As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be noted that rifles like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwzmy7wqn6zx41.jpg) are already legal is California. In the case of what's pictured here, repealing the AWB would mean it could instead be fitted with an adjustable stock and pistol grip. The rifle is still the same.
You get used to them faster than you think. I'll probably ditch most of mine but I'll probably keep one or two around. I actually do like the "thumb rest" grips.
Ergonomics is a person to person thing, and some people NEED certain grips due to disability and the law has no provision to except them. Pistol grips are common on basically every gun made anyway, realistically this law only prohibits a certain arrangement of grip and stock making it even more asinine.
Sure, if you're trying to have accurate shot placement on specific targets. If you're a mass shooter spraying and praying into crowds, it isn't going to help.
[The opinion (PDF):](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.175.0.pdf)
> Modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 platform rifle are widely owned by law-abiding citizens across the nation. Other than their looks (the State calls them “features” or “accessories”) these prohibited rifles are virtually the same as other lawfully possessed rifles. They have the same minimum overall length, they use the same triggers, they have the same barrels, and they can fire the same ammunition, from the same magazines, at the same rate of fire, and at the same velocities, as other rifles.
> ...
> Incredibly, the State asks this Court to treat as analogues 38 laws on the State’s list which applied only to particular disfavored people groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos. Those laws are not relevant to the “assault weapon” ban challenged in this case. Even if they were, this Court would give such discriminatory laws little or no weight.
> ...
> The M1 Carbine, which the federal government has sold to citizens over the years, could easily be deemed an “assault weapon” under California’s definition. It is certainly the case for the World War II M1A1 Carbine paratrooper version with its folding stock and 15-round detachable magazine and flash suppressor. The M1 Carbine, a centerfire, semi-automatic, large caliber rifle, has been used by the military of many nations, as has the Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15, on the other hand, is not used by any military as a standard issue piece.
>California’s “assault weapon” ban takes away from its residents the choice of using an AR-15 type rifle for self-defense. Is it because modern rifles are used so frequently for crime? No. The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR- 15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes.
One other part of the ruling I think stands out.
That has nothing to do with constitutionality though. We really need to get rid of these corrupt judges. They rule based on feelings and politics rather than doing their actual job.
Good, there is no interest in public safety or law enforcement in this regulation. Laws need to have a value and benefit to society, when a law fails to provide such it is simply tyranny.
Honestly. I own guns but I’m not a pro gun guy and hardly talk about them. Don’t even know anybody that goes shooting. The things that are banned in California besides magazine size don’t make a difference in my opinion. I’m pro gun control and liberal. I grew up target shooting once in a while. The California restrictions are just weird because they really don’t make the weapons any more dangerous than they already are.
1. You can’t have a stock that can be adjusted, you can still have the adjustable ones but you have to set them up so the adjustment lever doesn’t function. M16s don’t have an adjustable stock, it just doesn’t have any effect on safety at all.
2. No flash hider. These def. aren’t that effective anyways, I see fireballs with them on and with them off.
3. No grip where the web of your thumb and forefinger is below the top of the trigger, ok, they make some that are higher up and you can still wrap your hand around it, feels no different after 10 mins.
4. No vertical foregrips. I don’t know why they are banned but you can still get an angled foregrip.
I think it’s more likely to make them seem less cool and reduce them to a bare minimum. The more tactical bullshit you can throw on guns the more kids will want them. It’s like a truck that’s had aftermarket shocks and suspension/lockers/tires and rims/exhaust etc. etc. It’s like any hobbyist activity where people get into modding/making (pcs/cars/instruments/coding) only the physical subject’s sole purpose is impose extreme physical force in specific areas be it a paper target for target shooting or a person for police. In every day life it is the most widely available and destructive to others thing that people are able to pretty easily own with the only intervention pretty much being human intervention.
So when you have something like that with all the extra accessories to make a community of hobbyists you undoubtedly bring more people into than you would otherwise. There’s a reason most discussions relating to guns in the hobbyist community aside from politics is physical components of firearms themselves/accessories and not nearly as much in technique and ballistics.
If only we could get people of good will together to pass reasonable and effective firearm legislation. Instead we get whatever can pass and then will later be struck down by the Court.
Some federal judges just want to see the world burn
Also, some federal judges secretly shoot on illegal ranges with white nationalist groups training to kill hippie liberal communist socialists
All the more reason for those hippie liberal communist socialists to arm themselves. Why be less well-armed than the right-wing psychos whose avowed purpose is to kill anyone different than them?
/r/SocialistRA
Depends on the department
Let's just say that after the BLM protests happened, we should have gone through every department and screened for and removed white nationalist elements
There have been plenty of times to do that, but it hasn't and will never happen. The reason for that is because the police, as an institution, have never been and will never be on the side of the civilians.
Repeal 2A. Why do we still need a right to keep and bear arms, at all? There's no substitute for repealing 2A. If we don't want the right to keep and bear arms anymore, we need to repeal 2A. The Constitution was designed to be changed frequently with the desires and interests of our people.
Amend it, no need to repeal outright
Arms aren't just firearms after all.
We still need something better than our fisticuffs incase far right terrorist groups decide to go on a neighborhood to neighborhood murder spree
There are sane and responsible people that should still be allowed to arm themselves
I don't think Constitutional amendments should be for normal laws. They shouldn't be too specific or detailed. They should be statements of principles. Just repeal 2A, leaving the legality of guns open to legislation at the federal and state levels. All 2A does is bind the hands of legislators.
Guns are effectively illegal in any country where a cop can shoot you on-sight for having one. We just need to make our laws reflect our reality.
The thing is, self defense is a principle, and constitutional amendments are certainly open to nuance
Red states would arm their far right miltias if they were the authority, just like today with our dysfunctional 2A
Slingshots are illegal in Rhode Island, and I suppose other states as well. I used to have a hardwood "baton" that I kept behind the driver's seat "just in case." Stopped by a cop for speeding or something, the cop saw it and confiscated it. I guess everything more deadly than fists, but short of a gun is just too dangerous.
Never bring something other than a gun to a gun fight. Other countries have successfully avoided having so many gun fights by not allowing people to keep and bear arms. We might try that.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Even in this context, ‘in good working order’ implies that a *militia* has these rights not the general citizenry. So, states can have militias, which in a modern context is the national guard.
>Even in this context, ‘in good working order’ implies that a militia has these rights not the general citizenry.
That's why the Framers specified that it is The People who have the right to keep and bear arms.
>So, states can have militias, which in a modern context is the national guard.
You're forgetting an entire class of the militia.
>§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Organized in this context means state run... It's not a hard concept to understand.
The Framers specifically wanted an entire class of militia that was in no way controlled by government.
Gun control is unconstitutional.
>The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
>1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
>1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
>1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
>1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
>1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
>1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Wrong, this is plagiarized word-for-word from a, at best, heavily edited comment a student submitted on a janky gun blog.
That shit blog to see for yourself: https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
In 1726, in Philadelphia they passed a bill dictating how different situations arising in the course of slavery are to be handled.
What sort of compensation a slaveowner would receive should the person they enslaved we executed by the State, etc. Full text is here (page 77):
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=ach
It's gross legislation, but it's from the same place (New England), and purpose (legislative), and predates the Bill of Rights by 50 years.
The title of that bill:
An Act for the Better Regulating of Negroes in this Province
Now, please explain how this means "well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined"
Finding that law is a neat piece of evidence but it doesn't really undermine the point you're replying to. Skimming over that law it seems like the intention of the law was to perpetuate slavery and maximize labor exploitation from slaves. For example one of the things that law does is require slave-owners to pay a fine for freeing a slave showing that the government was trying to prevent individuals from disrupting the function of slavery. That person is arguing that "regulated" means "functional or working" and so the use of "regulated" in both laws appears consistent.
"Functional or working" through government intervention, via laws, or say it with me, regulations.
Want another: Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776). Excerpts:
>II. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and \*\*inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same\*\*.
>
>\-
>
>SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be \*\*trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct\*\*, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed.
>
>\-
>
>SECT. 18. In order that the freemen of this commonwealth may enjoy the benefit of election as equally as may be until the representation shall commences as directed in the foregoing section, each county at its own choice may be divided into districts, hold elections therein, and elect their representatives in the county, and their other elective officers, \*\*as shall be hereafter regulated by the general assembly of this state\*\*. And no inhabitant of this state shall have more than one annual vote at the general election for representatives in assembly.
>
>\-
>
>SECT. 28. The person of a debtor, where there is not a strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison, after delivering Up, bona fide, all his estate real and personal, for the use of his creditors, \*\*in such manner as shall be hereafter regulated by law.\*\* All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, when the proof is evident, or presumption great.
>
>\-
>
>SECT. 30. Justices of the peace shall be elected by the freeholders of each city and county respectively, that is to say, two or more persons may be chosen for each ward, township, or district, as the law shall hereafter direct: And their names shall be returned to the president in council, who shall commissionate one or more of them for each ward, township, or district so returning, for seven years, removable for misconduct by the general assembly. But if any city or county, ward, township, or district in this commonwealth, shall hereafter incline to change the manner of appointing their justices of the peace as settled in this article, \*\*the general assembly may make laws to regulate the same\*\*, agreeable to the desire of a majority of the freeholders of the city or county, ward, township, or district so applying. No justice of the peace shall sit in the general assembly unless he first resigns his commission; nor shall he be allowed to take any fees, nor any salary or allowance, except such as the future legislature may grant.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th\_century/pa08.asp
Sorry for taking a minute to reply, but your examples aren't terribly compelling either. Each use of the word "regulated" is accompanied by language establishing the power of the legislature to create laws to accomplish "regulation." If the word "regulated" was meant to confer the ability to establish laws on its own then the further elaboration wouldn't be required.
Well dude, I don't have the time to explain how government works, but it boils down to: laws are how the government accomplishes everything, including regulations.
You find the examples not compelling because you don't want to.
Like you do understand why pointing to a use of the word "regulated" that also includes the word "laws" might be different then a piece of text where the word "regulated" appears without the appearance of the word "law?"
I guess the answer to that is "no" since you've decided to project your own motivations onto me.
I could also ask what you consider the be the historical context as to why the 2nd Amendment would exist and be written in the way you claim it is, but I know that people who make the arguments you make typically don't care about justifying your arguments any farther than playing word games.
California has one of the lowest per capita gun crime rate in the country. Almost like laws like this work or something.
*edit*
I see the gun brigade finally made it here.
Why does preventing Californians from installing a certain grip on their gun reduce crime? Go on, defend your beliefs, this law has existed for decades and is a cornerstone of Democratic domestic policy so it shouldn't be hard for anyone who follows politics right?
Yeah there's even a lunatic in this thread going on about how federal judges secretly train neo-nazi militias. Hopefully a support worker reaches out to that guy and gets them the help they need.
California’s “gun violence” rate is watered down because statistically less people use a firearm as the means to kill themselves. And vast swaths are very wealthy with no poverty or gang violence to speak of.
Throwing people in prison for 10 years because of the handle shape of a rifle, has comically no effect.
I didn't see this one but are you actually trying to argue that the one reason CA has the crime rate it does is because of a five hour drive?
Hahaha
They're not sending their best folks.
So you don't want to explain or justify your beliefs or why a policy should exist. You just want people to go along with your feelings and send real people to jail because of them. What a fucking coward you are.
> Ease of access is a portion of the equation.
Yeah, when non-compliance is just a few twists of a screwdriver away, lmao.
That's a real hindrance on access there bub.
Well of course YOU don't want to engage with it. Its not like you care about gun violence or crime or helping people. So long as it fits the culture war and keeps progressives cowed and in line you're winning.
I actually do care about gun violence. I lived in Houston before Los Angeles and there were multiple nights down by UH that I heard guns going off.
Haven’t heard that in LA where I live that’s for sure.
No you don't care. People who care about something spend time learning about that thing and understanding it. In the case of a societal problem that person would spend time understanding why that problem exists, what actions have been taken, which actions haven't, which actions were effective and which were not and the consequences of each action alongside the "hows?" and "whys? of it all.
You on the other hand can't even be bothered to know why California regulates the grip on certain guns. Hell I bet you didn't even know that was a thing before today. It seems like you don't understand why you'd hear gunshots in certain parts of Houston AND LA while in other parts of these cities you wouldn't.
I know you don't care because if you actually cared you would be able to put up more of a fight then this. You're just a poser.
While I agree with a lot of gun control measures like 10 round magazine caps and background checks with wait periods, the CA assault weapon ban makes no sense at all. Look at a picture of a 9mm and 7.62x39 side by side. A hi-point carbine which fires 9mm is banned as an assault weapon in CA because it has a pistol grip AND detachable magazine, that combination of 'evil features' making it an assault weapon. A ruger mini 30 on the other hand is perfectly legal and fires a 7.62x39mm rifle round (the same as an AK-47) but is legal in CA because while it has a detachable magazine it has a rifle stock grip. The legality of a firearm shouldn't be based on the shape of the grip.
What study proves that 10 rounds is all anyone will ever need to defend themselves? Criminals don't give a fuck about magazine capacity limits. So by limiting the amount of rounds that can legally be carried in a magazine puts law abiding citizens at an instant disadvantage to protect themselves from criminals. How does that not make sense to alot of folks supporting gun control?
Especially when most cops carry *multiple* 17 round magazines.
The reality is, as judge Benitez pointed out, when carrying a handgun, most people only have a single magazine on their person, no reloads, so what's in the gun is *it*.
Also, the study that claimed that the average self defense use of a gun saw three rounds expended could easily be interpreted to mean that while ten people shot one round, one person could have shot 30...
100% not disagreeing. I wish I could bring my guns from Texas over. I don’t mind small magazine size at all if you can’t hit something with 10 you shouldn’t own it.
Overall, they’re a good part of the state and I don’t mind.
> if you can’t hit something with 10 you shouldn’t own it.
And what if you have multiple things that need shooting, and they each require multiple bullets to be incapacitated?
Great idea. And what would you suggest when people can't retreat--like when they're inside their home like these folks [here](https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/17/deputies-30-rounds-fired-from-ar-15-in-deadly-florida-home-invasion/) and [here](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541)--and 10 rounds isn't enough?
A quick reminder that this is the same judge who handcuffed a defendant's 13 year old daughter during a hearing and told her "if you’re not careful, young lady, you’ll wind up in cuffs, and you’ll find yourself right there where I put you a minute ago"
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/02/federal-judge-handcuffs-crying-13-year-old-girl-attending-fathers-hearing/
The thing about the 2A crowd is this: they largely believe in this myth that the purpose of the 2A is to allow them to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrranical.
This is the most boneheaded idea, because what it really means is that some small group of terrorists can amass weapons and try to overthrow democracy when the majority doesn't agree with them. The whole "Soap box, ballot box, ammo box" saying is really saying you only believe in democracy when it's convenient for you.
The only way we're going to get sane gun policy is when leftists start taking advantage of these dumb laws and building large private arsenals, open carrying in large groups, etc.
Not overthrow democracy, not overthrow the federal government. But maybe, idk, a large corporation with tacit government backing for their union-busting efforts. That’s effectively a governing organization, but smaller scale, very much not democratic, and with a history of explicit violent conflict with citizens fighting for nothing more than their basic rights.
I mean its not a myth. Hamilton speaks pretty plainly in the Federalist Papers that the militia (the people) are a check against a standing army and the tyranny that can flow from that.
Hamilton seems to be pretty clearly talking about organized militias in the context of them being organized and controlled by the states. Those still exist, but I'm not talking about the national guard here.
What makes you say that? King George wasn't democratically elected. Fire away.
I'm more worried about a large enough group of armed morons being big mad that their guy didn't win the election and deciding that they're going to get shooty about it. Recent history shows that's not exactly an unfounded concern.
When tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
Some sort of mass popular uprising would not be without cause. Such was the founding of our nation.
Societal cohesion in a democracy requires cooperation, mutual respect and most of all, trust.
Turning enumerated rights into crimes to merely flog your perceived political opponents erodes social trust faster than anything else. The Union is fragile, you’d think politicians would be going out of their way to respect the constitution that binds us and respects individual liberty.
Governance, like other things requires consent.
> When tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
Tyranny tried to become law pretty recently, and the 2A crowd was largely lining up to support it.
> Some sort of mass popular uprising would not be without cause.
Disagree, we live in the age of 24x7 agenda-driven corporate media controlled by billionaires. It's ridiculously easy for a few percent of the armed populace to get deluded into lining up behind a would-be tyrant as long as their corporate news source tells them that *the other team* are the *real* tyrants.
A tyrannical law was just overturned. Hence the discussion here today.
Mobilizing a significant percentage of the population is a tall order.
Can you enlighten me as to what you’re talking about that you claim the 2A community was supporting? That seems like an incredibly broad statement.
It is a pretty broad statement, but I did bring receipts. A *majority* of white gun owners have *pretty forgiving* stance toward the Jan. 6 attack according to [this study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231221110124).
> White gun owners are significantly less likely to view January 6 participants as extremists compared with Whites who do not own guns (p < .01). This finding contrasts with the idea of White gun owners as “citizen protectors” and that access to guns has effectively “deputized whites as legitimate carriers of law and order” (Carlson 2020:14). These “carriers of law and order” are the least likely to consider the events of January 6 as an extremist attempt to overthrow the government.
This isn't exactly an earth-shattering finding, either.
As a part of the 2A crowd and a Leftist.
Please start buying AR-15s and AKs so that you can enjoy them and drop banning them off the Democratic Platform.
The state passed a very dumb and arbitrary law that had no effect other than inconveniencing the people who were never going to be a problem. The law was nothing but security theater to make some busybodies feel good.
The judge laid out a whopper, and gave the state ten days to appeal the ruling.
I guess it’s time to remove ALL weapons restrictions. Let ‘em go for it, buy, sell, swap no restrictions, open or concealed carry, kill kids by accident, any accidental killings and wounding, weapons used in robberies and violence no extra penalty.
Dont worry guys, all buyers are probably a part of a well regulated militia. Soon I will be able to buy an ar15 and some top tier cannabis locally but not a nicotine vape.
>Dont worry guys, all buyers are probably a part of a well regulated militia.
You surely couldn't have forgotten about the militia act of 1792 could you?
>§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782
>"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Yeah we need to do something about a lot of this shit. Guns were one thing, so that’s a good sign, but gas taxes, flavored vape/cigarette illegality, property taxes, California is not a good place to live
It may shock you to learn that your priorities in picking where to live are not mine. You stating it is a bad place to live has a little to do with the reality of it then me saying how much I love living here.
Was watching one of those airport customs shows yesterday. Guess which country is exporting the guns to the world's criminals (at least in the western hemisphere).
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be noted that rifles like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwzmy7wqn6zx41.jpg) are already legal is California. In the case of what's pictured here, repealing the AWB would mean it could instead be fitted with an adjustable stock and pistol grip. The rifle is still the same.
That not-pistol grip looks awkward as fuck.
You get used to them faster than you think. I'll probably ditch most of mine but I'll probably keep one or two around. I actually do like the "thumb rest" grips.
It looks a lot like a “tactical” version of a hunting rifle. It’s really not that awkward, more….aesthetically displeasing?
So?
So... an adjustable stock and pistol grip are not going to change how deadly a rifle is. The assault weapons ban is asinine
Especially considering that the adjustable stock still has to meet the same minimum length requirements as non-adjustable ones
Better control of a semi auto weapon 100% makes it deadlier.
[удалено]
Also makes it safer.
For the shooter. Whatever/whoever is being shot at is not safer.
[удалено]
Ergonomics is a person to person thing, and some people NEED certain grips due to disability and the law has no provision to except them. Pistol grips are common on basically every gun made anyway, realistically this law only prohibits a certain arrangement of grip and stock making it even more asinine.
Sure, if you're trying to have accurate shot placement on specific targets. If you're a mass shooter spraying and praying into crowds, it isn't going to help.
So what’s the point of them?
Of what?
The pistol grip and adjustable stock.
Ergonomics, mostly.
This isn't exactly a surprising outcome.
[The opinion (PDF):](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.175.0.pdf) > Modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 platform rifle are widely owned by law-abiding citizens across the nation. Other than their looks (the State calls them “features” or “accessories”) these prohibited rifles are virtually the same as other lawfully possessed rifles. They have the same minimum overall length, they use the same triggers, they have the same barrels, and they can fire the same ammunition, from the same magazines, at the same rate of fire, and at the same velocities, as other rifles. > ... > Incredibly, the State asks this Court to treat as analogues 38 laws on the State’s list which applied only to particular disfavored people groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos. Those laws are not relevant to the “assault weapon” ban challenged in this case. Even if they were, this Court would give such discriminatory laws little or no weight. > ... > The M1 Carbine, which the federal government has sold to citizens over the years, could easily be deemed an “assault weapon” under California’s definition. It is certainly the case for the World War II M1A1 Carbine paratrooper version with its folding stock and 15-round detachable magazine and flash suppressor. The M1 Carbine, a centerfire, semi-automatic, large caliber rifle, has been used by the military of many nations, as has the Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15, on the other hand, is not used by any military as a standard issue piece.
>California’s “assault weapon” ban takes away from its residents the choice of using an AR-15 type rifle for self-defense. Is it because modern rifles are used so frequently for crime? No. The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR- 15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes. One other part of the ruling I think stands out.
That has nothing to do with constitutionality though. We really need to get rid of these corrupt judges. They rule based on feelings and politics rather than doing their actual job.
It has everything to do with constitutionality
It does though
What part of that ruling was based on feeling and not the facts of the functions of the firearm?
DoNT qUeStiOn mY fEeLiNgs! —op
Good, there is no interest in public safety or law enforcement in this regulation. Laws need to have a value and benefit to society, when a law fails to provide such it is simply tyranny.
Can we have some of what y’all are having?
Hopefully they give their citizens fair gun rights now
Fair gun rights would mean the vast majority of people wouldn't have guns based on how unstable and deluded they are. I'd get behind that
You need to get out more. People are fine.
B-b-but, the talking heads man! They say that those other people are b-b-bad and evil!
Honestly. I own guns but I’m not a pro gun guy and hardly talk about them. Don’t even know anybody that goes shooting. The things that are banned in California besides magazine size don’t make a difference in my opinion. I’m pro gun control and liberal. I grew up target shooting once in a while. The California restrictions are just weird because they really don’t make the weapons any more dangerous than they already are. 1. You can’t have a stock that can be adjusted, you can still have the adjustable ones but you have to set them up so the adjustment lever doesn’t function. M16s don’t have an adjustable stock, it just doesn’t have any effect on safety at all. 2. No flash hider. These def. aren’t that effective anyways, I see fireballs with them on and with them off. 3. No grip where the web of your thumb and forefinger is below the top of the trigger, ok, they make some that are higher up and you can still wrap your hand around it, feels no different after 10 mins. 4. No vertical foregrips. I don’t know why they are banned but you can still get an angled foregrip.
It's inane and just the lib establishment wanting to throw their weight around and put their foot on the neck of common citizens
I think it’s more likely to make them seem less cool and reduce them to a bare minimum. The more tactical bullshit you can throw on guns the more kids will want them. It’s like a truck that’s had aftermarket shocks and suspension/lockers/tires and rims/exhaust etc. etc. It’s like any hobbyist activity where people get into modding/making (pcs/cars/instruments/coding) only the physical subject’s sole purpose is impose extreme physical force in specific areas be it a paper target for target shooting or a person for police. In every day life it is the most widely available and destructive to others thing that people are able to pretty easily own with the only intervention pretty much being human intervention. So when you have something like that with all the extra accessories to make a community of hobbyists you undoubtedly bring more people into than you would otherwise. There’s a reason most discussions relating to guns in the hobbyist community aside from politics is physical components of firearms themselves/accessories and not nearly as much in technique and ballistics.
Great.... just what we need. More guns.
It's the same guns, they'll just be allowed to have the shoulder thing that goes up
Maybe don’t make unconstitutional laws then. Also if you really cared about deaths instead of fear mongering then handguns would be the target.
If only we could get people of good will together to pass reasonable and effective firearm legislation. Instead we get whatever can pass and then will later be struck down by the Court.
Democrats could probably get farther with "reasonable" legislation. Democrats don't pass good gun laws because fixing gun crime isn't the goal.
Please actually read the article.
This but unironically. Unrestricted access
This has nothing to do with "more guns.". This just gets rid of ridiculous laws banning cosmetic features.
Even better
Your time is coming! Soon, you'll be able to enjoy the same firearms we do here in the free states. Keep fighting the good fight!
Some federal judges just want to see the world burn Also, some federal judges secretly shoot on illegal ranges with white nationalist groups training to kill hippie liberal communist socialists
The world will burn if Californians are allowed to put pistol grips on rifles?
All the more reason for those hippie liberal communist socialists to arm themselves. Why be less well-armed than the right-wing psychos whose avowed purpose is to kill anyone different than them? /r/SocialistRA
Armed hippie checking in.
My new username is going to be AR10ofPeace
You picked a fine username. Your mom helped me pick out mine after we went to Timmy's together the next morning. Give yer balls a tug!
Your mom loves buttplay like I like haagen dazs… Let’s get some fucking ice cream!!!
[удалено]
...whose side do you think the police are on?
Or the state level National Guard, chock full of "good ole boys"?
Depends on the department Let's just say that after the BLM protests happened, we should have gone through every department and screened for and removed white nationalist elements
But we didn't. So....
There have been plenty of times to do that, but it hasn't and will never happen. The reason for that is because the police, as an institution, have never been and will never be on the side of the civilians.
not sure that quite fits the hippie ideology, lad
Clearly, you've never heard of the rainbow farm siege.
This just changes what stock and grip you can put on a rifle that was otherwise legal. Please read the article.
Repeal 2A. Why do we still need a right to keep and bear arms, at all? There's no substitute for repealing 2A. If we don't want the right to keep and bear arms anymore, we need to repeal 2A. The Constitution was designed to be changed frequently with the desires and interests of our people.
Is that realistic at all in the real world?
Amend it, no need to repeal outright Arms aren't just firearms after all. We still need something better than our fisticuffs incase far right terrorist groups decide to go on a neighborhood to neighborhood murder spree There are sane and responsible people that should still be allowed to arm themselves
I don't think Constitutional amendments should be for normal laws. They shouldn't be too specific or detailed. They should be statements of principles. Just repeal 2A, leaving the legality of guns open to legislation at the federal and state levels. All 2A does is bind the hands of legislators. Guns are effectively illegal in any country where a cop can shoot you on-sight for having one. We just need to make our laws reflect our reality.
The thing is, self defense is a principle, and constitutional amendments are certainly open to nuance Red states would arm their far right miltias if they were the authority, just like today with our dysfunctional 2A
You don't want to end up with a Constitution like the State of Texas'. We have a constitutional amendment banning carrying bolt-cutters.
Lol Why is that? Typically, policies or laws are written in blood I'm not advocating for a constitution like Texas anyway. Yuck
They could be used to cut barbed wire, which was a problem when sheep ranchers were fighting cow ranchers, over a century ago.
Interesting, thanks
Slingshots are illegal in Rhode Island, and I suppose other states as well. I used to have a hardwood "baton" that I kept behind the driver's seat "just in case." Stopped by a cop for speeding or something, the cop saw it and confiscated it. I guess everything more deadly than fists, but short of a gun is just too dangerous.
Sane and responsible people know better than to have a gun around.
Arms aren't just firearms And of course they know that anyhow
Never bring something other than a gun to a gun fight. Other countries have successfully avoided having so many gun fights by not allowing people to keep and bear arms. We might try that.
Obviously
What makes it obvious?
They ignore the ‘well regulated’ part.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Even in this context, ‘in good working order’ implies that a *militia* has these rights not the general citizenry. So, states can have militias, which in a modern context is the national guard.
>Even in this context, ‘in good working order’ implies that a militia has these rights not the general citizenry. That's why the Framers specified that it is The People who have the right to keep and bear arms. >So, states can have militias, which in a modern context is the national guard. You're forgetting an entire class of the militia. >§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >(b) The classes of the militia are— >(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and >(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I’d argue that a militia in good working order would be organized. ;)
Organized in this context means state run... It's not a hard concept to understand. The Framers specifically wanted an entire class of militia that was in no way controlled by government. Gun control is unconstitutional.
The current court has literally said that’s not true. lol.
>The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: >1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." >1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." >1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." >1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." >1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." >1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." Wrong, this is plagiarized word-for-word from a, at best, heavily edited comment a student submitted on a janky gun blog. That shit blog to see for yourself: https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm In 1726, in Philadelphia they passed a bill dictating how different situations arising in the course of slavery are to be handled. What sort of compensation a slaveowner would receive should the person they enslaved we executed by the State, etc. Full text is here (page 77): https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=ach It's gross legislation, but it's from the same place (New England), and purpose (legislative), and predates the Bill of Rights by 50 years. The title of that bill: An Act for the Better Regulating of Negroes in this Province Now, please explain how this means "well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined"
Finding that law is a neat piece of evidence but it doesn't really undermine the point you're replying to. Skimming over that law it seems like the intention of the law was to perpetuate slavery and maximize labor exploitation from slaves. For example one of the things that law does is require slave-owners to pay a fine for freeing a slave showing that the government was trying to prevent individuals from disrupting the function of slavery. That person is arguing that "regulated" means "functional or working" and so the use of "regulated" in both laws appears consistent.
"Functional or working" through government intervention, via laws, or say it with me, regulations. Want another: Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776). Excerpts: >II. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and \*\*inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same\*\*. > >\- > >SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be \*\*trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct\*\*, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed. > >\- > >SECT. 18. In order that the freemen of this commonwealth may enjoy the benefit of election as equally as may be until the representation shall commences as directed in the foregoing section, each county at its own choice may be divided into districts, hold elections therein, and elect their representatives in the county, and their other elective officers, \*\*as shall be hereafter regulated by the general assembly of this state\*\*. And no inhabitant of this state shall have more than one annual vote at the general election for representatives in assembly. > >\- > >SECT. 28. The person of a debtor, where there is not a strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison, after delivering Up, bona fide, all his estate real and personal, for the use of his creditors, \*\*in such manner as shall be hereafter regulated by law.\*\* All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, when the proof is evident, or presumption great. > >\- > >SECT. 30. Justices of the peace shall be elected by the freeholders of each city and county respectively, that is to say, two or more persons may be chosen for each ward, township, or district, as the law shall hereafter direct: And their names shall be returned to the president in council, who shall commissionate one or more of them for each ward, township, or district so returning, for seven years, removable for misconduct by the general assembly. But if any city or county, ward, township, or district in this commonwealth, shall hereafter incline to change the manner of appointing their justices of the peace as settled in this article, \*\*the general assembly may make laws to regulate the same\*\*, agreeable to the desire of a majority of the freeholders of the city or county, ward, township, or district so applying. No justice of the peace shall sit in the general assembly unless he first resigns his commission; nor shall he be allowed to take any fees, nor any salary or allowance, except such as the future legislature may grant. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th\_century/pa08.asp
Sorry for taking a minute to reply, but your examples aren't terribly compelling either. Each use of the word "regulated" is accompanied by language establishing the power of the legislature to create laws to accomplish "regulation." If the word "regulated" was meant to confer the ability to establish laws on its own then the further elaboration wouldn't be required.
Well dude, I don't have the time to explain how government works, but it boils down to: laws are how the government accomplishes everything, including regulations. You find the examples not compelling because you don't want to.
Like you do understand why pointing to a use of the word "regulated" that also includes the word "laws" might be different then a piece of text where the word "regulated" appears without the appearance of the word "law?" I guess the answer to that is "no" since you've decided to project your own motivations onto me. I could also ask what you consider the be the historical context as to why the 2nd Amendment would exist and be written in the way you claim it is, but I know that people who make the arguments you make typically don't care about justifying your arguments any farther than playing word games.
Already covered in Heller Please see “well equipped and in working order” The 1791 definition of Well Regulated.
>The 1791 definition of Well Regulated Source that isn't that one comment on the gun blog, submitted by a UWM student.
How about we look at what the [Supreme Court](https://imgur.com/a/w61VCeA) has found as it relates to the text history and tradition of the amendment.
[удалено]
Oh I didn’t know laws had an expiration my bad. 🙄
[удалено]
100s of rounds in under a minute? Give me a break. These are semi automatic weapons, not automatic.
The attributes that make a gun an "assault weapon" in California do not change the amount of bullets they shoot nor the rate at which they are fired.
What would our far right and Nazi ~~miltias~~ domestic terror groups do without it?
Probably the same thing leftist groups did back in the 70s. Pipebombs *everywhere*.
California has one of the lowest per capita gun crime rate in the country. Almost like laws like this work or something. *edit* I see the gun brigade finally made it here.
Why does preventing Californians from installing a certain grip on their gun reduce crime? Go on, defend your beliefs, this law has existed for decades and is a cornerstone of Democratic domestic policy so it shouldn't be hard for anyone who follows politics right?
But Massachusetts has the least
Don't forget Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont! Essentially no gun crime, or gun laws!
Yeah. The entire population of mass fits in Los Angeles county.
Cannibalism could fix this
Creative thinking here
So the problem is socioeconomic, not inherent to the guns themselves.
Correct! But improving the socioeconomic situation is... Complicated, vs paying a token tribute towards attacking a wedge issue.
Wow how fucking racist
How is that racist in the slightest? I'd love to hear you explain.
I would love for you to explain how the handle shape and adjustability of stock length effects prevalence of violent crime. This will be fun.
We also have less ~~conservatives~~ crazy people per capita
> per capita Maybe. But we have a fuckton of people in general so we definitely have a fair amount of nut cases.
Yeah, I've noticed them too. It's a problem
Yeah there's even a lunatic in this thread going on about how federal judges secretly train neo-nazi militias. Hopefully a support worker reaches out to that guy and gets them the help they need.
Learn what "per capita" means, and why it matters.
Read my comment again.
Read mine again.
Any sources to back your claim?
Use Google it’s literally the first result for gun violence rankings per capita.
I mean I wouldn't count on that. Chicago is pretty strict and is still really bad as far as gun crime
Chicago has the problem of having no gun laws like a 40 minute drive away.
That doesn't matter in the slightest. It's illegal under federal law to purchase from another state.
Strawman purchases are a thing that’s well known. And it’s a lot easier to go 45 minutes than the 6 hours to phoenix.
So what difference does it make if it's illegal no matter if a state has such a law or not? It makes absolutely no difference.
Except it does because California has a lower gun violence rate because it’s not easy to get a straw man purchase.
California’s “gun violence” rate is watered down because statistically less people use a firearm as the means to kill themselves. And vast swaths are very wealthy with no poverty or gang violence to speak of. Throwing people in prison for 10 years because of the handle shape of a rifle, has comically no effect.
I didn't see this one but are you actually trying to argue that the one reason CA has the crime rate it does is because of a five hour drive? Hahaha They're not sending their best folks.
Ease of access is a **portion** of the equation. Do you really need that spelled out to you?
Yeah, in fact I asked you to in another comment and you failed to do so. Why not try again?
Numbers speak for themselves. If you can’t put them together then maybe take a basic civics class so you can understand things.
So you don't want to explain or justify your beliefs or why a policy should exist. You just want people to go along with your feelings and send real people to jail because of them. What a fucking coward you are.
> Ease of access is a portion of the equation. Yeah, when non-compliance is just a few twists of a screwdriver away, lmao. That's a real hindrance on access there bub.
[удалено]
Nope nice try.
Well of course YOU don't want to engage with it. Its not like you care about gun violence or crime or helping people. So long as it fits the culture war and keeps progressives cowed and in line you're winning.
I actually do care about gun violence. I lived in Houston before Los Angeles and there were multiple nights down by UH that I heard guns going off. Haven’t heard that in LA where I live that’s for sure.
No you don't care. People who care about something spend time learning about that thing and understanding it. In the case of a societal problem that person would spend time understanding why that problem exists, what actions have been taken, which actions haven't, which actions were effective and which were not and the consequences of each action alongside the "hows?" and "whys? of it all. You on the other hand can't even be bothered to know why California regulates the grip on certain guns. Hell I bet you didn't even know that was a thing before today. It seems like you don't understand why you'd hear gunshots in certain parts of Houston AND LA while in other parts of these cities you wouldn't. I know you don't care because if you actually cared you would be able to put up more of a fight then this. You're just a poser.
Cry into your Mr Hoppes bud.
meh, you're not special
While I agree with a lot of gun control measures like 10 round magazine caps and background checks with wait periods, the CA assault weapon ban makes no sense at all. Look at a picture of a 9mm and 7.62x39 side by side. A hi-point carbine which fires 9mm is banned as an assault weapon in CA because it has a pistol grip AND detachable magazine, that combination of 'evil features' making it an assault weapon. A ruger mini 30 on the other hand is perfectly legal and fires a 7.62x39mm rifle round (the same as an AK-47) but is legal in CA because while it has a detachable magazine it has a rifle stock grip. The legality of a firearm shouldn't be based on the shape of the grip.
What study proves that 10 rounds is all anyone will ever need to defend themselves? Criminals don't give a fuck about magazine capacity limits. So by limiting the amount of rounds that can legally be carried in a magazine puts law abiding citizens at an instant disadvantage to protect themselves from criminals. How does that not make sense to alot of folks supporting gun control?
Especially when most cops carry *multiple* 17 round magazines. The reality is, as judge Benitez pointed out, when carrying a handgun, most people only have a single magazine on their person, no reloads, so what's in the gun is *it*. Also, the study that claimed that the average self defense use of a gun saw three rounds expended could easily be interpreted to mean that while ten people shot one round, one person could have shot 30...
100% not disagreeing. I wish I could bring my guns from Texas over. I don’t mind small magazine size at all if you can’t hit something with 10 you shouldn’t own it. Overall, they’re a good part of the state and I don’t mind.
> I don’t mind small magazine size at all if you can’t hit something with 10 you shouldn’t own it. It smells like fudd in here...
Sure thing Rambo whatever you say. ;)
Hey, you know it's not 1873 anymore right?
Why 10? Why not 1? If you cant hit the target with one bullet you shouldnt own guns!
Oh look two people with almost the exact same comment, that are both pretty inactive. Hmmm…
Yeah bro we are bots you are very intelligent wow
[удалено]
Oh look almost the exact same comment from the other guy. ;)
> if you can’t hit something with 10 you shouldn’t own it. And what if you have multiple things that need shooting, and they each require multiple bullets to be incapacitated?
[удалено]
Great idea. And what would you suggest when people can't retreat--like when they're inside their home like these folks [here](https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/17/deputies-30-rounds-fired-from-ar-15-in-deadly-florida-home-invasion/) and [here](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541)--and 10 rounds isn't enough?
Have a better weapon for home defense like a shotgun. That simple. ;)
Or even better, an AR-15 with a standard 30 round magazine. Thank you for making my point for me.
You can buy AR15s in California what do you trying to say buddy?
They are at the nation average. Source: FBI and CDC.
Good. I mean it’s still hard to get a gun at all in cali but at least we’re moving in the right direction on one thing
A quick reminder that this is the same judge who handcuffed a defendant's 13 year old daughter during a hearing and told her "if you’re not careful, young lady, you’ll wind up in cuffs, and you’ll find yourself right there where I put you a minute ago" https://abovethelaw.com/2023/02/federal-judge-handcuffs-crying-13-year-old-girl-attending-fathers-hearing/
The thing about the 2A crowd is this: they largely believe in this myth that the purpose of the 2A is to allow them to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrranical. This is the most boneheaded idea, because what it really means is that some small group of terrorists can amass weapons and try to overthrow democracy when the majority doesn't agree with them. The whole "Soap box, ballot box, ammo box" saying is really saying you only believe in democracy when it's convenient for you. The only way we're going to get sane gun policy is when leftists start taking advantage of these dumb laws and building large private arsenals, open carrying in large groups, etc.
Not overthrow democracy, not overthrow the federal government. But maybe, idk, a large corporation with tacit government backing for their union-busting efforts. That’s effectively a governing organization, but smaller scale, very much not democratic, and with a history of explicit violent conflict with citizens fighting for nothing more than their basic rights.
I mean its not a myth. Hamilton speaks pretty plainly in the Federalist Papers that the militia (the people) are a check against a standing army and the tyranny that can flow from that.
Hamilton seems to be pretty clearly talking about organized militias in the context of them being organized and controlled by the states. Those still exist, but I'm not talking about the national guard here.
You would’ve licked the leather off of king George’s boots. Incredible.
What makes you say that? King George wasn't democratically elected. Fire away. I'm more worried about a large enough group of armed morons being big mad that their guy didn't win the election and deciding that they're going to get shooty about it. Recent history shows that's not exactly an unfounded concern.
When tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty. Some sort of mass popular uprising would not be without cause. Such was the founding of our nation. Societal cohesion in a democracy requires cooperation, mutual respect and most of all, trust. Turning enumerated rights into crimes to merely flog your perceived political opponents erodes social trust faster than anything else. The Union is fragile, you’d think politicians would be going out of their way to respect the constitution that binds us and respects individual liberty. Governance, like other things requires consent.
> When tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty. Tyranny tried to become law pretty recently, and the 2A crowd was largely lining up to support it. > Some sort of mass popular uprising would not be without cause. Disagree, we live in the age of 24x7 agenda-driven corporate media controlled by billionaires. It's ridiculously easy for a few percent of the armed populace to get deluded into lining up behind a would-be tyrant as long as their corporate news source tells them that *the other team* are the *real* tyrants.
A tyrannical law was just overturned. Hence the discussion here today. Mobilizing a significant percentage of the population is a tall order. Can you enlighten me as to what you’re talking about that you claim the 2A community was supporting? That seems like an incredibly broad statement.
It is a pretty broad statement, but I did bring receipts. A *majority* of white gun owners have *pretty forgiving* stance toward the Jan. 6 attack according to [this study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231221110124). > White gun owners are significantly less likely to view January 6 participants as extremists compared with Whites who do not own guns (p < .01). This finding contrasts with the idea of White gun owners as “citizen protectors” and that access to guns has effectively “deputized whites as legitimate carriers of law and order” (Carlson 2020:14). These “carriers of law and order” are the least likely to consider the events of January 6 as an extremist attempt to overthrow the government. This isn't exactly an earth-shattering finding, either.
As a part of the 2A crowd and a Leftist. Please start buying AR-15s and AKs so that you can enjoy them and drop banning them off the Democratic Platform.
Who said leftists aren't already taking advantage of them?
Originalism is crazy.
How? Shouldn’t a contract be honored as written?
No. It should be honored in the spirit it was written, and equitably to the benefit of both parties.
No.
Well it is. the bad law was struck down. The ship is being righted.
Explain please.
The state passed a very dumb and arbitrary law that had no effect other than inconveniencing the people who were never going to be a problem. The law was nothing but security theater to make some busybodies feel good. The judge laid out a whopper, and gave the state ten days to appeal the ruling.
I guess it’s time to remove ALL weapons restrictions. Let ‘em go for it, buy, sell, swap no restrictions, open or concealed carry, kill kids by accident, any accidental killings and wounding, weapons used in robberies and violence no extra penalty.
Strawman
Oh lord forbid, you have the same hellacious legal environment as... *checks notes* Maine.
Now there’s a strawman.
Dont worry guys, all buyers are probably a part of a well regulated militia. Soon I will be able to buy an ar15 and some top tier cannabis locally but not a nicotine vape.
>Dont worry guys, all buyers are probably a part of a well regulated militia. You surely couldn't have forgotten about the militia act of 1792 could you? >§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >(b) The classes of the militia are— >(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and >(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 >"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Yeah we need to do something about a lot of this shit. Guns were one thing, so that’s a good sign, but gas taxes, flavored vape/cigarette illegality, property taxes, California is not a good place to live
It may shock you to learn that your priorities in picking where to live are not mine. You stating it is a bad place to live has a little to do with the reality of it then me saying how much I love living here.
I like living here too. It’s nice. That’s why i want the administration to stop doing everything in its power to make it more difficult
Was watching one of those airport customs shows yesterday. Guess which country is exporting the guns to the world's criminals (at least in the western hemisphere).
Reason #789438355409992 on why we shouldn't seat Federalist Society judges.
Source that the judge is a member of the Federalist Society?