Federal court declares magazine bans in California are unconstitutional

Die boomer

Attached: 51itIYPlJLL._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (350x499, 33K)

21 niggers

That’s a 150 round mag. Friends of mine made them. Pride of Lyndhurst. I got mine.

Dank

What the fuck is with the defeatist shills lately?

Fuckoff cuck

Presidential campaigns are heating up. The shills are gearing up for a long shilling season.

>lately
These discord trannies and DNC operatives have been getting increasingly obvious for literally years now.

what if 200 niggers break into my home?
what if I want to shoot 1 home invading nigger 200 times?

you should be able to, and if they say no say "america's true government says otherwise"

This is big because the 3rd circuit just declared the NJ mag ban constitutional. That means a split circuit decison. We might get mag bans set to SCOTUS.

How could they declare an infringement as constitutional?

They’re standard capacity. High capacity is a c-mag.

Hopefully, you.

Why the fuck do you care. Fuck off ,Fudd.

Attached: i9kanRa.jpg (640x395, 35K)

>What the flying fuck are you going to be shooting with a 20 round mag that you can't get done with a 10 round mag? It's people like you that make the rest of us look ludicrous.

>What the flying fuck are you going to be shooting with a semi auto that you can't get done with a shotgun or revolver? It's people like you that make the rest of us look ludicrous.

>What the flying fuck are you going to be shooting that can’t be done by a professional? It's people like you that make the rest of us look ludicrous.

Get with the program or get fucked. Every gun law is an infringement.

>us
you weren't talking to a commie like yourself, nigger.

Based

>What the flying fuck are you going to be shooting with a 200 round drum mag that you can't get done with a 20 round mag?
you can't even get a 20 round mag in cali you fucking retard

Attached: 54fbfbadd4964eeab73cb7dc5a0707cc.png (408x360, 137K)

twitter.com/NRA/status/1111761532357132289
Remember that anyone dissing the NRA-ILA is intended to divide you from the greatest legal too gun owners have. Don't fall for it.

Because two of the three judges on the bench were clinton and obama appointees.

>It's perfectly fine for the US government to grossly violate the US constitution and trample over it's citizenry to the extent they can't even fucking own a hunk of plastic with a spring in it because I'm a betamale cuck who doesn't wanna use it!

Let me ask if you something: When you defend yourself with a firearm you are playing a game of chance. You could get hurt by an aassalient, so wouldn't you want to reasonably do anything that would give you even a single percentage point advantage? Or maybe you just want to have and mess around with a big mag.

Or maybe the government shoudn't fucking decide what you can and can't own. Maybe the government should only involve itself in affairs that hurt or trample the rights of another person, like assault, rape, or murder, not possession of a fucking spring loaded box.

Print them. Fuck those laws, and fuck the state.

Yes, at least until the 9th circus reverses. Then you'll have to wait another decade or so until the supreme court reverses the 9th's decision.

What can we expect from this gents? Surely if magazine bans are unconstitutional then the “Assault Weapon” laws must be too.

>t. Commiefornian

Attached: 7A33EDEB-EB9B-47F4-8297-FC7FD6A09349.jpg (1024x645, 82K)

this

Who was the plaintiff in this case? I'm going to take a WAG here and say not the NRA

SHALL

Finally a point I can understand, fine I'll take back half of what I said

>What the flying fuck are you going to be shooting with a 200 round drum mag that you can't get done with a 20 round mag?

A maximum of 10 double taps to mosque patrons or liberal rally goers vs 100.

Fuck yes, fuck that state and all their bullshit politicians

NRA-ILA was involved

Mental and legal gymnastics called "intermediate" scrutiny.
They claimed that a magazine ban did not infringe on the second since it did not infringe on the "core" of the amendment. This gave the court the excuse to use "intermediate" scrutiny and the court stated that since there is not an entire class of guns being banned (they used the example of Heller and handguns as a class) it passed intermediate scrutiny (which means that the government has to show an interest in why they are restricting a right).

The case in OP, the judge used a test set up in Heller (which the 3rd circuit did not). The test used was the common use, lawful use, and common lawful use (woo making it pass the same test multiple times). Since a magazine passed all three tests, the judge argued it failed heightened scrutiny (in between strict and intermediate scrutinies).

Both opinions mentioned mass shootings. The NJ one used it as the government's interest and why it the ban is constitutional. The CA one mentioned that mass shootings are such a statistical anomaly that to rule by those is a gross violation of other lawful purposes.

If this goes to the Supreme Court, what will come down to is:
>Was the CA judge correct in using the Heller test
>Was the 3rd circuit right to use intermediate scrutiny
>What is the proper scrutiny to be used for the 2nd amendment
>And potentially what is a class of guns

Well you're a retard who parrots Jow Forums talking points so naturally you're wrong, but hey whatevs.