The judge said something about 2a not saying anything about mags, she is a judge and she is going to look straight at the argument.
The sheriff on the news last night saying that it was vital for being out gunned was a bad move imo.
They should have focused on fixed mags and firearms that dont have 10 round options, that creates the arguments for removing what means people have to protect themselves. That becomes oppressive, having the argument in a "what if scenario" isn't what the judge is gonna want to focus on.
The other thing dude said to the news coverage was "look how many rounds our officers use when firing" I mean..
I get what he's trying to say but man.. that probably didn't buy him any points with anyone not in his corner.
Tactfully, hed have been better off saying that hand guns aren't as accurate and that you could use all ten rounds while some one is attacking you and not stop them.
Maybe use statistics from the FBI and why they have and LEO's have more then 10rnds.
For self defense, framing the argument that law enforcement like your average Joe has a weapon for self defense 1st and studies show increased capacity reduces the risk of being a victim.
Even then, saying less is more sometimes, just my two cents but going after the argument of it removing legal means of protection from people who own firearms that have no LEAGAL WAY of meeting the 10rnd capacity limit seems more advantageous to me.
It would prove that the law would legally remove those peoples only means of protection and violate their 2a. Or unduly create burden in order to exercise their 2a
Think if we started another thread that said "list of guns that can't be made legally 114 compliant" that would be something for the judge to look at from not a "what if I need" to "reasonable means" that said I think going with that argument would at the very least show the judge the the law is to vague and is working on the same "what if" arguments rather then a well thought out plan.
Really they are trying to pause the law for time, so the intent should be focusing on the law being to vague to enforce with out encroachments on peoples 2a rights and federally licensed entities which would then put law enforcement in jeopardy of legal suits against them.
I mean honestly, I think on December 9th some of these sheriffs should go out and arrest some of their deputies (who voluntarily do it) to prove the point. How is the DA going to prosecute them, and if its a crime, whats a jury going to say?
"Oh sorry that you carry this 17rnd mag all day to work for the public, and technically you are always on duty because of your oath, but you left your house on a Sunday with a 17rnd mag in you CC and heres your felony"
I don't think so.
Also the process of having to go to a police department to legally own a gun for home protection, here's a valid "what if" argument.. do you think people of color or any other minority that feels generationally threatened by law enforcement is going to feel good about that?
If they already feel disenfranchised or discriminated against by law enforcement they are not going to go in and get a permit.
Which means they will either not be able to purchase what they have a 2a right to do.
Or will find other means to find protection.
What "other" background check are they going to do? If its the same as getting a CCL then everyone that gets a permit should also get their CCL with the permit, as it stands right now qualifying for a CCL is way less then getting a permit.
But going through the exact same process, how does that works with or against CCL law's currently on the books? Are they going to conflict or create some accidental discrimination?
I think they could have gotten what they wanted out of this law pretty easily by not using a crayon to write it, at the end of the day I think thats what a judge should be looking at.
The sheriff on the news last night saying that it was vital for being out gunned was a bad move imo.
They should have focused on fixed mags and firearms that dont have 10 round options, that creates the arguments for removing what means people have to protect themselves. That becomes oppressive, having the argument in a "what if scenario" isn't what the judge is gonna want to focus on.
The other thing dude said to the news coverage was "look how many rounds our officers use when firing" I mean..
I get what he's trying to say but man.. that probably didn't buy him any points with anyone not in his corner.Tactfully, hed have been better off saying that hand guns aren't as accurate and that you could use all ten rounds while some one is attacking you and not stop them.
Maybe use statistics from the FBI and why they have and LEO's have more then 10rnds.
For self defense, framing the argument that law enforcement like your average Joe has a weapon for self defense 1st and studies show increased capacity reduces the risk of being a victim.
Even then, saying less is more sometimes, just my two cents but going after the argument of it removing legal means of protection from people who own firearms that have no LEAGAL WAY of meeting the 10rnd capacity limit seems more advantageous to me.
It would prove that the law would legally remove those peoples only means of protection and violate their 2a. Or unduly create burden in order to exercise their 2a
Think if we started another thread that said "list of guns that can't be made legally 114 compliant" that would be something for the judge to look at from not a "what if I need" to "reasonable means" that said I think going with that argument would at the very least show the judge the the law is to vague and is working on the same "what if" arguments rather then a well thought out plan.
Really they are trying to pause the law for time, so the intent should be focusing on the law being to vague to enforce with out encroachments on peoples 2a rights and federally licensed entities which would then put law enforcement in jeopardy of legal suits against them.
I mean honestly, I think on December 9th some of these sheriffs should go out and arrest some of their deputies (who voluntarily do it) to prove the point. How is the DA going to prosecute them, and if its a crime, whats a jury going to say?
"Oh sorry that you carry this 17rnd mag all day to work for the public, and technically you are always on duty because of your oath, but you left your house on a Sunday with a 17rnd mag in you CC and heres your felony"
I don't think so.Also the process of having to go to a police department to legally own a gun for home protection, here's a valid "what if" argument.. do you think people of color or any other minority that feels generationally threatened by law enforcement is going to feel good about that?
If they already feel disenfranchised or discriminated against by law enforcement they are not going to go in and get a permit.
Which means they will either not be able to purchase what they have a 2a right to do.
Or will find other means to find protection.
What "other" background check are they going to do? If its the same as getting a CCL then everyone that gets a permit should also get their CCL with the permit, as it stands right now qualifying for a CCL is way less then getting a permit.
But going through the exact same process, how does that works with or against CCL law's currently on the books? Are they going to conflict or create some accidental discrimination?
I think they could have gotten what they wanted out of this law pretty easily by not using a crayon to write it, at the end of the day I think thats what a judge should be looking at.
