Quote of the Day
The majority doesn’t seem to know that a flintlock musket would not fire without a flint, meaning that it is an essential part of an arm protected by the Second Amendment. And speaking of flintlocks, given the majority’s imperative that the more inferior the arm, the better, modern repeating arms that fire smokeless cartridges aren’t protected because single-shot flintlock firearms are available. But Heller explicitly rejected that argument.
While claiming that a magazine that holds over ten rounds is not an arm, the majority asserts that a magazine that holds ten or less is an arm because it “is necessary to the ordinary operation” of the firearm “as intended.” Ordinary operation as intended by whom? This made up distinction could be used to justify a ban on magazines that hold more than two rounds, as that would still allow the semiautomatic function.
Stephen Halbrook
April 3, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: 9th Circuit Upholds California Magazine Ban (Again)
It is not that the 9th Circuit Court “doesn’t seem to know.” They know what they are doing. They are just playing stupid.
They have delayed the correct ruling on the question of whether 10+ round magazines are protected arms since 2017. I will not be surprised if it they manage to delay it for a full decade. They should be prosecuted for this.
The Supreme Court will probably do nothing about this insurrection. If by some chance I am wrong about this the state will simply enact a new law that will accomplish the same thing.
to quote one of the Three Stooges, “I aint playin!”
To me the argument is kind of backwards.
Should the court or anyone else care if I have a plastic box that “holds” twenty rounds of ammunition?
No, they don’t care. It just holds ammunition.
Since it’s being used in the function of a firearm is the only reason to litigate about it in the first place.
Thus, the government and the courts themselves are placing it firmly under the 2A protection.
Magazines are not a firearm needing protection. That’s just ignorant crap-think. Because as soon as you establish that there a firearm?
Well, we know exactly what government has done to us over those.
Like machine guns, they restrict them to point they say they’re no longer in “common use”. (More crap-think by the courts.)
No, politicians, by the act of trying to restrict them because of their use “in” firearms place them under 2A protection.
That pesky “shall not be infringed” part is a restraint on their actions. Not on our choices.
Same with suppressors. Our choice in how we protect ourselves and our hearing is un-restricted.
The government’s desire to restrict them because there being placed/used on the firearm is in clear violation of 2A. As the government in no other case cares about what shape, size, or type of metal you have lying around.
All their laws are based on your firearm.
Therefor protected by the 2A under the first “law by which all other laws must conform.” And anything to the contrary is “not-with-standing”, neither inside or outside the court.
What would you do if the “Karen” next door said you can no longer have a 30 round magazine? How would you react?
A better question is what would our forefathers do?
J.D. Vance has provided true leadership on this: “Ya, I don’t care, Margaret.” You got nothing.
And on a side topic.
Was it a coincidence that April 19th was the day the revolution started into a shooting war. Because government went after our father’s guns.
And the same day satan’s minions in government decided to burn out the people in Waco for resisting them with arms?
Forever sullying that glorious day?
What it tells me? Freedom has a price……
As was said after the Ruby Ridge entrapment case, Freedom isn’t Freeh.
You raise a great point about the difference between flintlocks and modern firearms in the context of the Second Amendment. The whole argument about what qualifies as an ‘arm’ seems to conveniently ignore advancements in firearm technology, which should be included in the interpretation.
If the courts treated First-Amendment-adjacent technological advances the same way they treat Second-Amendment-adjacent technological advances, your rights to free speech and free press would be limited to actual literal soapboxes to stand on and hand-cranked printing presses to turn out leaflets.
Your smartphone (or dumb phone, of you still have one), your computer, your landline phone, access to the Internet, the local telegraph office, etc. — none of that would be protected because they didn’t exist at the Founding. Even after they were invented, they weren’t “in common use” so all of that technology could have been banned outright if the government acted fast enough.
Of course, it’s pretty much universally accepted that free speech and the free press is about being able to communicate, not what specific devices are used to do so, therefore as communications technology advances, the scope of the First Amendment advances with it.
So why the bull-headedness on the Second?
Didn’t Justice Thomas say that the courts are able to rule on their favored rights expansively when they want to, and narrowly when the right is disfavored by the courts [and the elites under whose thrones the Lions of the courts exist] and thrive?
Liberal commie judges do things like this for a simple reason. BECAUSE THEY CAN. They suffer NO consequences for their abusive conduct. And until that fact changes they have no reason to do their job correctly…if at all.
I’ve been following this case since 2017 too, and at this point the delays don’t feel like due process—they feel like strategic stalling. It’s not that they don’t understand the Second Amendment, it’s that they’re deliberately sidestepping it.