Gun rights showdown: Sunnyvale restrictions upheld by appeals court
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Sunnyvale's law restricting high-capacity gun magazines is constitutional and justified by legitimate efforts to minimize local gun violence, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
In a closely watched gun rights showdown, a unanimous three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the arguments of groups such as the National Rifle Association, which contends the restrictions violate the Second Amendment and undermine the fundamental interests of gun owners.
"Sunnyvale's interests in promoting public safety and reducing violent crime were substantial and important government interests," 9th Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the court.
Gun rights advocates have to date failed in their legal challenge to the ordinance, which threatens criminal prosecution of anyone with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A San Jose federal judge upheld the law last year, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to put it on hold while the appeal unfolds.
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27641047/gun-rights-showdown-sunnyvale-restrictions-upheld-by-appeals
opinion in full: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/03/04/14-15408.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Are they supposed to surrender them, sell them, hide them, or does this only apply to new sales?
Will it apply equally to criminals about to commit crimes?
I sure hope so! I don't want them to have guns at all, much less bullets in guns!
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what is the cost of such a magazine?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)from those pillars of society who care more about their dang gunz than people.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and I will not give those up. Above that is high capacity to me, so I do not have any by choice.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I do not need those high capacity magazines and prefer the ones that come standard with my weapons from the factory.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I think we have already had that discussion
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Here's a clue, it has nothing to do with duck hunting per se.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)I have a Bushmaster. Bought it during the old federal "assault weapon" ban.
I also love the grief this ad causes Hoyt. 
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I get it, and feel sorry for folks who bought them for that reason.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The only thing guns make me feel is recoil when I fire them.
Thanks for the laugh though. Your gun posts are always good for comic relief.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I did fire a mini-14 with a 30 round magazine attached. It felt awkward and I was consistently several inches low at 100 yards.
And yeah, I get that the magazine attaches very close to the center of gravity of the gun so it shouldn't make any difference. But it just did not feel natural to me.
The standard magazines we used on the M14 were 20's.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)the standard mag cap for the M-16 was 20 rounds, although nowadays, the standard mag is now 30 rounds.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Thats all I use
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I do have a few 30 rounders for my AR's that were given to me, but I rarely use them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Same thing, had them from my service.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Most gunz that use magazines are sold with magazines that carry that medium number of cartridges---the things that go "bang".
What this law attempts to create is a de facto ban on handgunz that happen to have magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, which IMHO are most ordinary semi-automatic handgunz.
It's a wondrous thing, it instantly turns law-abiding citizens, including veterans who might have kept a service weapon, into criminals!
And the best part is that all those bad people are going to leave town, or get rid of their gunz like real quick cuz it's against the LAW and, yanno, they won't want to get in trouble or anything.
But gun experts say that standard may be unrealistic, because many handguns are designed to carry more than 10 rounds.
“We have to consider the millions of weapons out there that will be rendered useless,” said Robert A. Levy, a lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the 2008 Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of residents in the District of Columbia to bear arms, a landmark case for gun rights. Mr. Levy supports a ban on magazines with over 20 rounds, which he said “would rule out very few weapons.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/us/politics/lawmakers-look-at-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines.html?_r=0
Fucking nutty gun laws!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)at least, in the real world.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Not every shot finds its mark, and those that do might not put down the threat.
And, if there are two threats, or three, it's not hard at all to imagine needing a dozen shots ready for delivery.
Outlawing these normal size mags is a way of making the guns their used in illegal or worthless, unless the makers start manufacturing custom limited capacity clips.
Which would be a real windfall for the gun makers.
Same story, attempts at gun control benefit the gun makers.
Sheesh.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I am not worried about needing more than 20 in one magazine, that would be a reasonable limit.
But this law says any number over 10 will be illegal.
So, all sorts of basic handguns, any that have a standard magazine capacity over 10, will be useless or illegal unless a special new limited capacity magazine is manufactured and purchased.
That is silly. Banning over-20 round mags, like the 30s and drums that I've seen, that's fine with me, but 12 and 15? Nah.
Most handguns that use magazines have a standard capacity of 10-17 rounds, so that's your limit beyond which it should be considered "high capacity".
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)large capacity mags in their gunz to appeal to gun fanciers' baser instincts.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Your puritanical dislike of advertising is another issue entirely...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gun fanciers have demonstrated they don't give a darn about society.
Your need for more gunz is not in society's best interests.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it should be the consumer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)glad you are for choice Hoyt
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I have several handguns and rifles that have mags that hold more than 10 rounds, yet I'm not a criminal or a militia type, I do live in the real world, I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, never been in trouble with the law, 40+ years in the Army, retired honorably.
So, what's that make me?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)with a tiny penis
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts) 
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Obviously they don't need that many for defense either.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)While trying to murder yet another unarmed black child.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then why can't citizen's have them?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Are cops more entitled than ordinary citizens?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)other that they really are not enforceable and there are probably billions out there. Interesting you are not even allowed disassembled ones.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Like what comes standard with most handguns.
I consider over 20 rounds to be high-capacity, and I'm sure most legislators are thinking of "banana clips" or what we see in movies sticking out of gangster guns.
But really, to call a 12 or 15 round magazine "high capacity" is really just drama, and kind of senseless in the impact it will have on many average legal owners.
It turns them into criminals without their having done anything wrong.
Crazy times.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)hand gun magazines should be limited to number flush with the grip, what around 17 max. My AR came with the standard issue 20 round magazines. Those were the ones originally designed with the rifle. I do not care for the 30 round variety.
I think 20 would be better, but 10 is better then that idiotic 7 round.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)well, I know you do.
but these aren't toys, they are killing devices, so you have to accept that they will be regulated, not as toys, but as killing devices.
if you want something unlimited, buy a toy, not a gun.
very simple.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)As I have said many times. Just not seven as there are no 7 round magazines with the exception of the 1911 and maybe a couple of others. I Guess you want to confiscate anything else, right?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)nice try with the obfuscation.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)[b12. you consider discharging 7 rounds or fewer too limiting?]
well, I know you do.
but these aren't toys, they are killing devices, so you have to accept that they will be regulated, not as toys, but as killing devices.
if you want something unlimited, buy a toy, not a gun.
very simple.
[b18. yes, but the ban is not on 7 round magazines]
nice try with the obfuscation.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts) CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts) friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...I find stuff like that fascinating
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)we do not do aircraft, but missiles and it is defensive only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and some Ma Deuces.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that was the twin 40 AA gun.
M2's are fun to fire 
samsingh
(17,595 posts)thank you for your brave service
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)did my job, that is all
samsingh
(17,595 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Proposition 8, for example...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)yes, there's a lot wrong with being out of sync with them.
Nice attempt to say that Sunnyvale is the same as California.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In your opinion, how much deference should *they* have been given by the courts?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)clearly, that's the last thing you want to talk about because you keep trying to change the subject to something other than Sunnyvale and something other than guns.
nice try, but fail.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...no matter how popular it may be in some locale.
In any event, as another poster noted, this was a request for a preliminary injunction.
The full case has yet to be heard
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the only purpose of discussing that here is if you want to derail the discussion about what Sunnyvale voters did and how a court has upheld that.
if you want to stop that discussion, keep doing what you're doing.
if you want to discuss what you keep trying to change the subject to, start your own thread.
judging by the posts here, I think I can see your preference.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I note that:
1. *You* are not the OP
2. No one has stopped you (or anyone else) from discussing anything
3. The opinions of a plurality of Sunnyvale, CA voters are not due especial deference
by fiat simply because you agree with them. If the actions of any polity may be
challenged in court, *all* of them can be
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Just' sayin'.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Here's another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Murfreesboro
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)A court has even weighed in.
See if what they had done was tyranny, the court ruling would have been different.
You make it sound like they could just as easily vote to ban breathing, because you know any regulation on a gun is equivalent and slippery slope and we're all gonna die and derp derp derp, etc. etc.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'll be here, when you're ready to discuss what I actually said, as opposed to where you
believe I was going
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The anti-gunners like to use made-up definitions so that folks are confused by them.
For example, "assault weapon".
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)and since there is no need for a well-regualted militia there is no 2a anymore - any gun rights there are are courtesy of a bought and paid for supreme court and even they have said that there can be restrictions
happyslug
(14,779 posts)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Thus if you are Male you are a member of the Militia if you are between age 17 and 45. The Supreme Court has mentioned membership in the Militia and when it has it has ignored 10 USC § 311 and instead used the terms all males over age 18. See Miller vs the US:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
Thus the Militia is alive and well, but just unorganized since 1903 when the present National Guard System was started. Being on the books is enough to be "Regulated" so if you are male over the age of 17 you are a member of the Militia of the US.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)And the wimmenfolk can't unless they up and join the Guard?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I once made the comment that Militia is alive and well, but is NEVER called the Militia when it appears and does its work. During the Flooding in the Mid-west during the 1990s, the people in that area organized themselves and help build up the levies in that area. That was the Militia at work, but the people were called "Volunteers" not militia for it was NOT technically a military operation. During floods people do this all the time, but no one calls them Militia but it is the Militia coming into action.
During 9/11 the passengers on the fourth hijacked plane had learned about the other three planes and they decided to do something, that is to take over the plane from the terrorists, They failed in their attempt but the plane ended up in an abandoned Strip mine in Somerset County PA rather then the Capital building or the White House in DC (where it was headed). That was the Reserve Militia forming itself and doing its duty. Again the term "Militia" was not used for that would imply they died in service of the US and thus entitled to military benefits and Congress is Cheap.
As to the restriction as to women, like the restriction as to men between 18 and 45 more a historical anomaly then anything real. The ages 18 and 45 were the ages people thought the Army of Republican Rome served during the early Roman Republic. More recent records indicate 16 and 48 were ages, but then only for the Imperial Roman Army of the Roman Empire NOT the earlier Republic, but 18 and 45 was THOUGHT to be the age of the Roman Republican Army at the time the Bill of Rights were passed so when Congress set up the Militia in 1792, Congress used those ages.
As to Women, Congress required all males between the ages of 18 and 45 to be formed into Militia Companies, but failed to mention women. This was NOT uncommon at that time period, for the military law of Europe (and this included England and thus the US) had been since at least the Middle Ages, that one "Washer woman" be assigned to every Platoon of 20 men. Thus Congress did NOT have to address women for Congress knew that for every 20 men one washer woman would be assigned (She was generally the Platoon's Margaret's Wife). Thus women always consisted of about 5% of any Army.
As to service in the Army, "Molly Pitcher" became famous for taking her wounded husband's place loading his cannon during the Revolution (For this act of bravely she was made an honorary Sergeant by Washington himself). At least two other women actually served in the ranks during the Revolution (and several did the same during the Civil War).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher
In times of crisis, women were used (and NOT as in some of the movies of the Colonial and Revolutionary period, to load their husband's gun, but on the line) but as a general rule, women were left at home with the children, for most of these Militiamen were Farmers and someone had to watch the crop. Thus women could be member of a militia unit, but in most cases they stayed home for the had work to do on the farm.
Side note: Washer Women were NOT "Camp Followers" for they lived in the Camp and were subject to Military discipline. The first report we have of Washer Women was during the Crusades after the introduction of Linen paper. With the adoption of Linen Paper we have a fairly inexpensive way to send messages and thus we see such messages being exchanged between the Crusading Knights and their Moslem Opponents. At the end of any battle, the first thing discussed was the exchange of washer women who had been captured. These are the first time we have reports about washer women, but the tone of the letter is that such exchanges were NOT new, but very old custom on both sides. It is believe these reports are the result of both sides have access to inexpensive linen paper so that such requests would be written down. Prior to Linen Paper, such exchanges, if written, had been on bark for no one was going to waste expensive parchment for an exchange that would be done within days of the battle. Parchment was reserved for something you may want to see months or years from now but not for something no one would care about in less then a week. Thus washer women had been around for centuries but just NOT written about. It is presently believed washer women became part of the Roman Imperial army at of just before the end of the Roman Empire in the West, thus survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire and became integral to the Armies of the Germanic States that succeeded the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire as the Eastern Roman Empire is now called, and among the Arabs before the Arabs were united by Mohammad. Washer Women were so ingrained into Military life that Congress had to pass a special law outlawing them in the 1880s (That law is still on the books).
cstanleytech
(26,284 posts)for most handguns and rifles since they are designed more to go straight though a target and ban the production, use and or sale of bullets designed to expand within the target like hollowpoints?
sir pball
(4,741 posts)While being shot with a hollow point does cause a more serious wound, a jacketed ("military style"
bullet is still pretty serious to be in front of, but the jacketed bullet will indeed pass clean through...with plenty of power left to pass through another person or two, who would likely not be the intended target.
It's why the police generally use hollowpoints, less for the stopping power and more to not hit bystanders. Google "overpenetration" for far more info than I can give on my phone at work.
cstanleytech
(26,284 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/03/04/14-15408.pdfPlease note this is an INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, the trial Judge had REFUSED to grant a temporary court order, but did order the case to Trial. Thus the appeal was NOT from a final decision of the Trial Court, but from a denial of a temporary court order.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining, on the record before it, that
Sunnyvale presented sufficient evidence to show that Measure C was likely to survive intermediate scrutiny and that Fyock failed to demonstrate that he would likely succeed on the merits of his claim. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Fyock’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
A lot of people forget that Heller had held that SELF DEFENSE was the grounds the Supreme Court relied on NOT the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment. I disagree with that position, and I also disagree with the dissent, for I am of the opinion the Second Amendment was in response to the Federal Takeover of the Militia in the US Constitution itself, and those attacks amounted to "What happens to the Militia if the Federal Government does NOT organize the Militia?".
Thus the language of the Second was the Militia survives such non organization by the Federal Government but to do so the people MUST have access to arms. Thus MILITARY weapons can NOT be banned under the Second, but non-Military weapons can be AND what is a is NOT a military weapon is up to Congress and the State Legislature to decide. Remember uniformity of weapons was known even in the revolution as something of high value for Militia Weapons, thus Congress could declare only 5.56mm weapons are Militia weapons and such a rule could lead to a ban on every other type of firearm UNLESS the ban clearly is design to take ALL weapons away from the people. i.e. if 5.56mm weapons are NOT generally available other weapons could be used. At the same time Congress and the States can ban weapons they see as NON military usable and if other weapons of the type usable in military operations are available, such a ban is permitted under the Second Amendment. i.e. the ban on Automatic Weapons would violate the second, for they have clear military use, but a ban on pistols would be constitutional for while pistols can be useful in combat, rifles and other weapons are generally considered better military weapons.
Please note my position was NOT taken up in the Majority Decision or the dissent in Heller, but I believe it explains the language of the Second Amendment. Both the Majority and the dissent prefer a society where the Government controls the Military weapons and even Scalia has suggested banning certain military weapons would be permitted under Heller (i.e. Scalia would vote to ban automatic weapons for he wants them to remain in the hands of the Government, he knows pistols are almost ineffective in military operations and as such willing to leave us peons have them).
I bring this up for Scalia has hinted he would consider restrictions on the Second Amendment and his decision did not rely on the Second but on concept of Self Defense as a constitutionally protected right that was unlisted in the Bill of Rights for the Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to be an exclusive list, other rights NOT listed in the Bill of Rights were included by long tradition of such rights under English CommoN Law (just like the right to have an abortion, but that connection you will NEVER hear from Scalia).
Yes, I wish Scalia would have stayed with the Second Amendment, but he did not want to for he really does NOT believe in the rights mentioned in the Second Amendment. Instead Scalia went off to claim "Self Defense" was an included right protected under the Bill of rights. Thus Scalia can claim the Bill of Rights prevents the States from banning Pistols for Pistols are needed for the discovered right of "Self Defense" but can later on say that since Automatic Weapons are NOT generally used for Self Defense in the US, the Federal Government, the States and the Local Government can ban such Automatic Weapons.
This case in many ways reflect the ruling of Scalia in Heller, it says the right preserved in Heller is the Right to Self Defense (not the Common Defense) and thus can be restricted as long as the right to self defense itself is NOT banned or restricted. The Judge ruled that a ban on magazines with more the 10 rounds does NOT restrict the right to self defense and are thus permitted under Heller.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's a back door ploy to make common handguns illegal by virtue of the scary term "high capacity" being applied to plain old standard mags.
Tricky devils.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You both claim to be acting for the betterment of society, and both have 'constititutional
amendment butt':
The 'phobes:
"But the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't really mean that and shouldn't be applied anyway because society needs to be protected from *those* awful people"
You:
"But the Second Amendment doesn't really mean that and shouldn't be applied anyway because society needs to be protected from *those* awful people"
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)And no slayer.
jmowreader
(50,555 posts)Declare "the standard magazine" for a gun to be whatever the earliest edition of the Shooter's Bible in which the gun appears says it is, but guns that hold magazines made for other guns (think "AR-15 clones" hew to that gun's capacity...and new rifle designs can't hold more than 30, new pistols more than 17 or new shotguns more than 10. And then I'd write that the government can't ever ban standard magazines. Because, by damn, if a 30-round magazine is good enough for the 82nd Airborne Division it is good enough for you.
