Read it an weep. Coming soon to a city, county, state, and/or country, near you.

http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0315//14-15408

Upheld city of Sunnyvale ban on POSSESSION of magazines of greater than ten (10) round capacity.

I disagree with almost every interpretation of the court in this decision, but will only comment on two things: one, a mistake, and second, an absurd conclusion.

First, the judge writing the opinion states that (in reference to the requirement that "long standing prohibitions" are permissible) the Crime Control Act of 1994 (which includes the "Assault Weapons Ban") outlawed the "POSSESSION" of any and all magazines of greater ten (10) capacity. That is clearly wrong and a mistaken reading of the law. It banned the acquisition of any new magazines of greater than 10 rounds. Does this judge really believe that the (likely) tens of millions of magazines of greater than 10 rounds were destroyed or turned in to local law enforcement in 1994? Absurd. This is the legal and historical knowledge level of the people making these decisions about our rights. I hate these people.

The judge writes that plaintiff (Fyock) submitted evidence that tens of millions of magazines of capacity greater than 10 had been sold in the years since the "ban" ended in 2004. That makes sense since most handguns have standard capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds. The judge, however, concluded that such evidence is NOT sufficient evidence that such magazines are "in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" (the standard in Heller). In other words, the judge is claiming that it is possible that these tens of millions of magazines may have been purchased by criminals for criminal purposes, and thus does not constitute evidence that such magazines are Constitutionally-protected by the Second Amendment!  Now THERE is liberal logic at work! Absurd!

This in one of those days when I just want to give up. 

Read it an weep. Coming soon to a city, county, state, and/or country, near you.

http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0315//14-15408

Upheld city of Sunnyvale ban on POSSESSION of magazines of greater than ten (10) round capacity.

I disagree with almost every interpretation of the court in this decision, but will only comment on two things: one a mistake, and second an absurd conclusion.

First, the judge writing the opinion states that (in reference to the requirement that "long standing prohibitions" are permissible) the Crime Control Act of 1994 (which includes the "Assault Weapons Ban") outlawed the "POSSESSION" of any and all magazines of greater ten (10) capacity. That is clearly wrong and a mistaken reading of the law. It banned the acquisition of any new magazines of greater than 10 rounds. Does this judge really believe that the (likely) tens of millions of magazines of greater than 10 rounds were destroyed or turned in to local law enforcement in 1994? Absurd. This is the legal and historical knowledge level of the people making these decisions about our rights. I hate these people.

The judge writes that plaintiff (Fyock) submitted evidence that tens of millions of magazines of capacity greater than 10 had been sold in the years since the "ban" ended in 2004. That makes sense since most handguns have standard capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds. The judge, however, concluded that such evidence is NOT sufficient evidence that such magazines are "in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" (the standard in Heller). In other words, the judge is claiming that it is possible that these tens of millions of magazines may have been purchased by criminals for criminal purposes, and thus does not constitute evidence that such magazines are Constitutionally-protected by the Second Amendment!  Now THERE is liberal logic at work! Absurd!

This in one of those days when I just want to give up. 

we need one of those banging your head against the wall emoji for this one...

we need one of those banging your head against the wall emoji for this one...

Who needs a wall when the courts will do it for you?

...The judge, however, concluded that such evidence is NOT sufficient evidence that such magazines are "in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" (the standard in Heller). In other words, the judge is claiming that it is possible that these tens of millions of magazines may have been purchased by criminals for criminal purposes, and thus does not constitute evidence that such magazines are Constitutionally-protected by the Second Amendment! ...

Holy crap.  is this guy living under a rock?   this is beyond my comprehension. 

GIFSoup

Holy crap.  is this guy living under a rock?   this is beyond my comprehension. 

Hey Guys. I'm hoping I've read it wrong and drastically misunderstood what was written in the opinion (maybe I had a stroke or something...), because if it is really that bad, that's really bad. I only read through the whole thing once, but I did go back and read the sections relevant to my comments above (thinking "I must have read that wrong..."). I musta got it wrong, because if not, this is (literally) stupid. There were several other sections that rivaled the above for lacking in logic, but those two seemed the most egregious. (For example, one justification under the "public safety" claim by the city cited approvingly by the judge was that it would prevent "accidents". I'd like to see the record on exactly how many eleven (or more) round negligent discharges there have been that have injured people. That's a LOT of consecutive negligent discharges! [Oops! Sh*t! Crap! Damn! Hell! Son of a b*tch! F*ck! Oops! Sh*t! Crap! Damn!] Seriously?) Perhaps some attorney will chime in and explain how the opinion makes sense on those points.

That last one makes the 2A Classic quotes Puna.

Would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and frustrating.

Hey Guys. I'm hoping I've read it wrong and drastically misunderstood what was written in the opinion (maybe I had a stroke or something...), because if it is really that bad, that's really bad. I only read through the whole thing once, but I did go back and read the sections relevant to my comments above (thinking "I must have read that wrong..."). I musta got it wrong, because if not, this is (literally) stupid. There were several other sections that rivaled the above for lacking in logic, but those two seemed the most egregious. (For example, one justification under the "public safety" claim by the city cited approvingly by the judge was that it would prevent "accidents". I'd like to see the record on exactly how many eleven (or more) round negligent discharges there have been that have injured people. That's a LOT of consecutive negligent discharges! [Oops! Sh*t! Crap! Damn! Hell! Son of a b*tch! F*ck! Oops! Sh*t! Crap! Damn!] Seriously?) Perhaps some attorney will chime in and explain how the opinion makes sense on those points.

officer, it was a mistake.  my gun dropped and well...



a total accident.

These people are just so back asswards in their logic, and just twist and convolute every single fucking thing to further their agendas and personal vendettas against the 2a. It sickens me to see and hear stuff like this go on. We are seriously seen as some kind of domestic terrorists for owning guns and wanting to have hi cap mags and it's incredibly disappointing having entire governments against you, and trying to bone you over as much as they can. It's a sad day when the government that is "supposed to" take care of and protect its citizens, fails them in the most critical of ways. Rant rant rant rant rant rant rant

These people are just so back asswards in their logic, and just twist and convolute every single fucking thing to further their agendas and personal vendettas against the 2a. It sickens me to see and hear stuff like this go on. We are seriously seen as some kind of domestic terrorists for owning guns and wanting to have hi cap mags and it's incredibly disappointing having entire governments against you, and trying to bone you over as much as they can. It's a sad day when the government that is "supposed to" take care of and protect its citizens, fails them in the most critical of ways. Rant rant rant rant rant rant rant

I concur, with the exception of your use of "hi cap mags". Since most firearms have been and are sold by the manufacturer (until recent restrictions in some jurisdictions) with magazines having a capacity greater than 10 (or 7 if you are in New York) rounds, those are more correctly referred to as "STANDARD CAPACITY" magazines (allowing of course that some pistols in .45 or other large caliber have standard capacity magazines of less than 10 rounds). Using the term "high capacity" is to adopt a meaningless phrase of the antis/grabbers/progressives/collectivists/statists that casts a "dangerous and unusual" tone to what has always been the norm, and no more dangerous and unusual than any other capacity magazine. Let's not play into their hands by adopting their pseudo-terminology that really is factually meaningless ("assault weapons", etc.) and only intended as a ploy in their illogical factless emotionally-driven tirades. Otherwise, keep on ranting.