The basis for that decision seems pretty flimsy, and based on precedent it'll probably get appealed. The whole thing really hinges on the word infringed "act so as to limit or undermine." However, excluding really specialized cases with integral magazines beyond ten rounds, any firearm with a removable magazine can be operated with a reduced capacity. So, while it makes it less convenient/more expensive it does not actually prevent more than a few people from owning or operating firearms.
-
-
I was under the understanding that this would still have to go and be "approved"?1990 325is
m52b28
3.73lsd
g260 (1987 325is 5spd tranny)Comment
-
^ I am curious as to why you think the basis for the decision is flimsy? The 2nd Amendment does not give people the right to bear arms, it restricts the states and federal government from limiting said right. Also historically those that were armed in the militia were required to carry a certain minimum of ammo, not a maximum.
Comment
-
^It is the duty of civilians to not follow unconstitutional laws.Comment
-
I didn't say otherwise.1990 325is
m52b28
3.73lsd
g260 (1987 325is 5spd tranny)Comment
-
Not saying you did. Just clarifying that some might actually be willing to stand up to these unconstitutional laws. I know quite a few police here that avert their gaze when seeing what "is not allowed" at the range.Comment
-
Didn't have a great deal of time to write this, so hope it all tracks, but to summarize the decision the majority found that magazines are protected arms, which are necessary for the operation of weapons. While this may be correct, under a strict interpretation, which the court elected to follow, CA's law did not ban magazines, only those beyond a certain capacity, thus it did not significantly impact firearm ownership or use IMO.
In their very next point they defined "large" cap mags as not unusual, which is correct, but they then used this to justify their decision to overturn, and this is most clearly not following a strict interpretation, but rather the "everyone is doing it so it must be okay" sort of doctrine.
They also opined that the framers knew of both the effectiveness, and could foresee the prevailing use of greater than single shot firearms, and intended the rule to apply to the same. While they cited some technological innovations that were known at the time, it would be about the same as legislators of today writing effective legislation to regulate autonomous vehicles today. This argument is pretty much invalid as far as setting precedent.
Additionally it was decided that the CA law, and others had not been extant for a sufficient time so as to have gained acceptance/basic legitimacy without seriously trying to define what a sufficient time frame would really be.
They did correctly cite, IMO, that the CA law lacked any sort of grandfathering or provision for exchange or withdraw from use as per something like NFA provisions. They also cited this in other sections, so this seems like a large part of the two justices' opinion, but striking down with this as a key element is probably not effective.
Their examination of historical case law was scant, while leaning heaving on recent case law, Heller/MacDonald.
The understanding of the actual text/probable intent of the CA law did not seem to significantly factor in to their decision.
Basically, I feel that they should have drilled down on the definition of accessories, even those vital to operation, and the reasoning behind restricting round count or not. As such, they left a lot of potential weaknesses to exploit in another decision, and when courts do so they are wasting future court time by not making their argument less open to attack.
As to my personal feelings, neither you nor I probably needs more than 10 rounds to get the job done in any circumstance, and if we do, it's not a significant burden to have an extra magazine. Did CA do it right with their law? No, swift, sudden restrictions are not the way to enact change of any type as they alienate one side of the discussion almost completely.Comment
-
why 10 though? why not 5 or 2 or 11?
Comment
-
Why not different numbers for different weapons? Why not just allow non-magazine bolt actions? Why not just confiscate all weapons? Why not ban plastic cutlery in schools? Why not keep us all in safety tanks so we can't hurt ourselves or others? AKAIK it was just a random number, probably not researched in any real way, since 10 rounds are plenty for any aggressor to do significant damage.Comment
-
10 is generally not enough as evidenced by police accuracy. When criminals do not follow the law, why gimp the law abiding citizen?Comment
-
i just looked it up and google says basically most base guns at the time had 10 to 15 rd standard so they
chose to limit it to 10rdComment
Comment