Posted on 04/20/2023 3:09:56 PM PDT by CFW
This judge knows precisely that this decision runs counter to Supreme Court precedent. The tactic of the left now is to simply ignore the Supreme Court and gum up the works for years in as many jurisdictions they can until they get a Supreme Court willing to overturn Bruen, Heller, etc.
“They” use legislation. “We” use lawsuits against the legislation.
They weaken our rights but notice how the guilty criminals are let go for legal technicalities and jurors are not allowed to hear confessions or taped talk admitting guilt except under really narrow guidelines and witnesses are often too terrified to testify.
A totally trashy system I see as beneath my contempt.
And for atleast a while the dumbass NRA helped him get elected.
poor fit?
That would depend on who you are defending yourself from and what weapons they possess and how many attackers there are.
Saying my magazine is a “poor fit” for self-defense purposes assumes that the judge has an impossible foresight into who will attack me in the future and. how they will be armed.
If this judge knows these things for every citizen in the US he should let us know.
I declare the judge a dumbass !
Discussion over (one way or the other).
This is so wacky judge, what they call large capacity magazines varies from firearm to firearm it’s not a universal standard
You reminded me . Ugh .
They need extensive monthly cognitive testing.
Where does this idiot judge get the concept that arms are limited to self defense when the 2nd amendment reads:
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.
One might take it to mean that people should be free to have arms to contribute to the Militia...in which case the weapons would be for war.
One might take it to mean that since the federal government will have a militia that the people have a right to arm themselves as well. Which would mean the weapons were to deter the government from using the militia against the people, so arms would mean those for a civil war.
Under no circumstances is there a suggestion in the Second Amendment that "arms" only means arms intended for private self defense.
This WILL be overturned. This is absolutely not consistent with either Heller or Bruen…and any District Court is inferior to the USSC - FAR inferior. Self-defense and the suitability of any arm for it is irrelevant when the RIGHT to keep arms is at issue.
The judge got it exactly backwards. Rudolph Contrares wrote:
“𝐻𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 “𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒” 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.”
Wrong. That’s not what Scalia wrote. That’s not what Heller meant. Not in the slightest.
Scalia wrote:
“𝐼𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 — 𝑀-16 𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 — 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒.”
Not that it is capable of being banned, but that it does not fall under the prefatory clause: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
Then this judge goes on to write:
“𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 “𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡’𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒.” 𝑃𝑙𝑠.’ 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑡 15. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡. 𝐻𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 “𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒” 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. “𝑀𝑜𝑠𝑡” 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒. 𝐴 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑓 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡.”
Once again, the judge is 180 degrees out of phase with Heller and the writings that support it. For example, the judge failed to consider the final sentence of that Scalia writing.
Scalia wrote:
“𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡.”
This eff’n moron judge needs an education in firearms, self defense, and the tools needed to over throw a tyrannous government. The later would be a short-lived lesson.
If they are indeed a “poor fit” for self defense purposes, why all the exemptions for law enforcement (including secret service protection) for all these gun laws and bans? Seems to be a tacit admission that (1) More rounds do, in fact, provide a better defense; and (2) Some elites believe their bodyguards should provide them a higher level of protection than the proles have.
Define large capacity.
large capacity combustion engines are likely causing extreme environmental harm.
Probably we should limit them to 2 liters.
No truck or military exceptions
If we fight a war it should be totally green.
Also we should use sentinent AI robots to hunt down all enemy humans.
The 1860 Henry rifle carried 15 rounds in it’s magazine while the Evans Rifle carried 28 rounds.
That sure sounds “High Cap” to me!
Well if you say so.
Come and take it mfer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.