Ammunition Curbs in California City Allowed by High Court

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Greg Stohr Mar 12, 2014 5:05 PM ET

A U.S. Supreme Court justice refused to block a new law that bars the possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines in a Silicon Valley city, in a setback to gun-rights advocates.

Justice Anthony Kennedy today let the Sunnyvale, California, law remain in effect while a constitutional challenge by residents goes forward. The law, which took effect March 6 after being adopted by city voters, makes it a crime to possess feeding devices with the ability to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The high court has kept its distance from the national debate over firearms in recent years. The justices haven’t taken up a gun-rights case since they ruled in 2010 that the Second Amendment restricts states and cities as well as the federal government.

The Sunnyvale residents say the law goes to the core of their Second Amendment right to possess firearms in their homes for self-defense purposes. They say almost half the magazines in the country have capacities greater than 10 rounds.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/ammunition-curbs-in-california-city-allowed-by-high-court.html

[upaloopa]

1. You need f...ing more than 10 rounds to stop a break in?

Must be the whole band of gang bangers breaking in.

[Deep13]

2. possible, I guess, but pretty unlikely

And, one can always have a second magazine. In fact, one ought to have a second magazine in case of a magazine malfunction.

[billh58]

3. Another win for

sanity and a loss for the right-wing NRA and its absolutist apologists.

[quakerboy]

4. I'd keep my distance too

Whenever they have even the shadow of a potential to be upset, the NRA machine goes into high gear, gets all the otherwise moderate gun owners riled, they in turn rile the outside fringe that they protect, and then that fringe starts shooting at people.

[The Green Manalishi]

5. I had a neighbor across the street

who thought his 30-06 was a suitable weapon to use for home defense.

I mean I have, and like guns, and think that people who are willing to undergo a procedure involving background checks and demonstrating knowledge and proficiency should be able to own and even carry them. But WTF- anyone who would use something that could kill after going through several walls, in an urban area, is demonstrably too much of an idiot to be anywhere near a BB gun.

I would have few qualms about using a firearm to protect my life (one one hand nothing I have or could ever own is worth killing another human being for, on the other I must assume that anyone who would invade my property while I am there is capable of taking my life), but many about guns in the hands of idiots.

[Hamilton Felix]

6. 30.06 has *far* too much penetration for home defense if you have neighbors.

Should one wish to use a rifle for home defense, there are .223 loads that actually have less penetration in drywall than handgun or shotgun projectiles. But a 30.06? No way, no how. Your neighbor was either ignorant about firearms or an idiot (possibly both, they aren't mutually exclusive).

[The Green Manalishi]

8. Both.

most definitely both.

[JoeyT]

7. Not so much a set-back for gun-rights advocates

as a setback for the Holy Church of Bang!!!.

"almost half the magazines in the country have capacities greater than 10 rounds."

Yes, we know. That's the problem.

[daybranch]

9. now if they just ban

those stocks which increase ther firing speed of the weapon to almost full automatic.