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

[bbp00]

Magazines are definitely not arms. This is a very simple common sense arguments. Nor are screws and rivets arms. Just like screws and rivets, magazines are often required to operate guns though.

So, you're saying that every single part that makes an arm can be banned, because individually they're not arms?
Real common sense: Every part that arm is made of and needed for arm to function, is an arm in context of 2A.
In terms of firearms, specifically handguns, if magazine has to be inserted for handgun to function (ie magazine disconnect), then magazine is an arm.

 

[M_N04H]

Especially with the way laws here are set up, mags are arms, even more so here in CA, because our CA roster approved guns cannot function without them.

 

[treelogger]

So, you're saying that every single part that makes an arm can be banned, because individually they're not arms?

I didn't say that. On the contrary. I said that (as an example) if the government were to ban ALL screws, that would amount to a ban of all guns, and therefore violate the 2A.

Real common sense: Every part that arm is made of and needed for arm to function, is an arm in context of 2A.
In terms of firearms, specifically handguns, if magazine has to be inserted for handgun to function (ie magazine disconnect), then magazine is an arm.

No, a magazine is not an arm. It is a component required for the arm to operate.

What you are really trying to say is: Components of guns need roughly as much legal protection as guns themselves do. You choose to phrase that as "magazines are arms", which reduces it to a statement that is neither correct nor useful.

Which doesn't mean that all of them have to be allowed. As an example, many types of guns are "banned", such as 2-gauge punt guns, machine guns, and the Davey Crockett gun. (the word "banned" is in quotes, because some of those are actually available under varying levels of restrictions). Similarly, it seems likely that certain kinds of magazines or other gun accessories could be banned.

Especially with the way laws here are set up, mags are arms, even more so here in CA, because our CA roster approved guns cannot function without them.

Maybe a quarter or third of the roster does not require magazines, because they are revolvers.

Another fraction of the roster is not impacted by the LCM restriction, because the magazines for them naturally have 10 rounds or less capacity. Examples: 1911s, Browning Buckmarks, ...

So your statement is an invalid generalization. And always remember: Heller was won on a 9-shot (!) rimfire super-long barrel Buntline revolver. There is more to the world than plastic fantastics with their higher magazine capacities.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Especially with the way laws here are set up, mags are arms, even more so here in CA, because our CA roster approved guns cannot function without them.

Yup.....And try and complete the safety check without one. smh

 

[bbp00]

No, a magazine is not an arm. It is a component required for the arm to operate.

I wrote: "is an arm in context of 2A" I'm not talking how it works mechanically. If required for arm to operate, it's protected under 2A. That's clear as a day for everyone but anti-2A folks.

 

[grandpapeepap]

not all firearms require a magazine.

 

[Jimi Jah]

What is a magazine?

It's a box with a spring. You don't need one to shoot a semi auto. One can press a single round into the chamber and shoot it. Rinse and repeat.

I have no problem avoiding them as my revolvers and lever rifles don't use them.

I can load 16 rounds into my Henry Golden Boy. Awaiting a California law to fix that.

 

[Skilly]

What is a magazine?

It's a box with a spring. You don't need one to shoot a semi auto. One can press a single round into the chamber and shoot it. Rinse and repeat.

I have no problem avoiding them as my revolvers and lever rifles don't use them.

I can load 16 rounds into my Henry Golden Boy. Awaiting a California law to fix that.

What if the revolver portion, er the mag, part of your gun were a separate part? Would that then be a hunk of metal subject to the same "what is a magazine" question? Or the lever..same question. Because that is really the point of the state with these moves. They are regulating guns through their parts.

They still cant demonstrate that bullet capacity has a direct relationship to the public safety. I believe there were anywhere from 1 to 3M standard capacity mags brought into the state during Freedom Week....and there is nothing post that time that demonstrates a causal effect related to their access.

 

[oneaudiopro]

What if the revolver portion, er the mag, part of your gun were a separate part? Would that then be a hunk of metal subject to the same "what is a magazine" question? Or the lever..same question. Because that is really the point of the state with these moves. They are regulating guns through their parts.

They still cant demonstrate that bullet capacity has a direct relationship to the public safety. I believe there were anywhere from 1 to 3M standard capacity mags brought into the state during Freedom Week....and there is nothing post that time that demonstrates a causal effect related to their access.

This is what happens when you pass laws solely based on feelings and emotions. Their goal is to eliminate guns period. They have never been interested in safety.

 

[ikeo1]

This is what happens when you pass laws solely based on feelings and emotions. Their goal is to eliminate guns period. They have never been interested in safety.

I don’t think this is the case to eliminate guns completely but to make them more annoying to use. There’s a difference because it isn’t based on feelings. Fact is we can have firearms, they just make it difficult and expensive to discourage people from filling out paperwork. No different than the govt moving to id everyone for many things these days on the national level. Want to vote? Show some id. Want to take money out of a bank? Show some id. Etc etc. we’re moving closer to China’s model. People just blame one party or the other, they just get you both ways.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

I don’t think this is the case to eliminate guns completely but to make them more annoying to use. There’s a difference because it isn’t based on feelings. Fact is we can have firearms, they just make it difficult and expensive to discourage people from filling out paperwork. No different than the govt moving to id everyone for many things these days on the national level. Want to vote? Show some id. Want to take money out of a bank? Show some id. Etc etc. we’re moving closer to China’s model. People just blame one party or the other, they just get you both ways.

Some things it does make sense to show ID. Others not

 

[ikeo1]

Some things it does make sense to show ID. Others not

Like I said, they get you from both angles. SCOTUS refuses to act on these for a reason. It really doesn’t matter what sense, the system is setup to check for everything. Your feelings and emotions about what need not apply.

 

[muffin_top]

I can load 16 rounds into my Henry Golden Boy. Awaiting a California law to fix that.

Attorney general: "Oh yeah I forgot about that! Gotta write a new law! Yay! ::typetypetypetypetypetype::"

 

[phonso302]

Everyone getting excited for nothing... SCOTUS isn't touching this with a 12 foot pole. They will send it back to the 9th. The 9th will say yup we are correct in 7 years and repeat the whole process over.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Everyone getting excited for nothing... SCOTUS isn't touching this with a 12 foot pole. They will send it back to the 9th. The 9th will say yup we are correct in 7 years and repeat the whole process over.

Never lose hope we got pistols we thought we would never see

 

[skb720]

I remember watching the 3-judge panel oral argument Zoom call during peak of Covid in 2020. One of the judges asked the State, why 10, why not limit to 9 or 11 rounds. The state's attorney I don't remember how she replied, but whatever nonsense she stated, the liberal judges just rubber stamped it.

 

[treelogger]

What if the revolver portion, er the mag, part of your gun were a separate part?

You mean the cylinder? That's actually a very good question: is a cylinder a magazine? I think the legal definition of a magazine is "something that allows reloading a gun with multiple rounds at once". One could argue that it is, because it can be "easily" removed and replaced with a different one. For example, my Single Six has two cylinders, and I can put a new (and fully loaded one) into the gun by just pushing one button, pulling a long pin, swap cylinders, and reverse the process. On the other hand, on a double action revolver (the typical S&W for example, swapping a cylinder is very hard, so reloading a gun by changing cylinders is impractical. But that argument is completely academic, theoretical and irrelevant, except ...

There are revolvers with 12-round cylinders. As an example USFA used to make them (on a Colt SAA frame size, in 22 rimfire). Is that cylinder considered an illegal large capacity magazine in California? I have no idea, as nobody has ever made a legally binding decision on it. In the old days (when I still debated these things on the Calguns forum) I had a long argument with Bill Wiese about this, and we agreed to disagree, but mostly agreed that neither of us knows for sure.

Or the lever..same question.

No, different situation. For the tubular magazines on lever action rifles (and presumably shotguns), there is specific wording in the law, and tubular magazines with capacity over 10 rounds are prohibited on centerfire rifles, and allowed on rimfire ones. There we have clarity.

Because that is really the point of the state with these moves. They are regulating guns through their parts.

No, they are not. Restricting magazine capacity does not get rid of guns. It makes gun people uncomfortable, it annoys them, it makes life expensive for them, but it doesn't regulate the guns themselves. (There may be a very rare exception: there may be some guns for which no 10-rounders are available, and blocking the magazines with rivets etc. is very difficult or impossible. I vaguely remember hearing about some very expensive race guns, like the Pardini 9mm being in that category, but I forget the details.)

 

[Jimi Jah]

I don’t think this is the case to eliminate guns completely but to make them more annoying to

I don’t think this is the case to eliminate guns completely but to make them more annoying to use.

And there you have it. Lawmakers in California do everything legal they can to discourage exercising our 2nd amendment. Mags, rosters, banning parts, limitations on sales and purchases, etc.

I could go on, but the message is crystal clear. They would prefer you not exercise that right.

If you could pin them down they would tell you only law enforcement and "militias" should be allowed to own and shoot guns.

Travel a hundred miles east of here and none of that nonsense exists. That tells me California is the problem, not the solution.

 

[bbp00]

You mean the cylinder? That's actually a very good question: is a cylinder a magazine? I think the legal definition of a magazine is "something that allows reloading a gun with multiple rounds at once". One could argue that it is, because it can be "easily" removed and replaced with a different one. For example, my Single Six has two cylinders, and I can put a new (and fully loaded one) into the gun by just pushing one button, pulling a long pin, swap cylinders, and reverse the process. On the other hand, on a double action revolver (the typical S&W for example, swapping a cylinder is very hard, so reloading a gun by changing cylinders is impractical. But that argument is completely academic, theoretical and irrelevant, except ...

A magazine is ammo storage that feeds rounds into chamber ie feeding device. Revolver cylinder is a device that has multiple revolving chambers, therefore is not a magazine.

No, they are not.

Skilly is right, they are. Just think of all the parts, defined by CA law, that turns semi-automatic rifles/handguns into assault weapons. So called "Evil Features"...

 

[Dvrjon]

I don’t think this is the case to eliminate guns completely but to make them more annoying to use. There’s a difference because it isn’t based on feelings. Fact is we can have firearms, they just make it difficult and expensive to discourage people from filling out paperwork. No different than the govt moving to id everyone for many things these days on the national level.

Please understand, the ultimate goal of the gun control lobby is total disarmament. They aren’t interested in Heller, MacDonald or Bruen.

Forty or so years ago I was a fly on the wall in meetings with the fathers of CA gun control Dave Roberti and Mike Roos. They, and the supporters in the room, considered the CA Assault Weapon Ban “a start”. From what we’ve seen added to the books since then (precursor parts anyone?) they weren’t kidding.

In the early 90’s Sen Moynihan of New York was pushing for federal legislation to impose a 10,000% tax on hollow-tipped bullets to make them prohibitively expensive, (hunting or sport shooting ammunition excepted) and to ban specific calibers, such as .25, .32, and 9mm, because they were disproportionately used in crimes. The intent was to “starve” guns to death.

In 2016, CA began regulating ammo, and in 2024 began taxing it at an additional 11%. Their dream continues.

Want to vote? Show some id.

A few years ago, prior to mail-in ballots, I went to my polling place, they found me on the rolls and stated I had already voted. They turned the book around, and someone had signed in my designated space. Their view was, “Oh well”. I had to provide ID to be allowed to vote. If that requirement was in place, the previous guy wouldn’t have been able to get through.

Want to take money out of a bank? Show some id. Etc etc. we’re moving closer to China’s model. People just blame one party or the other, they just get you both ways.

Personally, I think this is a very good idea. I’m against someone other than me taking my money out of my bank.