licensing and confiscation, with no chance of due process and an obvious goal of wholesale disarmament, or we embrace the truth that concealing your cash & carry automatic machine pistol with integral silencer almost anywhere you please is the fundamental right of a free citizen. One route will quickly destroy localized criminal power structures and greatly undermine larger-scale ones in time…the other will spark widespread violent rebellion and unimaginable lawlessness.

    The choice, as they say, is yours.

  9. avatar Zachary Gennaro says:

    Courts are a dead end. Sorry

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      In California, we have three choices: the Legislature (not a chance with a 2/3 Democratic Party majority), civil disobedience (with severe consequences if caught) or the courts. /Civil disobedience is a one on one thing and doesn’t protect the People from government interference. That leaves us only the option of the courts, and now the US Supreme Court.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Civil disobedience.

        True, but it depends upon *who* sees you, and who actually cares. My circle of friends is largely LE, and all of them have said at one time or another that they recognize a true criminal when they encounter one, and they don’t care about the infringement laws and wouldn’t arrest anyone based solely upon an “improper” gun configuration or whatever. The ones who actually care the most about all our silly laws are the District Attorneys who use them to tack on as many charges against a person (arrested for something else) to scare that person into accepting a plea deal. By themselves, all our various CA gun laws are window dressing.

  10. avatar Biatec says:

    Why do people think it just covers guns? All arms are covered. Magazines are arms like ammo optics lasers and everything else.

    Malware, night vision goggles, encrypton, body armor are protected too. You really have to twist things to say otherwise

    1. avatar Come again Willis? says:

      Malware…? Malicious software?

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        yes. It is protected. It’s a weapon. People need to be able to research and study these things. Use sandbox vm stuff to learn how to defend against it.

        The last thing I would want is government intervention into antivirus and anti malware services. As far as I am aware it’s still legal to make, own, replicate and study malware and virus’s and other things like that.

        I hope that clarifies what I mean.

  11. avatar John Galt says:

    Where is the president’s attorney General? Why no prosecutions of public officials for denying civil / constitutional rights under color of law?

    Where is the president? Why is there no DEMAND that states like crapifornia obey they supreme law of the land or loose federal funding?

    Where is my national concealed carry reciprocity????????

    Why no politicians, who having taken an oath to defend and uphold the constitution work to destroy and undermine it NOT BEING PROSECUTED and HUNG???????

    I will not comply. Period. EVER!!!

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      I didn’t hear you. Can you please add more capital letters and exclamation points? Kthxbai

      1. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

        Oh, get your knickers out of your crack, Lefty – after all, he’s just “doing it for the children”, amirite?

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          They get way up the crack when someone starts YELLING!!!!! normal sentences.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Sticks, rocks and the middle finger are next in jolly old England.

      1. avatar Jeremy Clarkson says:

        Why not, they already did away with free speech.

  12. avatar Hojo Hominygrits says:

    Constitutional or not, that does not matter to the D-head majority sitting on the 9th. They sneer at our constitution, and would do away with it in the stroke of a pen if they thought they could get away with it. Let’s hope their facelift happens soon.

  13. avatar Juice says:

    It would be pretty funny to see a hi-cap ban overturned by a magazine disconnect requirement. Need a Cali-compliant bump stock next.

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    Can states classify anything as a high capacity magazine? Would the courts allow 7 round magazines to be deemed the maximum “standard” capacity? What about 6? And if 6, then what?

    Normally this might be called a slippery slope fallacy but it is useful to question the arbitrary nature of laws like those in NY, CA, NJ, etc. And aside from that, it’s no fallacy since we’ve seen that these states will continue to lower capacity limits in a bid to outdo each other until stopped by the courts.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Can states classify anything as a high capacity magazine?”

      I’m sure they will determine *any* gun with a detachable magazine to be an ‘assault rifle’, since there’s nothing stopping any gun that can receive a magazine of any size, whether or not one is currently available for sale.

      A car pulling a tank of fuel has, for all practical purposes an unlimited driving range.

      (Provided such ‘external tank’ is within the towing capacity of the vehicle…)

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Any semi auto with a detachable magazine and 1 super deadly offensive feature IS an assault weapon in NY. Not much of a jump over here.

  15. avatar Texican says:

    In one of these cases the FPC or SAF should argue that according to U.S. vs Miller arms that are useful in a militia are acceptable for citizens to own. Part of the decision reads:
    “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” All that has to be done is to show that a weapon and/or accessory is useful for militia service and all arms will then become legal again. No one argued this if front of the SCOTUS because the defendant and his lawyer did not appear before the court. When I was in the Navy I shot a shotgun with a 14 inch barrel. And the Mossberg Shockwave is in use now with a 14 inch barrel. That one is done! Now on to “every terrible implement of the soldier” as Tench Coxe said. Almost every type of arm has been used in battle. I’d donate to that case!

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Never measured the barrel for our modular underslung breaching shotgun but it looked less than a foot.

  16. avatar DaveP326 says:

    If we get a pro-2nd amendment decision on the magazine ban, then it naturally follows that there can be no so-called “assault weapons” ban. 100,000,000 AR15s constitutes “common use” , so if they can’t ban magazines in common use, then thay can’t ban the rifles that use them.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Bingo, and that’s what they are afraid of.

      Expect massive outrage from the Leftists if that scenario comes to pass…

    2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Dave while your numbers are a bit high at the moment a repeal of the SAFE act would have my family doing their part to make your numbers a reality.

  17. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    There’s plans on the net now to print Glock happy sticks for about $2 each. Mag bans ain’t gonna mean a lot in the future.

    I think I’m going to get a 3D printer and print out mags as much as possible for the next year or two.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      From what I understand the 2 dollar version uses a less durable material and falls apart somewhat quickly (hundreds of rounds I think). But for 2 bucks who cares.

    2. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

      And to my, that is the REAL argument relating to gun control. I never use it, because I don’t want to give the anti-gun, Lefty idiots any ideas (or make them wet their silk panties), but the FACTS are that:

      1. 3D printers are cheap and getting cheaper, and the necessary files to print guns (even, as I understand it, functional semi-auto firearms) are out there, too – that horse has been out of the barn for years;

      2. There have to be literally MILLIONS of 80% lowers out there, and, while it is slightly beyond my personal machining capabilities, I know for a fact that amateur home machinists can make a fully functional AR pattern lower with an aluminum billet and pretty commonly available tools – yep, that horse done left the barn, too;

      3. Any moron capable of pouring p*** out of a boot can build a functional firearm with $25 and crap they can pick up at their local Home Depot – no, I wouldn’t want to get in a shoot out with LEOs with one – but I only have to bushwhack ONE, and take HIS gun, right?; and, last but not least

      4. The formulas and recipes for fully functional weapons, which can be produced from readily available materials (tear gas, nerve gas, Mace, napalm, etc., etc.) are and have been on the Web for YEARS.

      Hearkening back to my youth, and paraphrasing a line I loved from the original Star Wars movie “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.”

      Yeah, Beta the Furry, come get my AR-15. Molon labe, b**ch.

  18. avatar TommyJay says:

    I’ve legally bought 4 handguns in California in the last few years. Two have magazine disconnects and two do not. So I’d say the disconnect is more of a suggestion than a rule. Though, I never did understand how CA makes its legal/illegal decisions, if it doesn’t really have hard rules. Whomever ponys up enough money for certification?

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      The models that were in circulation pre-certification were grandfathered in.

  19. avatar Alan1018 says:

    They should be arguing standard capacity magazines are an integral part. The AR-15 was designed witha 20 round, the FN P-35 with a 13, the Beretta 92 with a 15 ….

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      After scouring the Internetz and reviewing many different articles outlining the history of the Colt AR-15, I haven’t found anything pertaining to an intention of use with a 20-rd mag. Today’s standard go-to mag is 30-rds.

      Provide a link, please.

      1. avatar Alan1018 says:

        Todays standard may be 20 but 2 friends of mine who were the marines in ‘Nam stated they were only issued 20’s. 30 may be standard now but 20 was standard when it was adopted.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Oh, I don’t doubt that they exist. But I’ve never personally seen one nor heard anyone I’ve been shooting with ever even mention one. The issue is your statement that Colt designed the AR to be used specifically with that round count. If so, then the info is now half a century old and difficult to confirm.

        2. avatar Anymouse says:

          Just look at the original waffle magazines, which were 20 rounds. The 20 rounders don’t have a bend. They matched the capacity of the predecessor M14 and AR-10.mags. You can also look at the original rubber coated canvas double mag pouches with the flap and snap. They wouldn’t fit a longer and curved 30 round mag.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Can’t cite sources other than my memory. All the civvy ar’s I saw for sale in the 60s-70s had 20 round mags. When I enlisted our m16s had the 20 rounders although we were starting to get some 30 rounders at that time.

        I also recall seeing an interview with Stoner stating that the 20 rounder was just fine until Americans encountered the AK with its 30 rounder for the first time. Then the US had to have the 30.

  20. avatar James Brigham (Bigg) Bunyon says:

    Well, every one of my M1 Garand semi-automatic rifles carry a maximum of 8 rounds. Just sayin’

  21. avatar Fred says:

    Just imagine when Trump needs to replace Ginsberg as a Supreme! I can’t wait, more excitement worth a laugh. The left will have a meltdown!

  22. avatar Anymouse says:

    Way back when I was going to college in CA, unloaded open carry was still legal. I was told that you couldn’t have a loaded mag on your person because it was considered part of the gun. I don’t know if anyone was convicted of having a loaded mag that wasn’t seated in a mag well.

  23. avatar Alex says:

    Maybe l’m not understanding correctly, but wouldn’t classifying magazines as arms mean we’d have to do a 4473 for every mag? Sounds like a pyrrhic victory.

  24. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

    Reading endless legal briefs if harmful to the human mind. I see where it is all headed; ok, SCOTUS will eventually relent on “high capacity” clip magazines or whatever the ignorant masses call them and even on Bumpstocks, because ultimately these are governmental overreaches on interpreting legislative actions and step on the toes of SCOTUS’s jurisdictional oversight. So, no one said I can’t call your chef’s knife an “Assault Weapon” nor your AR, AK or even 1911 (well a strict reading of Heller &/or etal. Should preclude this, but hasn’t stopped some Federal courts), but there is nothing to prohibit the redefining something into obscurity. So, they will let you keep your magazines and bumpstocks but they will still prohibit your rifles and if they could Heller be damned your handguns and knives with black handles and scary things that protrude. (Prohibition of arms for self defense is racist after all).
    [I got ejected from a clothing optional bar for the latter, but that is another matter]

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email