DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[treelogger]

Just tell us you're ok with magazine capacity restrictions.

My opinion on it, and your opinion, and $5 will get us ONE coffee at Starbucks. What opinion is irrelevant. Personally, I would like to keep large capacity magazines, but there are many other things I'd like, too.

Do you have any better arguments? If yes, please send them to the Supreme Court.

Exactly. I’m starting to think there really might be some paid shills from “Everytown for Gun Control” on this site. And, not surprisingly, it seems to be the same people every time.

Sadly, nobody is paying me for my opinions.

To quote Vincent Gambini from his opening statement in My Cousin Vinny, “Everything that guy just said is bull.”

If you think this is a good argument, please also send it to the Supreme Court. Who needs "Everytown for Gun Control" when we have people like you?

 

[ikeo1]

@ikeo1 this mod is ridiculous.

The laws section is supposed to be clean and clear from personal insults, generalized non-sense. The goal of this section is to discuss what's happening. There's obviously opposition in a state like CA, so people will have to adjust their styles to convince people.

This is the part of the site that is getting indexed, so while I can enjoy the banter being able to argue your point in a respectful manner is likely going to changes peoples perspective more than calling them names, not you specifically.

If they're giving you reasons and the reply is you're a liberal anti-2a blah blah blah.. That doesn't really change anyones opinion. It builds higher walls.

When people come, the goal has been to build up our content library with actual discussion.




Outside of this section is a bit looser but in the laws section, we want to set the expectation that people can have a good discussion, not a pissing contest with every keyword on TV and social media.

In this way, I agree with POTUS's handling of certain things, in that its better to enforce higher standards of discourse. In that sense people will remove themselves who can't argue past name calling. People are just discussing things online. If they take it personal, that's a them problem. We take a more libertarian approach.

Pro Tip: Use the Ignore button for people you don't like... It's ALWAYS the same people. IMO mature people can handle other peoples beliefs even if they don't believe them. Also IMO there's a lack of respect in general these days in America. The internet makes people feel like you're not talking to an actual person.

Just a note: No edits... Only removals and thread bans.. You can appeal them for good reason..

 

[ikeo1]

When it comes to the topic, I think for some having the limit works for some people based on logic, if you have a switch and only 10 rds then the criminal is limited. If you've ever seen anyone at the range, or most altercations for the matter, when they try to reload a magazine they are very slow. Otherwise they run when they run out. So I understand the reasoning. There's ample video proof of this playing out like this.

Will criminals have high caps? Yes because they're criminals but not all of them would be able to get it, specifically the low effort hoodlums or random person who has a psychotic episode, compared to if it was over the counter. I don't agree with the limitations and glad we had freedom week... Hopefully SCOTUS can make the final decision..

 

[p--and--p]

That's a pretty difficult statement to reconcile when one looks at the numbers.

The top 10 states for gun deaths per 100k population are mostly states with rather lax gun laws.

Mississippi 29.4
Louisiana 28.3
Alabama 25.6
New Mexico 25.3
Alaska 23.5
Tennessee 22.0
Arkansas 21.9
Montana 21.5
Wyoming 21.5
Missouri 21.4

The bottom ten states for gun deaths (per 100k pop) are mostly states with rather strict gun laws.

Iowa 10.5
New Hampshire 9.6
Minnesota 8.9
California 8.0
Connecticut 6.2
Hawaii 4.9
Rhode Island 4.8
New York 4.7
New Jersey 4.6
Massachusetts 3.7

Source (violence): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state
Source (laws): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

Wait, Illinois has like one city that has like 50 deaths every weekend or something like that and thats not even in the top 10? That could be wide including shooting of home intruders, I'd rather have my rights

 

[p--and--p]

Seriously all they do is go into every F-ing thread and poo poo on any glimmer of hope for our second amendment rights to be restored. This site is infested with 2a detractors.

Every once in a while I'll login and the main page has some topic I'll click on, but I'll be damned if I basically stopped responding to most. Its very hard here on this website.

Did I just read someone ting on the SC Thomas?? He is literally the best thing we have holding this country together and someone says he is bad in a gun group, I just feel like I'm on another planet in this site and for that I restrict myself to the classifieds section 99% of the time. It isnt worth looking at the rest, we are supposed to be united fighting tyranny but yet Trump is the problem half the time. Just gotta keep scrolling on and not comment like I've done today lol

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Fortunately, it won’t matter in the long run. The Supreme Court is going to settle this in favor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as it is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, not in favor of the tyranny of the majority in California. It’s an important concept that is lost on the gun grabbers in this state, including those on this site. Here’s a little civic reminder:

View attachment 111338

Why does this have a banner . No way. How ridiculous the fact that this could be considered an offense. 1984 is here and big brother is here to fix the world.

 

[JBlack]

Yes. It was GVRed (Granted cert, Vacated and Remanded) back to the 9th after Bruen. Rather that make their decision confirm to Bruen, the Ninth Circuit stalled by sending the case back to the original court. It's finally percolated back up after the Ninth twisted and distorted Heller, Caetano and Bruen past all recognition and created new legal concepts out of thin air in order to come up with the same ruling again in Duncan.

If SCOTUS lets them get away with it and doesn't grant cert and give the Ninth the reprimand it richly deserves, the door will be wide open for the lower courts to ignore any future SCOTUS ruling they don't like. What's at stake is whether or not the word "Supreme" is going to mean anything.

Absolutely WELL SAID. Copperjacket TV did a great overview on why this is the perfect case. Aired yesterday on YouTube.

 

[ikeo1]

Why does this have a banner . No way. How ridiculous the fact that this could be considered an offense. 1984 is here and big brother is here to fix the world.

You don't seem to care that POTUS is building a much more sophisticated public version of this which uses our tax payer dollars.

I just feel like I'm on another planet in this site and for that I restrict myself to the classifieds section 99% of the time. It isnt worth looking at the rest, we are supposed to be united fighting tyranny but yet Trump is the problem half the time. Just gotta keep scrolling on and not comment like I've done today lol

Compared to where you're used to going, I'll take that as a compliment. If Trump wasn't the problem, it would be Biden, or whomever is insert POTUS. I make it a point to have balance here so people must use english and critical thinking skills to articulate their stance.

Otherwise, what do you think I should do about it?

 

[Jimi Jah]

FYI the government CANT take away our rights, the 10th amendment are part of the constitution as it stands and it will for the foreseeable future.

The commerce clause took care of most 10th amendment restrictions.

Since then the feds have control of anything interstate.

That decision needs to be reviewed

 

[governmentsucks1776]

You don't seem to care that POTUS is building a much more sophisticated public version of this which uses our tax payer dollars.

Compared to where you're used to going, I'll take that as a compliment. If Trump wasn't the problem, it would be Biden, or whomever is insert POTUS. I make it a point to have balance here so people must use english and critical thinking skills to articulate their stance.

Otherwise, what do you think I should do about it?

Last I checked Trump doesnt believe in this "offensive" language control BS neither do I. I dont see the trump administration limiting or controlling our language or thoughts.Im in my late 20s and cant believe how much the world has changed for the worse. We used to be a proper country a few decades ago. It becomes my problem when people try to limit and control speech they dont like or agree with. The Bolsheviks were also quick to suppress speech and control the narrative with labels they disagreed with. The same way people today label "offensive" or the most bs term used today "hate speech" unbelievable, this one is the worst offender.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

The commerce clause took care of most 10th amendment restrictions.

Since then the feds have control of anything interstate.

That decision needs to be reviewed

There are so many things that need to overturned, but people love love precedent even if the decision was flawed. Roe v wade is the perfect example...took them 50 years to read the 10th amendment. Another exquisite example of the commerce clause garbage is United States v. Lopez

 

[treelogger]

The commerce clause took care of most 10th amendment restrictions.

Since then the feds have control of anything interstate.

That decision needs to be reviewed

It's not that simple.

On one hand, you're partially correct: Since the 1930s, the federal government has been able to use the commerce clause as an excuse to regulate many things. The logic behind it is that today, the US is so highly integrated in its commerce, that every item you buy either has already crossed a state boundary, and even if it hasn't, it being traded effects interstate commerce (the famous Wickard case).

But note that the Wickard logic doesn't apply everywhere. An example: Any heavy truck (I think 14K lbs or more) that's used in commerce needs to have a federal DOT number, which needs to be displayed on the door. Now, every truck in California is touched by interstate commerce ... my 20K lbs truck was built in Kentucky, the box on the back comes from South Dakota, and the engine and electronics must be from most states, and many foreign countries. Yet, the DOT laws that require numbers to be displayed explicitly only apply to heavy trucks that are used in commerce. Since I'm a private individual (not a company), and I never use my truck for any work or anything I do for hire, I'm explicitly exempt from having to register for and display the federal DOT number, and the equivalent CA number. So even the federal government knows that Wickard has limits.

But the inverse logic is also not true. Just because the federal government CAN regulate most things, state governments can also regulate them. Just look at the giant laundry list of things California requires: Prop 65 stickers, eggs must be cage free, milk and gasoline are restricted (special formulation for gasoline, which is only made in the state), CARB rules for solvents, WD40, and VoC content of paint, special CARB rules for cars and trucks (don't get me started on CARB diesel rules). And we all know about gun control laws, and how many gun-related items can't be imported into the state (handgun roster), or require extra paperwork (that's even federal law, requiring an FFL). The net result is that today BOTH federal and state government can regulate interstate commerce. I would love it if the federal government would "occupy the field" of regulating interstate commerce, which is what you hint at when you say "control of anything interstate". But today both governments have control.

For me personally, I agree with your answer "needs to be reviewed", but I come to the opposite conclusion: ONLY the federal government should be allowed to regulate any form of commerce and trade. If an item is legal to buy, possess, sell, or own in AL or WY or any state in between, it should also be legal here. States should have absolutely no business banning or controlling anything that can be bought or sold. Unfortunately, the 10th amendment makes my conclusion unviable in the near term.

 

[ikeo1]

I just feel like I'm on another planet in this site and for that I restrict myself to the classifieds section 99% of the time.

As long as it works for you in some aspect, this site is for Californian's. It's free, the characters that come and go have been pretty interesting to say the least.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

As long as it works for you in some aspect, this site is for Californian's. It's free, the characters that come and go have been pretty interesting to say the least.

The problem is that there won't be a site for anyone if things keep going the way they are. I just heard now gun grabbers are going for Rugers glock clone. These mini dictators wont stop until we are left with toy guns

 

[NotARobotYet]

Can you believe 90% of the voters say they didn't want the group in power to draw lines, but yet they voted to do it anyways. Insanity

I have no idea what you’re referring to, but you totally missed the point: If voters’ top priority was unlimited freedom to own any and every weapon ever, democrats who have pushed gun control legislation would not have just been handed—by direct vote—every district in the state.

Just because everyone is in favor of banning guns doesnt mean that the government can ban them.

Where are guns banned? Certainly not in California. I own them. I assume you do too?

So you dont think our constitutional rights are civil rights? 1st amendment? 2nd? 5th? Really. What would you consider civil liberties then?

Actually no, I’ve never thought or heard of owning guns as civil rights. I guess in the very loosest terms yes gun ownership / possession is addressed in the constitution but i have generally understood civil rights as protecting minority and/or vulnerable groups from discrimination. Below is what the DOJ has on their website for reference. Right under the banner about the “democrat shutdown”

“The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all persons in the United States, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, national origin, and citizenship status.”

Last I checked Trump doesnt believe in this "offensive" language control BS neither do I. I dont see the trump administration limiting or controlling our language or thoughts.

Bro. Bro… seriously? How many cable news networks has he threatened, sued, etc because he didn’t like what they had to say. Whatever you may think of “woke” cancel culture, it’s always been citizen on citizen. There is a massive difference between other people don’t like what you’re saying or how you’re saying it, and trump wielding the full force of government against anyone and everyone he disagrees with. You just happen to be on the other side right now. You can choose to only see what you want to see, but don’t expect other people to also accept your opinion as truth.

Im in my late 20s and cant believe how much the world has changed for the worse. We used to be a proper country a few decades ago.

Hahaha this made my night. The problem is you just haven’t been alive long enough, brother. I’m in my 30s and take my word for it…life was so much better before man discovered fire.

Because I can see a lot of folks here just want the “whose side are you on”….I don’t really feel accepted by either side. I own guns and wish we didn’t have a confusing maze of rules in CA. I would even go so far as to say I wish we could get cool stuff here that is available in other states. But I can 100% confidently say that if people weren’t getting it in other states, I wouldn’t think twice about it. Somewhere in the classifieds section is an inert RPG. Why isn’t anyone pointing to that as an example of this country’s draconian laws? The problem IMO is how the 2A community and the gun control groups have come to calibrate their expectations. I do believe in the right to bear arms. 100%. I also don’t want my kids sleeping next to house owned by a guy with an RPG. For people who like and own guns, gun control makes you feel less safe. For people who don’t like or own guns, not having gun control makes you feel less safe. I genuinely believe most people—even most people on this forum, if really pressed — believe in some limit. No one wants to live out Fortnite everyday commuting to the office. The question is where society sets that limit, and right now I see both sides talking past each other and being entirely unreasonable.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

I have no idea what you’re referring to, but you totally missed the point: If voters’ top priority was unlimited freedom to own any and every weapon ever, democrats who have pushed gun control legislation would not have just been handed—by direct vote—every district in the state.


Where are guns banned? Certainly not in California. I own them. I assume you do too?


Actually no, I’ve never thought or heard of owning guns as civil rights. I guess in the very loosest terms yes gun ownership / possession is addressed in the constitution but i have generally understood civil rights as protecting minority and/or vulnerable groups from discrimination. Below is what the DOJ has on their website for reference. Right under the banner about the “democrat shutdown”

“The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all persons in the United States, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, national origin, and citizenship status.”



Bro. Bro… seriously? How many cable news networks has he threatened, sued, etc because he didn’t like what they had to say. Whatever you may think of “woke” cancel culture, it’s always been citizen on citizen. There is a massive difference between other people don’t like what you’re saying or how you’re saying it, and trump wielding the full force of government against anyone and everyone he disagrees with. You just happen to be on the other side right now. You can choose to only see what you want to see, but don’t expect other people to also accept your opinion as truth.


Hahaha this made my night. The problem is you just haven’t been alive long enough, brother. I’m in my 30s and take my word for it…life was so much better before man discovered fire.

Because I can see a lot of folks here just want the “whose side are you on”….I don’t really feel accepted by either side. I own guns and wish we didn’t have a confusing maze of rules in CA. I would even go so far as to say I wish we could get cool stuff here that is available in other states. But I can 100% confidently say that if people weren’t getting it in other states, I wouldn’t think twice about it. Somewhere in the classifieds section is an inert RPG. Why isn’t anyone pointing to that as an example of this country’s draconian laws? The problem IMO is how the 2A community and the gun control groups have come to calibrate their expectations. I do believe in the right to bear arms. 100%. I also don’t want my kids sleeping next to house owned by a guy with an RPG. For people who like and own guns, gun control makes you feel less safe. For people who don’t like or own guns, not having gun control makes you feel less safe. I genuinely believe most people—even most people on this forum, if really pressed — believe in some limit. No one wants to live out Fortnite everyday commuting to the office. The question is where society sets that limit, and right now I see both sides talking past each other and being entirely unreasonable.

I seen, read, learned and watched enough to see whos on the right side. I lived hard brother. Its like dog years for me, certainly in law enforcement. Look Im not saying we should have explosives, but we should be in par with Arizona. That's all im asking for. Im not being unreasonable. They have it, why cant we.

You will always be on the "right side" if you have morals, decency and common sense. Regardless of political affiliation. People are too dumb to realize that they pawns in this game and are being manipulated. Look at prop 50. As someone who actually studied political science and Philosophy it angers me to see how ignorant people really are. The only only correct stance to take is to forbid gerrymandering. Both sides do it. But we the people should take it away from both sides and ban it forever. But no people just gave the government more power, although they say it will revert back to us by 2029....if we ever get it back. BTW I see it all, which is why i try to pull people out of the cave but plato was so right about people unfortunately. They love the shadows on the walls, I pity those fools who wont break away from those chains that bind them.

 

[NotARobotYet]

but we should be in par with Arizona. That's all im asking for.

I guess this is exactly my point though. 2A calibrates its expectations relative to the rest of the country. What if tomorrow Arizona began allowing civilian purchase of explosives? Civilian manufacture of biological agents? You’ll probably say that’s a crazy and totally unreasonable hypothetical, but to the American who doesn’t own or feel comfortable around guns and generally trusts in law enforcement to protect them, the idea of owning an AR-15 is entirely unreasonable. Btw American kids born in 1994 came of age in a country where no civilian in their LIFETIME had been able to purchase a new AR-15.

I guess I’m the exception to the rule in that I truly understand both sides. I really don’t talk to most of the people in my life about what I lawfully own. I’ve never hunted or competed in shooting sports a day in my life. I have my reasons for owning what I do, and I personally feel more empowered to protect my family. But I also know it would make a lot of people in my life uncomfortable.

I don’t villainize those people. We just are at different places in our lives and views. I don’t see their views as an assault on mine because I know it has nothing to do with me. People who won’t own guns because they believe we shouldn’t need them to protect ourselves, believe in a better kinder world and are walking the path. Full stop. Often despite having been victims of violence, or even having lost their kids to violence. I respect the hell out of their conviction, resilience and refusal to lose faith in humanity’s goodness.

The states are designed to be individual test labs for governance. California has its (current) experiment underway. I don’t always love it, but I know there are plenty of places in America that are less restricted (ie we’re a comically LONG way from all guns being taken away by the government) and I’m at peace with it. Maybe in the long run California proves to be to right. Or maybe we all get murdered while wielding underpowered weirdly configured Franken-weapons. I guess if I felt strongly enough I’d move to a different lab.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

I guess this is exactly my point though. 2A calibrates its expectations relative to the rest of the country. What if tomorrow Arizona began allowing civilian purchase of explosives? Civilian manufacture of biological agents? You’ll probably say that’s a crazy and totally unreasonable hypothetical, but to the American who doesn’t own or feel comfortable around guns and generally trusts in law enforcement to protect them, the idea of owning an AR-15 is entirely unreasonable. Btw American kids born in 1994 came of age in a country where no civilian in their LIFETIME had been able to purchase a new AR-15.

I guess I’m the exception to the rule in that I truly understand both sides. I really don’t talk to most of the people in my life about what I lawfully own. I’ve never hunted or competed in shooting sports a day in my life. I have my reasons for owning what I do, and I personally feel more empowered to protect my family. But I also know it would make a lot of people in my life uncomfortable.

I don’t villainize those people. We just are at different places in our lives and views. I don’t see their views as an assault on mine because I know it has nothing to do with me. People who won’t own guns because they believe we shouldn’t need them to protect ourselves, believe in a better kinder world and are walking the path. Full stop. Often despite having been victims of violence, or even having lost their kids to violence. I respect the hell out of their conviction, resilience and refusal to lose faith in humanity’s goodness.

The states are designed to be individual test labs for governance. California has its (current) experiment underway. I don’t always love it, but I know there are plenty of places in America that are less restricted (ie we’re a comically LONG way from all guns being taken away by the government) and I’m at peace with it. Maybe in the long run California proves to be to right. Or maybe we all get murdered while wielding underpowered weirdly configured Franken-weapons. I guess if I felt strongly enough I’d move to a different lab.

We don't have to move because people are being unreasonable. I dont have a tolerance for people who want to control others. I don't think that we should be ruled by people who are dumber than me. I don't think we should live in panic. Maybe I guess Im just getting fed up of people telling me that the moon is made of cheese and then people telling me that I should respect that. Maybe I have a backbone which is why I speak up. I point out the BS when I see it. While I think we should have limits we should be reasonable and not reach for extremes like you do. I don't see a big difference between my 10rd mags and my 60. I don't see a big difference between my ar15 and a full auto ar15. I don't think people should limit cars to 50 miles an hour because I fear speed. If that's the case I should buy a slow car and let my neighbor buy his hellcat, because no Karen's fear should dictate what we do, because as Benjamin Franklin said Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. No citizen should be forced to leave their home because of bad government. This is not a lab and we are not test rats. These are people's lives

 

[NotARobotYet]

We don't have to move because people are being unreasonable. I dont have a tolerance for people who want to control others. I don't think that we should be ruled by people who are dumber than me. I don't think we should live in panic. Maybe I guess Im just getting fed up of people telling me that the moon is made of cheese and then people telling me that I should respect that. Maybe I have a backbone which is why I speak up. I point out the BS when I see it. While I think we should have limits we should be reasonable and not reach for extremes like you do. I don't see a big difference between my 10rd mags and my 60. I don't see a big difference between my ar15 and a full auto ar15. I don't think people should limit cars to 50 miles an hour because I fear speed. If that's the case I should buy a slow car and let my neighbor buy his hellcat, because no Karen's fear should dictate what we do, because as Benjamin Franklin said Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. No citizen should be forced to leave their home because of bad government. This is not a lab and we are not test rats. These are people's lives

Oy…we’re talking past each other. You can be as uncompromising as you want, but don’t confuse that with somehow holding the monopoly on courage or conviction or correctness. My point is that other people see it differently and that doesn’t automatically make them wrong. Firearms that may not be extreme to us are very extreme to others. Different POVs. Your inability to see or care where the other side is coming from is a weakness not a strength if your goal is changing minds or changing policy. That’s what I’m saying.

My two cents on your blind spot is that everytown was founded by victims of gun violence. They’re not just people who are afraid of cars going fast. They’re people who had their entire lives ripped apart when people they loved were killed by cars going fast. To keep your analogy. The humane neighborly thing to do in that situation is to find a middle ground so that everyone can feel safe again. Put in a stop light. Hire another traffic cop in town. Make sure that anyone buying a fast car is eligible to do so. But that’s not what the NRA did in the wake of Sandyhook. They held a nationally televised town hall and told the families it sucks their people got mercilessly run over by fast cars, but the only solution possible is more fast cars to outrun other fast cars in the future. Even if exponentially more people get run over by those fast cars. Sorry but that’s F-ed up.

Maybe I’m not hardcore enough for some of the people here who wish this forum was just a bunch of people saying “yeah, F- the libs” but this is reality. Even within the circle of gun enthusiasts there is a spectrum of views.

 

[GoldensRule]

No other constitutional right can be protected without the First or the Second.

I agree about the First amendment but so far, the second has been an abysmal failure at protecting the nation against tyranny, which was it's intended purpose.