Tag: #LCM

As the assault on so-called “large capacity magazines “ (LCMs) – what we all know as standard capacity magazines – continue, I thought I’d post what it would take for me to support such as ban. It’s quick, easy and builds on the “facts” gun control zealots have been pushing for years. It doesn’t require anything new added to the proposed laws. In fact, it’s just one quick deletion. Remove the law enforcement exemption for standard capacity magazines. 

Hear me out on this one. 

For years the anti-gun extremists have been telling us any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are too dangerous to own. Why ten rounds? NOBODY KNOWS! There is absolutely ZERO science or evidence behind it. It’s just a number someone pulled out of their ass and said THIS is okay, but one more, 11, is a large capacity magazine and is BAD. 

California, in all of their legal arguments against repealing the state LCM ban, including their appeal of their law being ruled unconstitutional has claimed a LCM “has almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home…” While this California created “myth” was put to rest in Judge Benitez’s original rulings, it is still repeated by the State and sold as “fact” by the Nutty Ninth.

Gun control lobbyists claim magazines of 10 rounds or less cause a shooter to “pause” to reload long enough for people to escape or be disarmed by bystanders. This myth has been debunked over and over again since magazines can be swapped out in sub second time, meaning there is no “pause” long enough for someone hiding in a shooting incident to react and take action during a reload.

The same anti-gun activists also claim these magazine bans work. By banning LCMs, they are not used by criminals, thugs and terrorists in crimes, assaults and mass shootings in the cities and states where they are banned. 

So, time to put your money where your mouth is. 

If law-abiding firearm owners have no need for them and criminals will not have them once they are banned, why do are law enforcement officers need them? They should turn theirs in for destruction on the same day as everyone else does since they won’t be needed any more. 

Really stupid, huh? Absolutely! 

Law enforcement is going to say they need large capacity magazines because they may face multiple armed suspects, may have to engage in long firefights while waiting for backup to arrive and armed suspects may have large capacity magazines, even though they have been banned and are illegal. 

If this sounds like the same argument Second Amendment supporters have been making for law-abiding citizens for years, it is. Just because someone isn’t carrying a badge, doesn’t mean their life is any less worth protecting against threats. 

So, I can offer my support here because I know there is NO WAY IN HELL this would ever pass in any legislature at the local, state or federal level. It’s not that the left-wing politicians support law enforcement, as proven by their push to defund the police, they just know without law enforcement support, none of their other gun control initiatives will ever get enforced if police aren’t exempted from these laws. Besides, these are the people protecting THEM, so they want them to have ever advantage they can. 

Nor would I want our law enforcement officers downgraded to 10 round magazines. For them as for all law-abiding firearm owners, they need every advantage – and every bullet – they can carry. Criminals, thugs and terrorists are never going to be deterred by another foolish gun control law telling them they can’t carry a standard capacity magazine when they are going to commit an armed robbery or murder. 

Proposed bans on standard capacity magazines are being debated in a number of legislatures again this year, including in my own state. Some have already failed for their current legislative sessions, while others are still pending. Some are outright bans while others contain “grandfather” clauses allowing those who currently possess them to retain them, but never being able to sell or pass them to future generations. This tends to help passage since ‘nobody is taking away your magazines’. But as we’ve seen in Kalifornistan, it’s merely a deferred confiscation scheme since the next step is always to eliminate the grandfathered magazine exemption. 

There is hope the question of magazine capacity bans will be finally addressed by the United States Supreme Court. A couple of cases are at that level now, including the Duncan v. Bonta from the Nutty Ninth. But while we remain hopeful for a decision in our favor, the Supreme Court may or may not see it the way we do. As we recently saw in the court upholding the ATF ‘Frame and Receiver’ rule in Bondi v. VanDerStok, the Court may rule against us. A similar ruling on magazines would leave us at the mercy of every nanny state and local government in the country. 

It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The best way – the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place.  And YOU are the only one who can do that. Stop electing people who are willing to take away our rights! 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #LCM, #medium, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

This past Thursday, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” (LCM) in the case of Duncan v. Bonta. This was no surprise as the Nutty Ninth is infamously anti-Second Amendment and provides rubber stamp approval service to every gun control scheme presented to it, even if it must twist the facts and the law to do it. But the star of this ruling has to be the unprecedented video dissent from one of the judges on the en banc panel. 

Quick history: Duncan v. Bonta has been bouncing up and down through the courts since 2017. California’s LCM ban was first ruled unconstitutional by Federal District Judge Roger T. Benitez in 2019. Appealed to the Ninth Circuit, it was affirmed by a three-judge panel, before being overruled by an en banc panel. It was granted certiorari at the United States Supreme Court, who vacated the appellate en banc decision, and remanded the case to Ninth Circuit in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen case, who then returned it to Judge Benitez, who ruled it unconstitutional again. Appealed to the Ninth Circuit again, an en banc panel – the very same en banc panel that overruled it before – to overrule it again. You are now up to date. 

A couple of tidbits from the ruling. 

“First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories. Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of optional accessories like large-capacity magazines, California’s ban on large-capacity magazines falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

“A large-capacity magazine—which enables a shooter to fire more than ten bullets rapidly and without reloading— has almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home, but it has devastating effects in mass shootings.”

What the State of California and Nutty Ninth completely ignore is magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds ARE standard capacity, standard issue, as designed by the manufacturer for the firearm. This is true in all but a few states in this country and every other country in the world. It is the low capacity, 10 round magazines, that is an “accessory” and had to be engineered/created just for the few states which ban standard capacity magazines. NOBODY ELSE uses them. Standard capacity magazines are by the very definition, in common use in the rest of the United States and the world. 

There is also the on-going lie of standard capacity magazines having “almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home”. This California created “myth” was put to rest in Judge Benitez’s original rulings, but it still repeated by the State and sold as “fact” by the Nutty Ninth. 

As a reminder, I’ve reused a photo from my 09/01/2020 article on Not Well-Suited for Self-Defense? (https://oddstuffing.com/archives/716)

The photo that accompanies this article is from a home security system in a Fremont, CA home invasion burglary on August 28, 2016. It shows five armed men coming into the house, at least one carrying a handgun with a magazine extending below the pistol grip, a LCM. 

California has been boiling the frog with regard to so-called “LCM”s since 2000 when they banned manufacture, importation and sale in the state, while leaving possession of those magazines already owned legal, a grandfather clause. This was a great way to get those on the fence to support the ban since it would not impact anyone who already owns them. As expected, the State turned up the heat in 2010 and 2013 eliminating more “LCM”s. 

Naturally, this still left a dangerous “loophole” that some magazines could still be legally possessed and that had to be eliminated. They accomplished this in 2016 with Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63 to completely outlaw possession of these previously grandfathered magazines. 

Proposition 63 declared that large-capacity magazines “significantly increase a shooter’s ability to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.” “No one except trained law enforcement should be able to possess these dangerous ammunition magazines,” and the existing law’s lack of a ban on possession constituted a “loophole.”

So, while playing lip service to the Bruen decision, the Nutty Ninth decided to completely ignore it and substitute their own logic, seemingly going back to the outdated standards of Rational-Basis and Intermediate Scrutiny. 

But here is the most interesting part. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the dissenting votes on the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel, did something unique. He created a video dissent where he discusses and demonstrates the issues with the majority ruling using his own firearms in his chambers. The video is about 19 minutes long and well worth your time. 

Dissent video in 23-55805 Duncan v. Bonta – https://youtu.be/DMC7Ntd4d4c?si=LFPmT-qvrVEepHP2

Naturally, the video has been condemned by most of the majority opinion judges, but here’s the thing. I’m going to link the written ruling and dissents and the dissent video in my article, how many of you will read the full 147-page ruling?  As of March 20^th, YouTube is showing over 170,000 views for the dissent video. THAT is why it is important. 

We the people need to be involved and knowledgeable about what our elected officials and courts are doing. When they are ignoring hard, cold facts to make and uphold laws that are going to get you hard, cold dead, we need to know that and take action. 

The next stop for Duncan v. Bonta will be the United States Supreme Court. Whether or not it will be granted certiorari again OR ruled in our favor remains to be seen. This case does provide an opportunity for the Court to clearly state how Bruen should be applied in the lower courts once and for all. It could also be denied/upheld or be sent back to the Nutty Ninth with instructions to rehear it, which will undoubtably send it back to Judge Benitez starting the clock all over again. 

One final thought. 

It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The best way – the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place.  And the only one who can do that is you. 

It is beyond time we start electing different people to represent us and appoint judges who will follow the constitution and the law, not bend it to meet their political needs.

Duncan v. Bonta 03/20/2025 ruling: http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-20-Opinion.pdf

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #LCM, #medium, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com