Comment on Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year agoBecause it’s our right.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines.
Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.
So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Arms as mentioned in the 2A encompasses more than just firearms. It also includes things the magazines, tasers, and armor.
Per US SC Caetano v. Massachusetts “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So any weapon that can be carried is covered by the second amendment is what you’re saying?
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I would interpret that as those useful in the defense of one’s self or one’s homeland. Something that’s would prevent the enjoyment of the land after it’s use like a cobalt bomb wouldn’t apply in my mind, because it would making the land uninhabitable. Things like munitions would likely be included with a caveat requiring their storage in the modern equivalent of a powder house, in keeping with the historical tradition of the period.
Wiki link to a specific powder house that was in use at the time of the founding: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_House_Square#Old_Powder_House
Strange and unusual weapons like a shotgun collar from the Saw movies wouldn’t be permissible as those don’t have merit for either common or self defense.
Kinda touched on a few different aspects there hopefully it’s clear.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So then is it safe to say, that there are some things that can be carried, but are in some way too ridiculous/dangerous to make sense to be covered under the 2a? How does magazines large enough to mow down an entire crowd of children not count?