Comment on Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year agoI 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?
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I am sorry if I was unclear before, but the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense. Because magazines are an object of martial value that can be employed in a controlled manner in a style to limit needless collateral damages.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So then as long as it is “pragmatic” and can be carried, we have a right to own it regardless of the danger involved?
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes and by doing so the onus falls upon you to become educated in it’s safe handling, proficient in it’s operations, and maintenance. Along with displaying acumen in your employment or lack there of with it.