Originally posted by decay
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OK Gun enthusiasts, I want an actual answer
Collapse
X
-
-
^ 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
-
Originally posted by R3Z3N View Post^ 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.1990 325is
m52b28
3.73lsd
g260 (1987 325is 5spd tranny)
Comment
-
Originally posted by R3Z3N View Post^ 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.
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
-
Originally posted by LowR3V'in View Postwhy 10 though? why not 5 or 2 or 11?
Comment
Comment