Law professor Eugene Volokh commentary on a federal district court (in California) ruling upholding a ban on magazines over 10 rounds capacity because  “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment.”

Voloks explains the "substantial burden" test. A number of those in the comments section challenge his logic and facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/06/are-laws-limiting-magazine-capacity-to-10-rounds-constitutional/

Well at least that is California only [in that all standard mags are not auto banned everywhere in the 9th circuit] so as far as Hawaii goes, who cares.
As long as we won Peruta and that stands up if it goes to SCOTUS, that is the Big Banana.

Only way to win that tiddly wink stuff is to vote out the gun control state senators, which is almost all of them.

There must be Pro 2nd A. people in the Democratic party somewhere, or if not at least get some NRA campaign funding and campaign against the antis year round..

Airtime bulk purchases are cheap!

There must be Pro 2nd A. people in the Democratic party somewhere...

State Senator Gabbard (D) introduced a concealed carry bill (SB2353) that I thought was actually better than Senator Slom's CCW bill, AND Gabbard actually responded a couple of times to my email questions... which is very rare in my experience. So that's a big TWO (one Dem) in the senate that have at least some sympathies for the Second Amendment... now, what to do about those other 23 Dems...

Only way to win that tiddly wink stuff is to vote out the gun control state senators, which is almost all of them.

Pretty sure we'll have to vote out the gun control state representatives too... 

.

Produce and advertise radio, TV, and targeted internet video adverts thanking the Pro 2A guys and against the Anti's.
Very inexpensive to do but not free.

During the last legislative session, Rep. Sharon Har and Rep. Ken Ito were supportive of 2nd Amendment rights.

They both responded to my emails, and Rep. Har was instrumental in voting against one particular measure (introduced by the committee chair) in a committee that she co-chaired.

Much respect to these two State Representatives.

 

rep ito is a shooter
and a good guy

.

Hello folks,


Law professor Eugene Volokh has it all wrong, there should be NO burden on the Second Ammendment. Lets keep up the good fight on these clowns.



-Rico

I doubt EV will be proven wrong.

I doubt EV will be proven wrong.

I don't think that's what he meant. The professor is undoubtedly correct, insofar as to how the laws are written. But, as far as the Constitution, none of the amendments were designed to be burdened with regulation. The government has been trying to weasel it's way around the bill of rights since it's inception. Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled.

I don't think that's what he meant. The professor is undoubtedly correct, insofar as to how the laws are written. But, as far as the Constitution, none of the amendments were designed to be burdened with regulation. The government has been trying to weasel it's way around the bill of rights since it's inception. Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled.

I think the biggest point is that people don't understand, "burden" "infringe" etc. etc. are all subjective words.

I gave this example in another thread,  does limiting a car to 90 mph top speed, infringe on your ability to drive 70 miles per hour?   This concept kind of goes round and round to all laws.  There are numerous regulations and rules to every amendment, we cannot forget that.  When we don't like those rules, we need to vote to change; sue if possible, but that obviously didn't work here, but it could in another district.

More importantly, even if the founders didn't intend for said magazine limitation to infringe on 2nd amendment rights, they did intend to provide the current structure of the courts, legislature, and executive branch.  This is all by design imo!

I think the biggest point is that people don't understand, "burden" "infringe" etc. etc. are all subjective words.

I gave this example in another thread,  does limiting a car to 90 mph top speed, infringe on your ability to drive 70 miles per hour?   This concept kind of goes round and round to all laws.  There are numerous regulations and rules to every amendment, we cannot forget that.  When we don't like those rules, we need to vote to change; sue if possible, but that obviously didn't work here, but it could in another district.

More importantly, even if the founders didn't intend for said magazine limitation to infringe on 2nd amendment rights, they did intend to provide the current structure of the courts, legislature, and executive branch.  This is all by design imo!

True enough, to an extent, but I find it difficult to believe that the founders intended for the court system to be used to shred the Constitution.
Once you begin to dissect, via "interpretation" the intent of the founders beyond the wording they used, the entire document can be perverted to whatever goal a particular group or individual has in mind.
IMO it should be taken at face value, and left alone. That, I believe, was the intent.

True enough, to an extent, but I find it difficult to believe that the founders intended for the court system to be used to shred the Constitution.
Once you begin to dissect, via "interpretation" the intent of the founders beyond the wording they used, the entire document can be perverted to whatever goal a particular group or individual has in mind.
IMO it should be taken at face value, and left alone. That, I believe, was the intent.

Agreed. 

Gunfight Rule # 7 : In a gunfight, there is no such thing as "too much ammo."

Who are these politicians to tell us how much ammo we can have? Have any of them actually been in a gunfight?

How about passing laws changing the LEO oath include "serve, protect, & defend the people, uphold all constitutional laws, and defend the rights of the people against unconstitutional laws "

Gunfight Rule # 7 : In a gunfight, there is no such thing as "too much ammo."

Who are these politicians to tell us how much ammo we can have? Have any of them actually been in a gunfight?

How about passing laws changing the LEO oath include "serve, protect, & defend the people, uphold all constitutional laws, and defend the rights of the people against unconstitutional laws "

The ones that have been, aren't the problem. Were we to attend a meeting of these people we would note that, at the mere mention of an unrestricted armed populace, the sound of panties being sucked up into sphincters would be deafening. This is because they realize that such a populace retains the ability to wrest them from office physically, tar and feather them, tie them to section of log and dump them in a river. It also causes a burning sensation they find uncomfortable.

Re: Sunnyvale magazine limit law

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy has called for a response from the city of Sunnyvale and local government officials.  It is due by 3 p.m. Wednesday.

article: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/new-test-of-gun-rights/

link to filing to SCOTUS (Kennedy handles such filings from the Ninth Circuit): http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sunnyvale-applic.-13A918-3-10-142.pdf

Same reasoning ought to apply to Hawaii's handgun magazine ban ("capacity in excess of ten rounds"):

A. Applicants have clearly established that the prohibited
magazines are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes and are thus protected under the
Second Amendment.

B. The Ordinance is categorically invalid because it destroys
the right of the average law-abiding citizen to possess
constitutionally protected magazines.

C. The district court ignored precedent of the Ninth Circuit and
this Court by selecting intermediate rather than strict scrutiny.

D. The Ordinance cannot survive any level of heightened means-end
scrutiny.

Good find Punaperson!

It has been noted that the Supreme Court moves at a HISTORICAL PACE. In other words slower than Glacial. 

UPDATE: The motion was denied without comment. So the people who still have those magazines within city limits are now criminals subject to jail time.

Article here, with link to Sunnyvale response (ironically [to me], they cite Hawaii's law banning handgun magazines of greater than 10 round capacity as evidence that such bans are, and have been, adjudicated lawful. page 10, footnote 8.) as requested by Justice Kennedy:

http://www.pagunblog.com/2014/03/12/response-by-sunnyvale-to-scotus/

Second Amendment attorney Steve Halbrook spoke on NRA News today (March 13, 2014) re the Sunnyvale case and the Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy) refusal to stay the 11+ round magazine ban. Speaking of the attempts by "legislatures [to] get away with banning" magazines of certain capacity, ergonomic features, etc., he said "In our lifetimes there's not going to be any end to this". That didn't really make my day, but I guess that's good for the people in his business...

http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company

The ban was seen in the light most favorable to the public safety concerns of the city.