California 2A case - 10 round mags - oral arguments - US Government Laws & News (2A ONLY) - Long Island Firearms

Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

California 2A case - 10 round mags - oral arguments


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 blue steel

blue steel

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 3746 posts

Posted April 03 2020 - 04:24 PM

While this Duncan v Becerra is a Kali case, it looks like it is headed up to SCOTUS. Yesterday the oral arguments were heard. Since nobody here has an essential job it is well worth watching for 1 hr....Kali lawyer is a effing idiot....



  • Jayo1911, Wowzer and nicksoco like this

# Advertisement

Advertisement
  • Topic Starter

Posted A minute ago



#2 blue steel

blue steel

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 3746 posts

Posted April 03 2020 - 06:28 PM

Forgot to add that this is same issue as NY assinine SAFE Act restriction on mags...so it is important to us...
  • NRATC53, Lou G and Jayo1911 like this

#3 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 10975 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted April 03 2020 - 06:56 PM

Forgot to add that this is same issue as NY assinine SAFE Act restriction on mags...so it is important to us...

If the Ninth sides with Judge Benitez ruling it only applies to the Ninth district states. The high capacity magazine restrictions will remain the same for us. We may see more gun cases coming after the ruling with NYC which is coming in June.
  • Mr. Shotgun, NRATC53 and Jayo1911 like this

#4 Mr. Shotgun

Mr. Shotgun

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • Others:
  • 2118 posts
  • LocationQueens, NYC

Posted April 03 2020 - 07:00 PM

If the Ninth sides with Judge Benitez ruling it only applies to the Ninth district states. The high capacity magazine restrictions will remain the same for us. We may see more gun cases coming after the ruling with NYC which is coming in June.

 

June cant come soon enough


  • NRATC53 likes this

#5 blue steel

blue steel

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 3746 posts

Posted April 03 2020 - 07:58 PM

Just fyi....from govt manual on court decisions....


Appeals from a district court are taken to the courts of appeal in 13 circuits. Again, decisions by one of these courts are binding only upon the district and circuit court judges within that circuit. While an interpretation of law is binding only on judges in that circuit, judges can look to other circuits for decisions which are similar to cases being decided within their circuit.

#6 cprstn54

cprstn54

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 169 posts
  • LocationCenterport, NY

Posted April 04 2020 - 10:38 AM

The core argument is that any gun in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, and guns with over 10-rd capacity are so used. California, OTOH says it is not prohibiting the gun, only an accessory.

 

What is interesting to me is that no one ever  talks about how many rounds it took trained soldiers to kill one enemy soldier. Cuomo likes to say "How many bullets do you need to kill a deer?"  The correct question is "How many bullets do you need to survive a firefight?" The statistics for killing one enemy by US troops is as follows: In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

 

I don't have the numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am sure things didn't improve. So, in light of the foregoing almost any limits on ammo and magazines look ridiculous.



#7 mvphilly

mvphilly

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 1317 posts

Posted April 04 2020 - 03:24 PM

The core argument is that any gun in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, and guns with over 10-rd capacity are so used. California, OTOH says it is not prohibiting the gun, only an accessory.

 

What is interesting to me is that no one ever  talks about how many rounds it took trained soldiers to kill one enemy soldier. Cuomo likes to say "How many bullets do you need to kill a deer?"  The correct question is "How many bullets do you need to survive a firefight?" The statistics for killing one enemy by US troops is as follows: In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

 

I don't have the numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am sure things didn't improve. So, in light of the foregoing almost any limits on ammo and magazines look ridiculous.

 

Whatever happened to one shot one kill?



#8 nicksoco

nicksoco

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 101 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted April 05 2020 - 07:00 AM

While this Duncan v Becerra is a Kali case, it looks like it is headed up to SCOTUS. Yesterday the oral arguments were heard. Since nobody here has an essential job it is well worth watching for 1 hr....Kali lawyer is a effing idiot....


Things we have to see now that we are all responsible adults, now that we are all locked up inside our own roof. Lol



#9 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24559 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 09:22 AM

The core argument is that any gun in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, and guns with over 10-rd capacity are so used. California, OTOH says it is not prohibiting the gun, only an accessory.

 

What is interesting to me is that no one ever  talks about how many rounds it took trained soldiers to kill one enemy soldier. Cuomo likes to say "How many bullets do you need to kill a deer?"  The correct question is "How many bullets do you need to survive a firefight?" The statistics for killing one enemy by US troops is as follows: In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

 

I don't have the numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am sure things didn't improve. So, in light of the foregoing almost any limits on ammo and magazines look ridiculous.

Yup, and this is why I answered someone;s comment about me carrying a Para P14-45LDA with 2 extra mags (Pre SAFE, so 43 rounds of .45ACP) saying "Mogadishu 1994 much?" with "I've never been in a firefight where I thought I had too much ammo, have you?" to which I heard crickets


  • Lou G likes this

#10 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 24559 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 09:25 AM

The State's Atty looked lost the entire time, and his argument seemed to be "Because we say so", which is NOT what judges want to hear. The other attorney was pretty good, I think she faltered a bit on the question of "Any limit", but otherwise was spot on in both her arguments and her cites


  • blue steel likes this

#11 blue steel

blue steel

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 3746 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 11:49 AM

Yup, and this is why I answered someone;s comment about me carrying a Para P14-45LDA with 2 extra mags (Pre SAFE, so 43 rounds of .45ACP) saying "Mogadishu 1994 much?" with "I've never been in a firefight where I thought I had too much ammo, have you?" to which I heard crickets


1993....

https://en.wikipedia...ogadishu_(1993)

#12 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24559 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 12:06 PM

Sorry, going from memory of the post...and not that worried about it


Edited by NRATC53, April 05 2020 - 12:06 PM.


#13 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24559 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 12:10 PM

Whatever happened to one shot one kill?

Different type of fighting, we tend to use volume, something the ARVN tried but w/o US stockpiles, the NVA and what was left of the VC developed the tactic of one or 2 firing into a firebase, with the ARVN using a hundred rounds of 105s in response. The North kept repeating, while the South ran out of resources


  • 2edgesword and Lou G like this

#14 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 10975 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted April 05 2020 - 12:41 PM

The judge make a valid point of purchasing a Sig with it’s standard magazine which was legal. Now that magazine is illegal and requires her to get rid of it or modify it at her expense. Let’s see how the court rules on this.
  • NRATC53 likes this

#15 blue steel

blue steel

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 3746 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 04:11 PM

Sorry, going from memory of the post...and not that worried about it


Yup neither is Kevin Biden...lol
  • NRATC53 likes this

#16 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24559 posts

Posted April 05 2020 - 09:41 PM

The judge make a valid point of purchasing a Sig with it’s standard magazine which was legal. Now that magazine is illegal and requires her to get rid of it or modify it at her expense. Let’s see how the court rules on this.

I picked up on that, and was impressed she knew what she was talking about, and posed a lot of questions that were well reasoned, and not from an amateur


  • boosti likes this

#17 Wowzer

Wowzer

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 507 posts
  • LocationNassau county

Posted April 06 2020 - 02:45 AM

These damned lawyers on both sides are full of it. There is no limit to the number of bullets in a magazine. Shall not be infringed is a very easy concept. The plaintiff should have said since the govt says you can have as many magazines as you want, then the total number of bullets in a magazine is not limitable. The trouble w lawyers are that they concede shit when they shouldn’t. This right shall not be infringed. It was defined by the constitution as without limit. How hard is this to understand?



I was thinking that we can sue NY for equal treatment under the law. There are magazines over 10 rounds in NY which are legal. We are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Yes? How can a law changed requirements and thus create two classes of law abiding citizens?

#18 Wowzer

Wowzer

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 507 posts
  • LocationNassau county

Posted April 06 2020 - 03:07 AM

I should add that the plaintiff attorneys closing was great. The one thing that the constitution reserves as a right is firearms. Beautifully stated.
  • NRATC53 likes this

#19 Roufus

Roufus

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 196 posts
  • LocationNassau Cty.

Posted April 06 2020 - 08:07 PM

The core argument is that any gun in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, and guns with over 10-rd capacity are so used. California, OTOH says it is not prohibiting the gun, only an accessory.

 

What is interesting to me is that no one ever  talks about how many rounds it took trained soldiers to kill one enemy soldier. Cuomo likes to say "How many bullets do you need to kill a deer?"  The correct question is "How many bullets do you need to survive a firefight?" The statistics for killing one enemy by US troops is as follows: In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

 

I don't have the numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am sure things didn't improve. So, in light of the foregoing almost any limits on ammo and magazines look ridiculous.

Sooo.... Just to play Devils advocate: How many rounds per kill in Revolutionary war? Ya see we should all go back to muskets. LOL



#20 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24559 posts

Posted April 07 2020 - 03:40 AM

 

The core argument is that any gun in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, and guns with over 10-rd capacity are so used. California, OTOH says it is not prohibiting the gun, only an accessory.

 

What is interesting to me is that no one ever  talks about how many rounds it took trained soldiers to kill one enemy soldier. Cuomo likes to say "How many bullets do you need to kill a deer?"  The correct question is "How many bullets do you need to survive a firefight?" The statistics for killing one enemy by US troops is as follows: In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

 

I don't have the numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am sure things didn't improve. So, in light of the foregoing almost any limits on ammo and magazines look ridiculous.

Sooo.... Just to play Devils advocate: How many rounds per kill in Revolutionary war? Ya see we should all go back to muskets. LOL

 

This was why my Dad taught me on a single shot, open sight 22 rifle. Made it so I had to make the shots count. It worked






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users