not too many of us might be living there, but some things out of California reach out to other states, such as the EPA stuff on our cars. i live in New England, and cars out here have CA emissions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
California restrictions for purchasing ammunition online have been temporarily suspended!
- Thread starter AmmunitionDepot
- Start date
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
While these words do appear in Heller, it's become a fad to take them out of context and misinterpret "not unlimited" to mean "We can impose any limit we want.". That's not what SCOTUS said.
Let's take a look at what the Court DID say. All text in italics is contiguous on page 2, DC v Heller. Emphasis added.
United States v. Miller ... does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Here the court clearly states that the right applies to weapons in common use for lawful purposes. In the very next line they then state the famous phrase:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
They then go on to list four examples of the aforementioned limits. Note that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is an EXISTING law that the court sees as being beyond the scope of Heller.
For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Nothing about the ability to ban guns or ammunition or any sort of open ended limits. Then to make sure that it's crystal clear what weapons the Second DOES protect, they repeat:
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
It's one thing for a civilian gun bigot to regurgitate the one line from Heller they read in the New York Times, but it's unforgivable for a judge to do it while conveniently ignoring the line before it and the lines after. That's a lot of ignoring. It's not merely quoting out of context. It's downright dishonesty.
While these words do appear in Heller, it's become a fad to take them out of context and misinterpret "not unlimited" to mean "We can impose any limit we want.". That's not what SCOTUS said.
Let's take a look at what the Court DID say. All text in italics is contiguous on page 2, DC v Heller. Emphasis added.
United States v. Miller ... does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Here the court clearly states that the right applies to weapons in common use for lawful purposes. In the very next line they then state the famous phrase:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
They then go on to list four examples of the aforementioned limits. Note that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is an EXISTING law that the court sees as being beyond the scope of Heller.
For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Nothing about the ability to ban guns or ammunition or any sort of open ended limits. Then to make sure that it's crystal clear what weapons the Second DOES protect, they repeat:
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
It's one thing for a civilian gun bigot to regurgitate the one line from Heller they read in the New York Times, but it's unforgivable for a judge to do it while conveniently ignoring the line before it and the lines after. That's a lot of ignoring. It's not merely quoting out of context. It's downright dishonesty.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
A 3-judge panel of the Ninth just upheld this decision, including finding bans on standard capacity magazines a violation of the Second Amendment.
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachment...9e63a83234/94d604dc/DuncanvBecerraOpinion.pdf
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachment...9e63a83234/94d604dc/DuncanvBecerraOpinion.pdf
Reason and The Volokh Conspiracy have a short summary of the above opinion. You know the state is going to ask for en banc review. If granted that means the Chief Judge and 10 judges drawn at random in the 9th Circuit.
Since the opinion only deals with California law, it directly applies only to California. It would carry precedential weight in federal courts located in states comprising the 9th Circuit unless overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court.
Lawsuits would have to filed in each of the other 9th Circuit states since each state law is different and each state might argue there are different facts (hard to see what those might be).
Lawsuits would have to filed in each of the other 9th Circuit states since each state law is different and each state might argue there are different facts (hard to see what those might be).
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Seems like every time three judges from the 9th make a good ruling the en banc overturns it. Deja Vu all over again.
You can bet a large sum that the state's DA is currently typing and getting ready to submit for an en banc review of the full circuit. And in the old days it would be most likely be voided, moved to SCOTUS and then the ninth would be told to stuff it.
However, Trump has been packing the ninth with some conservatives so who knows. But I bet it will end up at SCOTUS one way or the other.
However, Trump has been packing the ninth with some conservatives so who knows. But I bet it will end up at SCOTUS one way or the other.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Oops, SHR970 is correct. Same judge in both rulings; but different 2A cases.