Are Magazines A Necessary Component To A Firearm.

[arakboss]

Another ugly duckling that doesn't appear to need a mag.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You can't deny that single shot firearms are a very small minority of the firearms available today, hell, it's just one class of firearms that's available next to bolt actions, pump actions, semiautomatic, and fully automatics.

 

[arakboss]

This break open actually looks cool.

 

[Diamondback]

Does not matter, magazines are protected by the "Common Use" test.

It's like "Did Han Shoot First?" Doesn't matter, Greedo gave reason to believe there was a threat to his life so it was a Good Shoot either way.

 

[arakboss]

You can't deny that single shot firearms are a very small minority of the firearms available today, hell, it's just one class of firearms that's available next to bolt actions, pump actions, semiautomatic, and fully automatics.

I won't deny that but if I was offering truthful testimony, I also would not deny that a magazine is not a necessary component for a firearm. We have many examples including modern day firearms that don't need magazines. An objective person could see that testimony indicating no modern firearms exist that don't need a magazine is not accurate.

 

[arakboss]

Aiello said testimony didn't show any modern-day firearm operates without a fixed or detached magazine


Was this testimony incomplete or dishonest? It had to be one or the other because a short internet search proves that modern firearms do exist that don't use mags.


This is the type of thing that will lead to an easy path to the Appeals court, which is no doubt why the State is raising the objection.

 

[uberguy]

No, but it's setting up for a simple justification for States to ban all semiautomatic weapons and restrict repeating weapons by saying they aren't the only firearms available and that they weren't in "common use" at the time of 2A ratification, and thus "doesn't violate 2A"

Simple minded, sure. However no rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are restricted by available technology in December, 1791 when they were ratified under law. If they were, LEO could search your car, computer and smart phone without any permission or warrant.

 

[uberguy]

Bad states: The filing in support of California's ban was joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

Those states argued that they have the ability under the Constitution to impose restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons and accessories, while leaving citizens other options for self-defense; that high-capacity ammunition magazines are not commonly used "arms"

Which is readily disproven.

Good states: The filing in opposition to California's ammunition ban was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Those states argued that California's ban threatened the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and that it clearly ran afoul of the Bruen decision, in part because such bans are not a part of the nation's history and tradition of firearm regulations. They said such magazines are commonly possessed and used for self-defense and are clearly "arms" under the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Camelfilter]

Yes.

Plus:

Handguns with magazine interlocks require the magazine being inserted to fire.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Simple minded, sure. However no rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are restricted by available technology in December, 1791 when they were ratified under law. If they were, LEO could search your car, computer and smart phone without any permission or warrant.

Indeed. Some States and Judges have in fact argued that the internet is not a place of free speech

 

[Koda]

Those states argued that they have the ability under the Constitution to impose restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons and accessories, while leaving citizens other options for self-defense; that high-capacity ammunition magazines are not commonly used "arms"

Which is readily disproven.

Whats ironic is if these magazines werent commonly used nobody would care to ban them if they even knew.

 

[Diamondback]

Indeed. Some States and Judges have in fact argued that the internet is not a place of free speech

Some judges have in fact argued that a living, conscious person can be legally "dead," and one entire political party still seems to cling to the delusion that it's okay for one human being to own another as chattel property.

 

[American123]

When the government disarms themselves and regulates themselves to the same extent they push for the citizenry, then they'd have at least a platform to preach from.

 

[Howard1955]

"Are Magazines A Necessary Component To A Firearm"

Depends on whether we're talking about semiautomatic firearms or fully semiautomatic firearms.

 

[saxon]

the SCOTUS has already ruled that. mags are part of the RTKBA

 

[arakboss]

the SCOTUS has already ruled that. mags are part of the RTKBA

Oregon didn't get the memo.

 

[Koda]

the SCOTUS has already ruled that. mags are part of the RTKBA

Problem is the left doesn't care about SCOTUS or the original intent of the constitution. They think the BOR is a living document and they think SCOTUS is wrongfully packed conservatively.... (yet they blame conservatives that think the election was stolen as conspiracy theorists).
It shows their true colors, they wont stop just because of the law or a conservative court disagrees with them.

 

[CamoDeafie]

It shows their true colors, they wont stop just because of the law or a conservative court disagrees with them.

So... whats it gonna take?

 

[American123]

So... whats it gonna take?

Unwillingness to follow laws repugnant to the constitution, and violence if necessary to demonstrate a commitment to such an ideal.

 

[Koda]

So... whats it gonna take?

Change the social bias back to traditional conservative values.