FREEDOM! Washington State's normal capacity gun mag ban ruled unconstitutional

[Racer X]

I'll post the ruling when I get home. Basically, there is no historic limit on magazine capacities. Gatling guns had huge long stick magazines, and both were perfectly legal if you had the money.

Injunction filed, and many independant gun shops are open tonight, or open later, just to help out those who take their Rights seriously.

This is what happens when an honest judge properly applies Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen.

[Lemon Drop]

Here is AG Ferguson's response:

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-release...ustom-guns

And Washington's Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay. The ban remains in place.

This is a state case. 2 earlier federal cases failed to overturn the ban.

[cbelt3]

The gun sellers celebrate. The Russian funded NRA celebrates. And the rest of us live in more fear of heavily armed completely untrained nutjobs.

[Ca Bob]

The only reason anyone would want a super large magazine is either to engage in a terrorist attack or to engage in war against the country. Neither is a defensible reason as far as I am concerned.

[Racer X]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Here is AG Ferguson's response:

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-release...ustom-guns

And Washington's Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay. The ban remains in place.

This is a state case. 2 earlier federal cases failed to overturn the ban.

and state's constitution says "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired," and we all know impaired means diminished, don't we?

https://law.justia.com/constitution/wash...ion-1.html

SCOTUS is in conference this Friday, and there are LOTS of lawsuits about hardware bans and sensitive places among other things just begging for cert. In the Illinois bans alone, 28 State AGs are begging SCOTUS to put these issues to rest because inferior courts are ignoring SCOTUS rulings. And numerous law enforcement agencies have spoken up, as they have no desire to uphold unconstitutional laws. Lots of Amicus briefs have been filed.

4 different circuits aren't even following their own rules about procedures in order to accomplish their goal.

[Speedy]

Ca Bob wrote:
The only reason anyone would want a super large magazine is either to engage in a terrorist attack or to engage in war against the country. Neither is a defensible reason as far as I am concerned.

It helps them deal with their other shortcomings.

[Racer X]

Ca Bob wrote:
The only reason anyone would want a super large magazine is either to engage in a terrorist attack or to engage in war against the country. Neither is a defensible reason as far as I am concerned.

So, which are police officers? Terrorists or insurectionists? Do you know why US law enforcement carries fire arms? Self protection. They are not required to protect YOU. It's about protecting themselves. But they are special. We are not.

[Mr645]

Superlarge? LOL. Like a 17 rd magazine is more deadly than 6 ten round ones.

Or do you mean one of those 50 round or 100 round drum mags? Those sure fit in your waist band.

The are actually great for drive bys when attached to your stolen Glock 17 with an illegal "switch" installed. So now thugs can go out and buy them......

[Mr645]

Smote wrote:
[quote=Ca Bob]
The only reason anyone would want a super large magazine is either to engage in a terrorist attack or to engage in war against the country. Neither is a defensible reason as far as I am concerned.

So, which are police officers? Terrorists or insurectionists? Do you know why US law enforcement carries fire arms? Self protection. They are not required to protect YOU. It's about protecting themselves. But they are special. We are not.
As the saying goes, then seconds count, police are just minutes away

[pdq]

Mr645 wrote:
[quote=Smote]
[quote=Ca Bob]
The only reason anyone would want a super large magazine is either to engage in a terrorist attack or to engage in war against the country. Neither is a defensible reason as far as I am concerned.

So, which are police officers? Terrorists or insurectionists? Do you know why US law enforcement carries fire arms? Self protection. They are not required to protect YOU. It's about protecting themselves. But they are special. We are not.
As the saying goes, then seconds count, police are just minutes away
You guys love your slogans, don’t you?

Some of us are big on data, like the US has 10-200x more firearm homicides/gun deaths than our developed-nation peers, or a gun in the home is statistically associated with a 3x risk of homicide of residents in that home, or for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here’s a slogan conclusion drawn from many such actual studies for you:

In untangling the myth of defensive gun use, one thing is abundantly clear: If safety is the goal, guns are not the answer.

Freedumb!