The 9th Circuit seems to have reversed itself on firearm ammunition magazines holding more than 10 cartridges. Wonder if there is any connection to the riots and looting . . .
https://www.yahoo.com/news/9th-circu...172126816.html
I disagree with the ruling.So lets limit the 1st and 4 now too
state has a right to regulate arms, however stupid their reasons are; 10 round mag limit is reasonable and does not constitute infringement. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Why is it "reasonable"? Why not six bullets? Or 12? Or 14? The court made the point of saying half the magazines in the country are illegal in California. This is after years of forcing people to buy 10 round magazines.personally, there should be no limit.
Back in the day of muskets they had "volley" guns. They could fire 4, 5, or 7 rounds at once. Unreasonable? When Colt created the first practical revolver, did he pick 6 because it was reasonable or because it made engineering sense? Why did the Le Mat hold 8? When the world went to semiautomatic, why go beyond 6 shots? Because they could. A murderer like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, and Bill Hickhock carried more than one weapon so they could kill more efficiently. My Ruger holds 17 and my AR holds 30. Neither has killed anyone. Even my shotgun holds 10 but no one has died because of the "extra" shots. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn
So lets limit the 1st and 4 now too
'
If one can be reasonable lets let the others.
You know what, lets edit the 5th while we are at it.
The 19th could be edited to only land owners.
More people are shot with pistols than with spooky evil black rifles with big babnana clip bullets and things that go up.. Originally Posted by Gotyour6
Un-constitutional Cali liberal socials dim wits attacking the bill of rights Originally Posted by rexdutchmanI haven’t read the Bills of Rights as closely as yous have Rexsie. It’s hard to reads something quite that sacred without feeling awed by the sheer numbers of idiots it’s created.