1911Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,879 Posts
I hope they win and beat them up on legal fees. The Peoples Republic of SF has priors for egregiously violating gun rights, just to make themselves feel good. It is stupid, it costs them money, and they keep doing it just to harass honest citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,190 Posts
If successful it could open up legal challenges to magazine limits across the country. If it fails it could open up mag limit proposals all across the country.

I like this:

"These magazines are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including in-home self-defense," said the suit, filed on behalf of the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association and four individual gun owners, led by a retired police officer.
That means the city has to say that it's Veteran police officers don't know anything about public safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Agreed, I'm kinda going to be watching this to see if other states try the same suit if it is successful. I hate to see our rights be taken away or restricted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,361 Posts
It is my opinion.

That the NRA tends to choose which battles it intends to fight in a fairly judicious fashion. I am hoping that this is reflected in the decision to pursue this case. In addition to the most important issue at stake here. A lot of us also have a certain monetary commitment at stake here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
Love the NRA almost as much as I like girls. and I REALLY like girls :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
Also, CA has state pre-emption regarding gun laws. About 2005 SF residents voted to ban handguns (pre-Heller) and the results were tossed by a federal judge - Earl Warren's kid IIRC.

I live in SF, the article isn't exactly accurate - other than this ordinance I'm not aware of any SF specific laws on mag possession. And the "hollow point" bullet ban is so tightly (or foolishly) written as to apply to a specific brand or two of JHPs.

SF politicians deserve to get hit on this but hell, what do you expect from a city that has a convicted wife beater, legally prohibited from owning a gun fellow for sheriff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...magazines.aspx

California: Lawsuit Filed Against San Francisco Ban on Possession of Standard Capacity Firearm Magazines

Today, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has filed a lawsuit, supported by the National Rifle Association, in federal court challenging San Francisco’s recent ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Second Amendment-based legal challenge is part of a campaign of nationwide litigation filed and supported by a variety of law enforcement officers and associations to confirm that the Second Amendment protects these common standard-capacity magazines for self-defense and sport shooting.

Today, standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed by millions of law-abiding citizens for a variety of lawful purposes in the United States. These purposes include target practice, shooting competitions, hunting, and, most importantly, self-defense. The Supreme Court has affirmed that self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association represents the retired officers from the San Francisco Police Department. SFPOA is joined in this lawsuit by several individual San Francisco residents who wish to possess these magazines for self-defense or sporting purposes.

The majority of law enforcement in the United States acknowledges that banning standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds will not increase public safety. There is now a growing trend of law enforcement organizations actively opposing and challenging these measures in court. In Colorado, a broad coalition of law enforcement officials filed suit against that state’s recently-enacted ban on common magazines. Earlier this year in New York, the State Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and individual law enforcement officers filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the State’s ban on common rifles and magazines. And in Connecticut, a coalition of individual law enforcement officers and the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund filed another legal brief in support of pending challenge to similar laws.

The San Francisco ordinance essentially allows confiscation of any prohibited magazines and, because of state laws restricting their transfer, they cannot be replaced. San Francisco’s ordinance is set to take effect on December 8, 2013. Residents, including retired police officers, will then have until March 8, 2014 to turn their lawfully-possessed magazines over to the police, remove them from the City in the few cases where it might be legal, or transfer them to a licensed firearms dealer.

The lawyers at Michel & Associates representing the plaintiffs will seek an injunction to prevent San Francisco from enforcing this law. Plaintiffs are prepared to appeal this case as high as necessary to have the City’s misguided ordinance declared unconstitutional. This Second Amendment issue may ultimately be addressed by the United States Supreme Court.

Firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds have been around for nearly two centuries. Although the San Francisco ordinance incorrectly describes the banned magazines as “large-capacity,” the truth is that magazines with capacities of more than ten rounds are standard for many common handguns and long guns and have been for hundreds of years. Millions of firearms that have been sold in the United States come from the manufacturer with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

As most gun owners already know, standard-capacity magazines hold the number of cartridges the firearm was designed to operate with. Reduced-capacity magazines are those whose capacity is artificially limited from an original design. By allowing residents and visitors to San Francisco to only possess reduced-capacity magazines, San Francisco has arbitrarily limited the number of rounds that its law-abiding residents have to protect themselves and their loved ones. Hunters and sport shooters traveling through San Francisco with these magazines also can be prosecuted, even if they are unaware of this law.

The City’s decision to arbitrarily limit its residents to magazines holding a maximum of ten rounds endangers the public by giving violent criminals an advantage and decreasing the likelihood that a victim will survive a criminal attack. Of course, criminals who wish to carry out violent attacks will not be thwarted by the City’s restriction. Criminals will simply continue to do what they have always done – buy and possess magazines on the black market or carry multiple firearms to complete their violent crimes.

A ballot measure enacting a similar ordinance was recently passed in Sunnyvale, California. Litigation supported by the NRA is already in the works to challenge that law when the Sunnyvale City Council certifies the vote and the measure then formally becomes law.

To assist in the fight against these attacks on gun owners’ rights in California, please donate to the NRA Legal Action Project today. For a summary of the many actions the NRA’s legal team at Michel & Associates has taken on behalf of California gun owners, click here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,361 Posts
I am completely on board with this.

And I certainly appreciate L84CABO for posting it. However, I sure would like to know what sort of gun was utilizing a twenty round (standard) magazine two hundred years ago?:scratch:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
And I certainly appreciate L84CABO for posting it. However, I sure would like to know what sort of gun was utilizing a twenty round (standard) magazine two hundred years ago?:scratch:
Um...whose side are you on?

They weren't using the internet 200 years ago either but that doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't/shouldn't apply to it now. There will always be advances and changes in technology. And the Founding Fathers were certainly smart enough and educated enough to understand this. To think that the Constitution only applies to a printing press or musket is simply absurd.

The Amendment says "...to keep and bear arms." And these...30 round magazines for example...are the standard "arms" of the day. I would also point out that the amendment doesn't say anything about arms being limited to a single round. Consider too that firearms with multi-chambered cylinders were first made in the late 1500's. They were rare but they did exist at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1791.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
And I certainly appreciate L84CABO for posting it. However, I sure would like to know what sort of gun was utilizing a twenty round (standard) magazine two hundred years ago?:scratch:
Well, if you consider that many of the CANNON used to win the Revolutionary War were privately owned, I think you're barking up the wrong lightpole.

The founding fathers made it very clear in writings ancillary to the constitution that the 'arms' they were talking about were the military arms of the day, and that parity with any army (foreign or domestic) was the intention.


Larry
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,947 Posts
Guys, If you actually read L84CABO's complete post you will see what USMM guy is talking about.

Firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds have been around for nearly two centuries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,190 Posts
While not a 20+ round, magazine fed firearm, the pepperbox in one form or another has been around in flintlock and earlier form and was popular for being able to fire multiple shots between loadings. There were long arms in this form as well as the more known handguns.

We hear some of the more radical idiots on the left squacking that we should all go back to single shot muzzle loaders under their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. (Nonsense that we all know that is.) But wait! There is in fact a historical precedence for not "Standard" capacity in firearms, particularly those designed for self defense, BUT for "HIGH" or Higher than normal ammo capacity firearms.

If we use history as a guide then the history of our country and Europe clearly point out an accepted, even desirable, requirement for being able to carry a firearm capable of firing several more rounds than the usual musket, rifle, or handgun of the time, specifically in the role of self-defense.

For a little extra reading. http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/06/revolvers-pepper-box-revolver.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,361 Posts
Ok well I am really glad that you cleared this up for me.

Um...whose side are you on?

They weren't using the internet 200 years ago either but that doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't/shouldn't apply to it now. There will always be advances and changes in technology. And the Founding Fathers were certainly smart enough and educated enough to understand this. To think that the Constitution only applies to a printing press or musket is simply absurd.

The Amendment says "...to keep and bear arms." And these...30 round magazines for example...are the standard "arms" of the day. I would also point out that the amendment doesn't say anything about arms being limited to a single round. Consider too that firearms with multi-chambered cylinders were first made in the late 1500's. They were rare but they did exist at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1791.
I guess that I am pretty much clueless in this regard. :dope:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,361 Posts
It is very clear to me now!

Well, if you consider that many of the CANNON used to win the Revolutionary War were privately owned, I think you're barking up the wrong lightpole.

The founding fathers made it very clear in writings ancillary to the constitution that the 'arms' they were talking about were the military arms of the day, and that parity with any army (foreign or domestic) was the intention.


Larry
That I just do not get it. :dope:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
And I certainly appreciate L84CABO for posting it. However, I sure would like to know what sort of gun was utilizing a twenty round (standard) magazine two hundred years ago?:scratch:
I don't know about holding exactly 20 rounds, but would suggest "two centuries" is not the same as "two hundred years ago" and that firearms used in the late 1800s qualifies as "two centuries ago" - 1899 and sooner would be two centuries ago, yes?

My concern with respect to "in common use" is that +10 round magazines are restricted in CA. They're not banned, they may be possessed, but I'm concerned our "left coast judges" will assert that since they are restricted in CA they are not in common use.

I would hope NRA uses pre-emption in their argument too. Although, by using the 2nd as a defense NRA is also taking a shot at the statewide restrictions, it seems to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,947 Posts
Really not meaning to take this in the direction it's going, but....



Complete 7th paragraph from L85CABO's post....


Firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds have been around for nearly two centuries. Although the San Francisco ordinance incorrectly describes the banned magazines as “large-capacity,” the truth is that magazines with capacities of more than ten rounds are standard for many common handguns and long guns and have been for hundreds of years.
What is the minimum numbers of "hundreds" that would constitute "hundreds?

Wouldn't that have to be at least two?


What was the first magazine fed firearm? Gatling?

Anyway I did send off my donation to the NRA-ILA. Please, if you can...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
What was the first magazine fed firearm? Gatling?

Anyway I did send off my donation to the NRA-ILA. Please, if you can...
I thought Gatling too. A stretch, but how about the Spencer as a "tube magazine fed".

I wonder if the SF ordinance references "detachable magazines" or just magazines?

BTW, San Francisco doesn't have an "existing ban" on magazines of any kind. I don't know where the author gets that - not that I'm surprised at the inaccuracy.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top