L.A. bans large capacity gun magazines, draws lawsuit threat

[Newsjock]

Source: Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, despite the threat of a lawsuit from two gun rights organizations.

On an 11-0 vote, the council approved an ordinance that labels the clips a public nuisance and "an immediate threat to the public health." Although the state already has a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity clips, residents can still legally own them.

... Gun rights organizations have warned that they will sue over the law. The Calguns Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group, contends that the ordinance violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by state law, which allows possession of large capacity magazines.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ban-ammunition-lawsuit-20130503,0,4884282.story

[upaloopa]

1. A militia being necessary the right to large

capacity magazines shall not be taken away by some liberal city council in la la land.

[elleng]

3. 'Agent' crook will lose this one @ Supremes, imo.

•The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

[OKNancy]

4. That poster was joking... adjust your sarcasm meter

[elleng]

5. Gotcha.

[SunSeeker]

2. Well, at least the will of the people is being followed SOMEWHERE.

I'm proud of the L.A. City Council. And Calguns is going to lose their stupid lawsuit. Fuck the gun nuts.

[cstanleytech]

6. How exactly is this an infringement though?

The constitution only says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." but it doesnt mention the ammo at all and besides in a recent SCOTUS case of District of Columbia v. Helle the court said "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" so clearly the government can set some limits.

[SoapBox]

7. Super ditto on the ammo comment.

[PSPS]

11. It isn't, of course. Gun nuts only read the part that suits their fetish.

[hack89]

13. Ammo is considered part and parcel of arms

arms plural of arms (Noun)

Noun

Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.

[cstanleytech]

15. Good thing the discussion is about the US Constitution and no mention was

made about the Merriam-Webster dictionary listing for arms but if it was mentioned then I would point out that the scotus is ok with the government banning ownership of certain "arms" already then they shouldnt have many objections to some limitations on magazine capacity either.

[hack89]

16. I am good with magazine limits.

just pointing out that ammo is protected by the 2A.

[cstanleytech]

18. Not really. The feds currently have limits on Armor-Piercing ammo for example and

as far as I am aware thats not changed.

[hack89]

19. The 2A does not preclude regulation of ammo

but it does mean that any regulation has to meet the stricter judicial standards afforded constitutionally protected rights.

There are many here that subscribe to the Chris Rock school of gun control - "don't regulate guns, just make bullets too expensive for people to buy." A ban on armor piercing bullets is reasonable. Regulations that severely restrict the ability to use guns most likely not.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. There is no infringement. The First Amendment protects the right to publish a story about

the passage an imaginary ex post facto ordinance.

Stories don't have to be true in order to be protected by the First Amendment.

No such ordinance was passed.

But if you fell for it, just consider it entertainment.

[Red Mountain]

8. There is no legitimate use in LA

and if there is.....let them appeal on a case by case basis.

I'm guessing that 'rising up against the gubbermint' won't qualify.

[spin]

9. It's a little known fact that magazines can be swapped quickly with just ...

a little practice.

It is also a little known fact that high capacity magazines are often unreliable and will cause a firearm to jam. A jam takes far longer to clear than to change a magazine. The Colorado theater shooter was using a 100 round magazine in his Bush Master AR-15 style rifle and news reports state that it jammed and that might have saved lives.

Colorado Movie Theater Massacre

(CBS News) AURORA, Colo. -- The largest mass shooting in U.S. history might have been much worse, had the alleged assailant's gun not jammed, according to reports.

James Holmes was due to make his first court appearance Monday since allegedly killing 12 people and wounding dozens, nine critically, during a midnight screening on the opening night of "The Dark Knight Rises" Friday in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colo.

Holmes is accused of entering the theater with three guns, including a semi-automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine.

When that gun jammed, he was forced to use a pistol, potentially saving lives, the reports say.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57477596/colorado-massacre-could-have-been-worse-reports/

Perhaps I should mention that I own no semi-automatic firearms with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The ones that do have 10 round magazines are .22 caliber target pistols. On the range I rarely put more than five rounds in the magazine.

[Hoyt]

31. And our gunner friends practice a lot because they think this is a war zone.

The need for a gun in self-defense is minuscule. The need to changes mags in self-defense is so small it is not worth training for unless one is too demented to even be around guns.

[spin]

33. Strangely I agree with most of what you have stated. ...

I will agree that violent crime is now at levels last seen in the mid 1960s according to Bureau of Justice statistics. This is a fact totally ignored by both gun rights groups who tell everyone that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and also by gun control advocates who insist that allowing civilians to own firearms has caused an unprecedented wave of violence.
(source: http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221)

I will also admit that most defensive shooting incidents by civilians do not require a reload.


Private citizens reload in approximately 1/2 of one percent of shooting incidents (3/482).
If the defender fires any shots, most likely it will be 2 rounds.

The shooting distance in the vast majority of cases was slightly in excess of arm's length.

At this distances, even .22s and .25s are highly immediately lethal.

A revolver, even J-frame, is perfectly capable of dealing with almost all of the incidents. The ones which were beyond the capabilities of a five shot revolver would be best deal with by a shotgun, anyway.
http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html


I carry either a 5 shot .38 caliber or a 7 shot .22 magnum S&W revolver as I feel both are adequate for my needs as I'm not a cop or a vigilante. If I ever have to use my handgun for self defense it will most likely be at extremely close range.

Snub nosed revolvers such as I carry are often called "belly guns" for good reason. Unlike a pistol, you can shove a snub nosed revolver into your attacker's belly and it will still fire.

I do own and enjoy shooting semiautomatic pistols on the target range. Mine are target grade quality and I have a habit of only putting five rounds in a magazine. I don't practice changing magazines but I assure you that I can swap them out rather quickly without even trying. (Part of the reason I don't load more than five rounds is that as you empty the magazine, it will cause the weight of the weapon to change and can slightly impact the grouping of your shots on the target.)

I feel that there is a certain level of misconception about self defensive shooting that leads many gun owners to believe that it better to carry a pistol with a fifteen or seventeen round magazine than a five or seven shot "mouse gun" like I carry. This often leads to people who have carry permits to often leave their weapons behind when they leave the house as a full sized pistol is a pain in the ass to pack. Often I also notice that such individuals advocate "filling the air with lead" in a gun fight. Since I realize that I am responsible for every shot I fire in self defense I would rather take time to aim rather than blaze away. One well aimed shot from a .22 magnum snub nosed revolver has far more effect than sixteen misses from a Glock .40 caliber pistol.

Now I will admit that there is a very small chance that I may face multiple armed attackers on the street where it might be good to have more than five or seven rounds in my handgun. I might also win the lotto tomorrow.

But that's my views on concealed carry. Home defense may be a far different matter. Sometimes multiple intruders do invade a home but once again home invasions are rare (possibly because wise criminals break into unoccupied homes as they fear armed homeowners). If three or four guys bust down your door, it might be best to have a large pistol with a high capacity magazine and better yet to have a 12 guage pump or semiautomatic shotgun with seven or eight rounds.

The gun control issue has caused firearm sales to absolutely skyrocket in recent years. There is no doubt that some Democratic politicians and Obama have greatly contributed to this phenomenon. Of course the gun industry has done its best to encourage sales of firearms which is understandable as the more firearms they sell, the more profit they make.

I find this sad as I would like to see a return to the times of the mid 1960s now that our violent crime rate has fallen to that level. In those days most people who owned firearms had good reasons to do so. They were hunters, target shooters or collectors or lived in a truly dangerous environment.

[Hoyt]

34. Although I think it's not necessary, it would be better if those were the kinds of guns people were

satisfied with. But it's not. Gun cultists want the most lethal weapons and accessories available. That's why we need tough restrictions, and bans on most types of guns.

If most were like you, we wouldn't be having this debate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Its not just 2nd amendment issues...

Feel good rules once again passed by pols without considering the real impact. Being interesting how much they have to pay for it.

It should be noted that 30 round magazines are "standard capacity" for many firearms, not that the LA Slime will ever acknowledge it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. The described ordinance is an imaginary ex post facto law. It doesn't exist.

From the linked article:

"The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to draft a law prohibiting the possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines, sparking lawsuit threats from two gun rights organizations."

"On an 11-0 vote, the council called for an ordinance labeling the magazines a public nuisance and “an immediate threat to the public health.” Although the state already has a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines, residents can still legally own them."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ban-ammunition-lawsuit-20130503,0,4884282.story

An ex post facto law, of course, "is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

For those who value the Constitution and the rule of law, clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws and clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 prohibits the States from doing so.

The Due Process provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments also operates as a barrier to those who also want to use governmental resources to take away property without just compensation.

Contrary to what was reported,

"The Los Angeles City Council" DID NOT VOTE "to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines."

[CreekDog]

23. yet another post that has everyone wondering what is "Progressive" about you

on the other hand, i'm sure nobody wonders about the "professor" part.

[Sunlei]

14. plenty of local ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws. Love to see the

NRA spend billions and billions to have all local ordinances declared invalid.

Then at the most local of levels all Americans will be free again.

[kudzu22]

20. They did in Chicago

and Chicago ended up paying the NRA + SAF's legal bills, in addition to their own.

[Sunlei]

22. what ordinances?

[kudzu22]

24. Chicago's ban on handguns

was overturned in McDonald v. Chicago.

[Sunlei]

25. interesting read, McDonald v. Chicago as compared to NRA v. Chicago

Chicago can still bring back registration with yearly permit fees or did they do that?

link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Interesting. Do you have a link to where the order might be found?

[bemildred]

17. Bring it, they will lose. nt

[Travis_0004]

30. How will they loose

California has statewide preemption, and state law trumps local law.

[bemildred]

32. State law can be changed too. This is a progressive state, most of it.

The more publicity this issue gets the better. The guns for all people will regret interfering in local affairs, it will just make them non-local. It's sort of like the DEA messing with the pot dispensaries, they may instill a little fear, they aren't helping their case, and their case is losing now.

[Aristus]

21. Being sued by murderous maniacs.

That's when you know you're doing something right!

[Jenoch]

28. This local ordinance

(not to be confused with ordnance) would be struck down by Minnesota Courts if a city in Minnesota passed something similar. State law says that local law cannot be more strict than state law in these matters.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. There is no "This local ordinance." The false story is flame bait.