Federal Judge Unlikely To Strike Down SF’s Law Banning High-Capacity Ammo Magazines

[luckytxn 2,265]

Except those were not academic studies but select stats used to further what the writer of the artice deemed necessary to get his point across.

As I said, you don't like the academic studies by experts so you just dismiss it. That's fine. Even without that common sense SHOULD tell you that people who do not have an interest in guns should not keep one in the home. Your own experience with gun safety should tell you, that having a gun and not practicing with it, cleaning it and keeping it with a minimum number of safety procedures in place is more likely to result in an accident to the gun owner and his friends and family than to a criminal. It's common sense but woe betide you actually say something like that just in case some gun aficionado sees you saying it and claiming that must mean you don't believe in second amendment rights. The cowardice is palpable, the contortions to prove something that makes no sense hilarious. Carry on. It's entertaining.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'll throw out a new question. Person A is uninterested in guns, has no intention of going to a firing range on a regular basis to practice, is unlikely to keep his gun clean and in working condition and only wants a gun to protect against home invasion. Person A goes to person B for advice. Person B is interested in guns, regularly practices and keeps his guns well maintained. What should person B say to person A? If I was person B, I would tell person A to forget having a gun, it's more likely to add to the risks in their home than protect them from harm. What would you say if you were person B? (let's assume that we already know that it's 'up to them' )

I would tell person A they need to go to the range at least a few times a year and field strip their gun at least once every other trip. Use a bore snake after every trip etc. Iwould point them in the direction of a more simple firearm. If they can't at least handle that then I would agree with you.

On the subject of SF, Ca already bans standard and high capacity magazines. The city is going after people with grandfathered magazines so its broader than just a second ammendment issue - its seizure of private property, something the state wants to avoid.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Except those were not academic studies but select stats used to further what the writer of the artice deemed necessary to get his point across.

The studies are BS which is why no state has repealed CC. The very premise that a firearms self defense needs to involve a shooting is ludicrous. You can stop readin the report when they get to that part. All the studies were "pre-Heller" and are irrelevent now. If they ever were relevent to begin with.

We have 30+ years of experience with CC in all states. The studies are no longer needed, we KNOW what happens. We may as well study if cigarettes are really not good for you. Good grief.

Besides, high court after high court have stated...IT DOES NOT MATTER! We have a RIGHT and that right WILL be restored.

What we're seeing is a fascinating example of how a long-standing social and legal norm starts to change. (Think same-sex relationships and gay marriage.) The impetus for change originates in a few states; they demonstrate that presumed consequences don't follow, and the old norm yields to the new norm, first slowly and then at greater speed; and at some interim point the federal government -- whether through legislation, executive order or judicial directive -- adjusts to the new world and forces the last holdouts to join in.

That is the point we are at now. All precipitating from Heller in 2008. Even debating whether CC reduces crime in any particular place...Chicago if you will...makes no difference. It's nonsense.

I'm done with it myself. The last holdouts will have it pounded up their popah and if they don't like it...all the merrrier! Below is from the 7th Circuit Ruling in IL

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law. Bishop,

supra, at 922–23; Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the

Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns 110–11

(2007). Anyway the Supreme Court made clear

in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear

arms depend on casualty counts. 554 U.S. at 636.

If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried

in public would increase the crime or death rates

sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been

decided the other way, for that possibility was as great

in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

And more...

Chicago's ban on gun stores tossed by US Court

Overturning the ban on retail gun stores and private gun sales was the last major hurdle gun rights groups faced in their hard-fought battle to dismantle Chicago's tough firearm prohibitions.

The latest court ruling in the long legal fight came one day after Illinois, the last state to approve a concealed carry law, began accepting applications from residents who want to carry concealed firearms in public.

But gun shops won't likely be showing up in Chicago any time soon, since Chang delayed his ruling from taking effect to allow the city time to appeal ...

Read the whole story in the Chicago Tribune

Posted Tue Jan 7 08:58:57 CST 2014

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Heller only got the ball rolling.

For those who would like to oppress our rights, be advised. We are done with the nonsense talk, the one liners, the BS and the moronic posts like "post a link or I will think you are lying" Who gives a flying f%k what idiots think? This will be handled by the courts based on precedence and SCOTUS/Circuit Court of Appeals rulings. And there ain't an effin' thing you can do about it. ####### off!

These rulings will be coming faster and more frequently. I will try to keep everyone informed as they progress in this forum.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I would tell person A they need to go to the range at least a few times a year and field strip their gun at least once every other trip. Use a bore snake after every trip etc. Iwould point them in the direction of a more simple firearm. If they can't at least handle that then I would agree with you.

On the subject of SF, Ca already bans standard and high capacity magazines. The city is going after people with grandfathered magazines so its broader than just a second ammendment issue - its seizure of private property, something the state wants to avoid.

Litigation to overturn magazine capacity bans and bans on cosmetic features (AKA "Assault rifles") are already in the process. 2 cases affecting this will be argued in the 2014/2015 SCOTUS docket.

The recent rulings help.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

As I said, you don't like the academic studies by experts so you just dismiss it. That's fine. Even without that common sense SHOULD tell you that people who do not have an interest in guns should not keep one in the home. Your own experience with gun safety should tell you, that having a gun and not practicing with it, cleaning it and keeping it with a minimum number of safety procedures in place is more likely to result in an accident to the gun owner and his friends and family than to a criminal. It's common sense but woe betide you actually say something like that just in case some gun aficionado sees you saying it and claiming that must mean you don't believe in second amendment rights. The cowardice is palpable, the contortions to prove something that makes no sense hilarious. Carry on. It's entertaining.

Your joking right? Why would someone that has no interest in guns keep one in their home? Isn't that so obvious that it even needs to be said? People that don't like dogs shouldn't have one for a pet either. I challenge you to find one post or sentence where I have ever stated that everyone should have a gun in their home.

I'm not dismissing any study. It provides an opinion. It states the number of children killed or injured from guns accidents. I assumed that the numbers presented were accurate, at the moment I don't feel the need to verify them. But I don't see how it proves your initial claim that gun owners are most likely to have their guns used against them in some way vs preventing a crime or injury. I'm sure a pro gun group could hand select the cases to show otherwise. But they wouldn't have any hard numbers to back up their claims either.

Either side of the coin is opinion, not fact. And that was my point in my first reply. I don't worry about my guns causing unintended harm. My safety practices assure that. Any gun owner that leaves a loaded gun where a three year old can have unrestricted access to it is asking for problems. The problem is the owner.

I don't use the Second Amendment argument as an end all in my discussions here. I have simply pointed it out where appropriate. I don't base my beliefs or practices on what the other gun aficionados here think or say. I don't follow anyone. I have largely kept quiet on the subject for most of my years here and I generally keep it to the topic at hand, not if and when I carry, what guns I own etc. I blow your opinion and generalizations about gun owners to pieces. I don't fit your preconceived notions. Owning a gun is a big responsibility which I take quite seriously.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Besides, high court after high court have stated...IT DOES NOT MATTER! We have a RIGHT and that right WILL be restored.

Making blanket, ambiguous statements like this are meaningless in legal terms. Constitutional rights have and will continue to be hammered out in courts. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute (as with any constitutional amendment) - even Justice Scalia, who considers himself an originalist, has stated so.

These threads on guns meander all over the place, but getting back to the OP, it is unlikely that any higher court, including SCOTUS will ever strike down this law or many other laws on the books that restrict the use of firearms. Why? Because there's legal precedent and historical reference to look at.

Read below:

But writing for the 5-4 majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia's words carry considerable weight because he is a conservative champion, and perhaps the high court's most ardent exponent of the right to bear arms.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Attempts to control types of weapons and who can possess weapons appear to be constitutional, Scalia added.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

Modern efforts at federal gun control remain something of a patchwork.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/16/Scalia-in-08-Right-to-bear-arms-is-not-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/#ixzz2tWQdG7Pl

[Sousuke 1,214]

Making blanket, ambiguous statements like this are meaningless in legal terms. Constitutional rights have and will continue to be hammered out in courts. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute (as with any constitutional amendment) - even Justice Scalia, who considers himself an originalist, has stated so.

These threads on guns meander all over the place, but getting back to the OP, it is unlikely that any higher court, including SCOTUS will ever strike down this law or many other laws on the books that restrict the use of firearms. Why? Because there's legal precedent and historical reference to look at.

Read below:

Keep in mind there is nothing unusual about a standard capacity mag, as applied by heller

[luckytxn 2,265]

When you come visit some us in a certain thread and put things to rights then come and lecture and maybe someone will listen.

The studies are BS which is why no state has repealed CC. The very premise that a firearms self defense needs to involve a shooting is ludicrous. You can stop readin the report when they get to that part. All the studies were "pre-Heller" and are irrelevent now. If they ever were relevent to begin with.

We have 30+ years of experience with CC in all states. The studies are no longer needed, we KNOW what happens. We may as well study if cigarettes are really not good for you. Good grief.

Besides, high court after high court have stated...IT DOES NOT MATTER! We have a RIGHT and that right WILL be restored.

What we're seeing is a fascinating example of how a long-standing social and legal norm starts to change. (Think same-sex relationships and gay marriage.) The impetus for change originates in a few states; they demonstrate that presumed consequences don't follow, and the old norm yields to the new norm, first slowly and then at greater speed; and at some interim point the federal government -- whether through legislation, executive order or judicial directive -- adjusts to the new world and forces the last holdouts to join in.

That is the point we are at now. All precipitating from Heller in 2008. Even debating whether CC reduces crime in any particular place...Chicago if you will...makes no difference. It's nonsense.

I'm done with it myself. The last holdouts will have it pounded up their popah and if they don't like it...all the merrrier! Below is from the 7th Circuit Ruling in IL

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law. Bishop,

supra, at 922–23; Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the

Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns 110–11

(2007). Anyway the Supreme Court made clear

in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear

arms depend on casualty counts. 554 U.S. at 636.

If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried

in public would increase the crime or death rates

sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been

decided the other way, for that possibility was as great

in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

And more...

Chicago's ban on gun stores tossed by US Court

Overturning the ban on retail gun stores and private gun sales was the last major hurdle gun rights groups faced in their hard-fought battle to dismantle Chicago's tough firearm prohibitions.

The latest court ruling in the long legal fight came one day after Illinois, the last state to approve a concealed carry law, began accepting applications from residents who want to carry concealed firearms in public.

But gun shops won't likely be showing up in Chicago any time soon, since Chang delayed his ruling from taking effect to allow the city time to appeal ...

Read the whole story in the Chicago Tribune

Posted Tue Jan 7 08:58:57 CST 2014

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Heller only got the ball rolling.

For those who would like to oppress our rights, be advised. We are done with the nonsense talk, the one liners, the BS and the moronic posts like "post a link or I will think you are lying" Who gives a flying f%k what idiots think? This will be handled by the courts based on precedence and SCOTUS/Circuit Court of Appeals rulings. And there ain't an effin' thing you can do about it. ####### off!

These rulings will be coming faster and more frequently. I will try to keep everyone informed as they progress in this forum.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Keep in mind there is nothing unusual about a standard capacity mag, as applied by heller

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. The point I was making was in response to the implication that the 2nd Amendment is absolute or unlimited, which it is not, as stated by one of the most conservative (originalist) voices on the Supreme Court. There is plenty of legal leg room for legislation restricting firearms. There will never be one holy grail of a ruling that will end all future legislation as some gun advocates hope for.

Read below for example:

A federal court’s decision this week to uphold Connecticut’s assault weapons ban is an important victory for gun safety advocates, transitioning from a year that ended with almost half of all states strengthening reform laws.

.....

“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in the decision.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/court-upholds-strict-gun-law

Edited February 16, 2014 by Porterhouse

[lostinblue 1,989]

Dan Haar: Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law

Connecticut

With a looming Dec. 31 deadline, gun owners lined up at the state police headquarters… (John Woike / Hartford Courant )

February 10, 2014|Dan Haar

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210_1_assault-weapons-rifles-gun-registration-law

[Peikko 1,575]

Your joking right? Why would someone that has no interest in guns keep one in their home? Isn't that so obvious that it even needs to be said? People that don't like dogs shouldn't have one for a pet either. I challenge you to find one post or sentence where I have ever stated that everyone should have a gun in their home.

I'm not dismissing any study. It provides an opinion. It states the number of children killed or injured from guns accidents. I assumed that the numbers presented were accurate, at the moment I don't feel the need to verify them. But I don't see how it proves your initial claim that gun owners are most likely to have their guns used against them in some way vs preventing a crime or injury. I'm sure a pro gun group could hand select the cases to show otherwise. But they wouldn't have any hard numbers to back up their claims either.

Either side of the coin is opinion, not fact. And that was my point in my first reply. I don't worry about my guns causing unintended harm. My safety practices assure that. Any gun owner that leaves a loaded gun where a three year old can have unrestricted access to it is asking for problems. The problem is the owner.

I don't use the Second Amendment argument as an end all in my discussions here. I have simply pointed it out where appropriate. I don't base my beliefs or practices on what the other gun aficionados here think or say. I don't follow anyone. I have largely kept quiet on the subject for most of my years here and I generally keep it to the topic at hand, not if and when I carry, what guns I own etc. I blow your opinion and generalizations about gun owners to pieces. I don't fit your preconceived notions. Owning a gun is a big responsibility which I take quite seriously.

No, I am not joking. It's obvious that there are a lot of casual gun owners in the US and supposedly responsible gun owners who defend their right to do so without damning them for doing it.

The studies are not just plucked out of thin air by armchair experts. Those are just a handful of examples of home safety studies (conducted for the most part at the behest of people who have no gun axe to grind but who do take safety/risk seriously) where the statistics recommend not having a gun in the home for protection and with no other purpose because the statistically significant provable risk that these guns are more likely to be used to harm the gun owner, the family or house guests than prevent crime. The statistics that back this claim as regards how can we be sure it's not likely to be used to prevent crime are not the improvable and fancifully stupid claims by gun owners that they have foiled crime, but by the statistical likelihood of any household being affected by a violent crime.

As to my making any assumptions and generalisations about you personally, I haven't down so. Some gun owners are genuinely responsible. You may well be one of them, I offer no opinion other than the fact that you persist in defending the use of guns as personal protection for the average person. For most people, that is a pointless exercise that could backfire, literally.

Edited February 17, 2014 by The Truth™

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. The point I was making was in response to the implication that the 2nd Amendment is absolute or unlimited, which it is not, as stated by one of the most conservative (originalist) voices on the Supreme Court. There is plenty of legal leg room for legislation restricting firearms. There will never be one holy grail of a ruling that will end all future legislation as some gun advocates hope for.

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

Keep in mind there is nothing unusual about a standard capacity mag, as applied by heller

Edited February 17, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[spookyturtle 9,466]

No, I am not joking. It's obvious that there are a lot of casual gun owners in the US and supposedly responsible gun owners who defend their right to do so without damning them for doing it.

The studies are not just plucked out of thin air by armchair experts. Those are just a handful of examples of home safety studies (conducted for the most part at the behest of people who have no gun axe to grind but who do take safety/risk seriously) where the statistics recommend not having a gun in the home for protection and with no other purpose because the statistically significant provable risk that these guns are more likely to be used to harm the gun owner, the family or house guests than prevent crime. The statistics that back this claim as regards how can we be sure it's not likely to be used to prevent crime are not the improvable and fancifully stupid claims by gun owners that they have foiled crime, but by the statistical likelihood of any household being affected by a violent crime.

As to my making any assumptions and generalisations about you personally, I haven't down so. Some gun owners are genuinely responsible. You may well be one of them, I offer no opinion other than the fact that you persist in defending the use of guns as personal protection for the average person. For most people, that is a pointless exercise that could backfire, literally.

I defend the right of a person to own a gun. This discussion with you started the same as the last one I had on this subject with you. I replied to your claim that a person is more likely to be injured by their own gun, a claim that cannot be proved and is a matter of opinion, yet you preach it like the gospel, insult those who don't agree and accuse me of persistence. You make wide ranging, generalized claims about a huge group of people of whom you don't know nor do you know anything about them. If this was about feminism or race, you'db probably be the first to cry foul.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

Keep in mind there is nothing unusual about a standard capacity mag, as applied by heller

I still don't really understand your point (see above in red). Justice Scalia is an originalist, but he demonstrates above the irony in attempting to minimize any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, because if we are to truly take it for face value, these are the kinds of firearms that existed:

Guns in 1791 were made by a gunsmith, had rudimentary rifling, were single-shot weapons, loaded through the muzzle and fired by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 did not have interchangeable parts (popularized in 1798), were not revolvers, (invented in 1835), were not breach loaded (popularized in 1810), did not use smokeless powder (invented in 1885), did not use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridge bullets (invented in 1842) and did not load bullets from a clip (invented in 1890).

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22215388/steve-andreas-interpreting-second-amendment

Justice Scalia's interpretation (dangerous and unusual weapons) creates a few problems for gun advocates. One, he is essentially admitting that weapons themselves can be dangerous and two, he's admitting that historically, unusual weapons like fully automatic, sawed-off shotguns, are or once were prohibited. Furthermore, if there was a gun that existed which would completely vaporize it's target, that certainly would be unusual, but could potentially become 'usual' if they were commonly used among criminals.

So going back to what I said earlier, legislation restricting firearms will always exist and the constitutionality will continue to be hammered out in the courts. There's just too much ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment to ever reach a SCOTUS ruling which would essentially stop all future gun legislation, as such with the OP of this thread.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Porterhouse

[Sousuke 1,214]

I still don't really understand your point (see above in red). Justice Scalia is an originalist, but he demonstrates above the irony in attempting to minimize any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, because if we are to truly take it for face value, these are the kinds of firearms that existed:

Justice Scalia's interpretation (dangerous and unusual weapons) creates a few problems for gun advocates. One, he is essentially admitting that weapons themselves can be dangerous and two, he's admitting that historically, unusual weapons like fully automatic, sawed-off shotguns, are or once were prohibited. Furthermore, if there was a gun that existed which would completely vaporize it's target, that certainly would be unusual, but could potentially become 'usual' if they were commonly used among criminals.

So going back to what I said earlier, legislation restricting firearms will always exist and the constitutionality will continue to be hammered out in the courts. There's just too much ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment to ever reach a SCOTUS ruling which would essentially stop all future gun legislation, as such with the OP of this thread.

Actually he was tying back into US vs Miller. Ironically that case basically said that only commonly used militia weapons were protected. Sawed off Shotguns were interpreted at the time as non military use weapons (despite their US in WW1). Also, I would never say as you have that something becoming 'usual' by criminals is protected. thats not what he said in Heller.

I understand that the 2nd ammendment can be regulated by the government. However, making a magazine designed for a popular firearm amoung the law abiding population illegal has not been supported at the highest judical level. IMO if a standard capacity magazine ban is brought before this court and it makes for a good precedent, they will take the case on and they will establish that standard capacity magazines - ie the magazine originally designed for the legal firearm can not be regulated.

(Also there were breach loading firearms by 1791, FYI)

Edited February 17, 2014 by Brown Dwarf