9th Circuit upholds California ban on high-capacity ammo magazines

[Sig_Fiend]

The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing. There is no hard data, it's purely an arbitrary limit derived out of thin air. This would be like placing a daily word limit on free speech in the "public interest" of reducing "hate speech". After all, there has never been any need ever for anyone to have more than say 100 free speech words per day! So it would be perfectly reasonable to limit you to 100 per day in the public interest of reducing the literal ear violence of your potential "hate speech".

So why not 11 rounds? Next year it will be 9. Equally as arbitrary, and in their mind, should be equally as justified as long as it's always the same or LESS than they want to allow. Eventually it will be just one single round, which can only legally be allowed for the purpose of ending yourself and silencing the wrongthink.

I'm no legal scholar, but I could have sworn I've heard of case law and/or precedence before that deals with attempts to institute arbitrary limits on constitutionally-enumerated rights. It just seems like the very definition of a "slippery slope".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 10 round limit comes from several things:

1. We have 10 fingers. On the world of octopi, the limit is 8.

2. The argument against higher capacity is the ease of rampages without reloads. It is argued that with lower cap guns you can disarm on the reload. Gun folks say that you can reload fast so let us have higher caps as capacity doesn't make a difference. You do have folks disarmed during reloads and if you say that ten works fine as you can reload quick then you get the SAFE act original 7, 5 is enough.

3. It's all appearance and wanting to ban all the semis eventually. See Australia.

Once you get a Mini-14, repeated 10 round rampage, the call will be to ban them. Norway and Canada have. The smarter antis propose banning all semis and not just reinstating the original AWB.

Fortunately or unfortunately, with the world going to Hell in a Handbasket, I don't see a Fed AWB unless we have some true horror show again. Supposedly we were close after Las Vegas and the random neural pathways of the Donald.

[OlongJohnson]

The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing.

I always assumed it was based on the tradition of single stack .22LR pistols for target and utility having ten rounds as standard capacity going back at least to the Colt Woodsman starting in 1915. Try to ban those, and people would #RESIST .

[Bergeron]

I would enjoy seeing a discussion on that 10-round (or whatever-round) topic.

Agreed that lots of 10-round .22 pistols are out there, and I think it's the whole base-10 number system, 10-fingers sort of arbitrary.

"Why 10?"

"No-one needs more than 10"

"Let's start looking a videos of a great many different defensive gun uses where people go slide-lock. Law enforcement and private security certainly appear to want more than 10"

In my tiny and hopeful mind, the far greater validated data sets and recording of defensive gun uses, data and evidence that we've never had access to like this before, really drive home the arbitrary-and harmful- nature of 10-round limits.

[Balisong]

Is "interferes minimally" the new "mostly peaceful"?

[Jim Watson]

Ironic that the judge said banning your full capacity magazine does not represent a loss, you can always sell it.
Outside his jurisdiction, that is. Isn't that nice; he says it is a danger to society but it is ok to let it be a danger someplace else.

[Sig_Fiend]

You guys failed. My point was, magazine capacity restrictions are not even a valid discussion to be had. By attempting to discuss them in good faith to "prove our case" or disprove theirs on its merits, we effectively legitimize that there is a debate to be had. That starts down the path of turning a right into a privilege, and the outcome becomes a moving goal post. In my opinion, there should be no "debate". Merely ruthless, aggressive, one-way discourse that continually attacks, delegitimizes, and ultimately destroys any possible position of capacity restrictions being a valid issue.

When control proponents bring it up in the future, a more leftist-style response to them would be that their policies promote the murder or imprisonment of Americans, and theft of their wealth. Same concept as barrel length + NFA. 15.99 inch barrel minus tax stamp and I lose EVERYTHING in my life. 16.0 inch and I'm fine. It's heartless, unjustifiable, and serves no purpose.

These are all my opinions, and maybe I'm wrong and that's not the most effective way. I can't help but think that, playing "defense" sure doesn't seem to work for us when the other side only ever plays offense...

[Bergeron]

You guys failed. My point was, magazine capacity restrictions are not even a valid discussion to be had. By attempting to discuss them in good faith to "prove our case" or disprove theirs on its merits, we effectively legitimize that there is a debate to be had. That starts down the path of turning a right into a privilege, and the outcome becomes a moving goal post. In my opinion, there should be no "debate". Merely ruthless, aggressive, one-way discourse that continually attacks, delegitimizes, and ultimately destroys any possible position of capacity restrictions being a valid issue.

When control proponents bring it up in the future, a more leftist-style response to them would be that their policies promote the murder or imprisonment of Americans, and theft of their wealth. Same concept as barrel length + NFA. 15.99 inch barrel minus tax stamp and I lose EVERYTHING in my life. 16.0 inch and I'm fine. It's heartless, unjustifiable, and serves no purpose.

These are all my opinions, and maybe I'm wrong and that's not the most effective way. I can't help but think that, playing "defense" sure doesn't seem to work for us when the other side only ever plays offense...

Oh yeah, absolutely you are correct. I don't want some kind of a grand national debate on where my rights end, and I loathe the nit-picky "that's Ok, that's felony" aspects of gun control.

The kind of discussions I think that we're actually talking about wanting are those on a private, individual basis with fence-sitters who really can be convinced with reason.

[High Cross]

The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing. There is no hard data, it's purely an arbitrary limit derived out of thin air. This would be like placing a daily word limit on free speech in the "public interest" of reducing "hate speech". After all, there has never been any need ever for anyone to have more than say 100 free speech words per day! So it would be perfectly reasonable to limit you to 100 per day in the public interest of reducing the literal ear violence of your potential "hate speech".

So why not 11 rounds? Next year it will be 9. Equally as arbitrary, and in their mind, should be equally as justified as long as it's always the same or LESS than they want to allow. Eventually it will be just one single round, which can only legally be allowed for the purpose of ending yourself and silencing the wrongthink.

I'm no legal scholar, but I could have sworn I've heard of case law and/or precedence before that deals with attempts to institute arbitrary limits on constitutionally-enumerated rights. It just seems like the very definition of a "slippery slope".

As a former New York Resident and current New Jersey resident, I remember Andrew Cuomo scream "no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer" while he signed the safe acts 7 round limit. Here in NJ, the Newark star ledger has been pushing a 5 round limit. There is already a bill written that had been pushed by now former Assemblyman Jimmy Cryan. Ironically his son is a firearms enthusiast

[Bergeron]

Even spending my high school years in northwest rural Louisiana, I’ve never met anyone as devoted to and knowledgeable about spreading death and destruction among deer as anti-gun politicians.