Posted on 04/27/2023 4:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
In the case of Hanson v. District of Columbia, in the District Court of the District of Columbia, on April 20, 2023, federal Judge Rudolf Contreras issued an opinion holding standard capacity magazines which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are not protected under the rights which the Second Amendment was written to protect. Judge Contreras acknowledges magazines that hold more than ten rounds are in common use in the United States of America. Judge Contreras acknowledges magazines that hold more than ten rounds are arms as defined by the words of the Second Amendment.
Judge Rudolf Contreras goes to great lengths to determine magazines that hold more than ten rounds are not included under the rights of the Second Amendment. The linguistic juggling to accomplish this difficult task is impressive, not to mention the stretching and twisting of logic. From the opinion:
“More importantly, Heller II recognized that whether LCMs are “in common use” is merely the beginning of the analysis. The full inquiry is “whether the prohibited weapons are ‘typically possessed . . . for lawful purposes.’” Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1260 (emphasis added) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 625). On that critical question, Heller II expressed uncertainty: “based upon the record as it stands, we cannot be certain whether these weapons are commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense[.]” Id. at 1261 (emphasis added). That is the question this Court must now resolve.”
The simple and straightforward understanding of whether magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds are typically in common use for lawful purposes is clear. There are tens or hundreds of millions of such magazines in the United States. If standard capacity magazines were typically possessed for unlawful purposes,
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Then he says they do not qualify for protection under the Second Amendment because they are useful as military weapons.
Magazines didn’t exist when the U.S. constitution was ratified.
Such an intellect. They should appoint him to a medical board, he’s probably smart enough to quarterback surgeries. I bet he could fly a jumbo jet with his wisdom.
As anyone with even a rudementary understanding of the Second Amendment knows, weapons in common use aren't primarily protected for self-defense, presumably against fellow citizens.
That's an additional benefit.
Weapons in common use are protected in the Second Amendment for use against a tyrannical Government, should the need arise to protect citizens from said tyrannical Government!
Our Founding Fathers had intimate knowledge of why they needed protection because they were rebellign against tyranny!
Contreras should be tossed from the bench and disbarred for such legal hijinx.
“common use” means....1800, 1900, 2000 2023....
Irrelevant. Is your argument we should all be limited to single shot black powder weapons then?
>>Such an intellect. They should appoint him to a medical board, he’s probably smart enough to quarterback surgeries. I bet he could fly a jumbo jet with his wisdom.
What do you really expect from an “Obama judge” ?
Strzok suggested a “cocktail party” with FISA: Judge Rudolph Contreras in a July 25, 2016, message to FBI attorney Lisa Page... Days later, on July 31, Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane.. the FBI’s planting lies on Trump.
Strzok handled the fake Clinton email investigation / cover-up .
-3- Strzok was one of the FBI officers who put Flynn in cage, then shot him..- ht to Jonathan Turley
Ergo: the rest of us need them, too.
I don't know if you are serious, or being sarcastic. Either way, the above statement is wrong and apparently you've never heard of the Puckle Gun, the Fergeson Rifle, or the Girandoni air rifle. As rudimentary as they were, all three used some form of magazine to facilitate rapid fire, before the Constitution was ratified and were in use in the America at some point of the other.
contreras=FISA COURT
WELL SAID!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Your logic is impeccable.
As another poster has correctly noted, magazines did not exist at the time the Constitution was ratified. If that becomes a standard (it's not) then the First Amendment cannot be said to protect speech on TV, radio, the internet, etc. I guess the First Amendment protects a literal printing press but nothing else. That is, if the Second Amendment only protects firearm technology as it existed in the 18th century.
Ridiculous..
I would estimate that just about every standard size pistol made since the 80s used a “high cap” mag as standard until “high cap” restrictions came in.
and EVERY single LEO issued pistol since the 80s was and is “high cap”.
can’t get much more common than that.
Hmm, it almost looks like hat might in conflict with some premises of Miller
If so I wonder if it would be used to get us back in front of SC for review?
“Caetano v Massachusetts”...SCOTUS 2016...9-0 vote. Massachusetts lost.
And just how many hundreds of millions of these magazines are in circulation in the US? I bet the count is over a billion, maybe several.
Osama Obama appointee.
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.