Posts Tagged magazine ban

9th Circuit Prevents Magazine Confiscation

From Reason:

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal district count injunction against a California law to confiscate firearms magazines that hold over 10 rounds. The Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 opinion is here, and the dissent is here. My analysis of the 2017 district court opinion is here.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

NJ Bans 10 Round Magazines and Guns

From Activist Post:

The state of New Jersey, which is known for its strict gun laws, has tightened regulations with new legislation that gives citizens 180 days to surrender all firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds —and if they are caught with the newly illegal contraband, they will be treated as criminals.

, ,

No Comments

NJ Sued Over New Gun Restrictions

From Townhall:

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality behind the high-capacity magazine ban. ANJRPC filed the lawsuit immediately after Murphy signed the bill into law.

“This unconstitutional law will be ignored by criminals and madmen, and affects only law-abiding citizens,” ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach said in a statement. “It turns one million people into criminals with the stroke of a pen, limits self-defense, and takes away property lawfully acquired,” continued Bach. “Buy it yesterday, ban it today, go to prison tomorrow – it’s the Jersey way, and the goal of our lawsuit is to boot this law, which makes no one safer, into the trash heap of history where it belongs.”

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

California Magazine Ban Blocked

From NRA-ILA:

The battle to secure Second Amendment rights is ever-evolving. On Monday, gun owners were dealt a disappointing blow with the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the legal scheme that empowers California counties to effectively ban the bearing of arms (see related article). Yet by Thursday, Second Amendment advocates were cheering a federal court’s opinion blocking enforcement of California’s draconian magazine ban. That opinion, in Duncan v. Becerra, shows what’s possible when a federal judge treats the right to keep and bear arms with the respect deserved by all provisions within the Bill of Rights. 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Connecticut Gun Laws Challenged

From Ammoland:

The case, Shew v. Malloy, was initiated on May 22, 2013, when lawyers on behalf of June Shew and several other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged several violations of the plaintiffs’ rights.

The complaint first claimed that the state’s bans on magazines and certain semi-automatic firearms are in violation of the right to “keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Next, the complaint argued that the firearm and magazine prohibitions violate the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law, as several classes of government employees are exempt from the ban. Last, the complaint asserted that portions of the Act violate due process, as the ban is vague.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Farewell To Arms Rally in Colorado Draws Thousands

From Denver Post:

Organizers say some 5,000 people attended the “Farewell to Arms Freedom” festival, which was hosted by Free Colorado, a nonprofit group that advocates for firearms rights.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Magpul To Give Away Magazines At CO Rally

From Magpul’s Facebook page:

Come on out and join the festivities at Infinity Park in Glendale, CO, this Saturday, June 29, celebrating FREEDOM on the last weekend before the unconstitutional mag ban takes effect…

Guns.com article

, , , , ,

No Comments

Colorado Gun Laws Violate Constitution and ADA says David Kopel

From Westword.com:

“The ADA requires state and local governments to make accommodations for disabled people, particularly in regard to major life activities,” he says. “And many disabled people have less ability when they’re attacked in their home to retreat to a point of safety or get behind cover from which they can change a magazine. They may have less mobility, or some might have only one arm, for example.

“So it’s more difficult for them to change magazines than do other people — and therefore, even if the magazine ban were constitutional in general, which we argue it is not, the people with relevant disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations to larger magazines.”

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments