Kennedy denies request to block gun magazine law

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has denied an emergency request by the National Rifle Association to block enforcement of a California city ordinance that bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 bullets.

A court spokesman says Kennedy denied the request without comment.

The ban in Sunnyvale went into effect last week after 66 percent of voters approved it in November. The NRA challenged the law, but a federal judge ruled that it does not violate the Second Amendment right to own guns for self-defense.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied the NRA’s request for an emergency order to stop the ban from taking effect while it considers the appeal. Kennedy oversees emergency appeals from California and other Western states.

###

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/kennedy_denies_request_to_block_gun_magazine_law/

[Divernan]

1. OMG! Will civilization as we now know it come to an end!?!?!

The gall of attempting to claim it's an emergency if you can't fire more than 10 bullets before changing magazines! I would LOVE to see the language in the brief in support of the NRA's specious motion for an emergency stay pending its appeal.

"State law has banned making, selling, giving and lending magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds since 2000. Those who owned them before then were allowed to keep them, but Sunnyvale's Measure C went a step further by banning possession no matter when they were acquired. The ordinance took effect Dec. 6, giving residents 90 days to either sell their magazines to a federally licensed dealer, store them outside the city, or turn them in to police for destruction.

As of midnight last Thursday, anyone who possessed a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds was committing a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, six months in jail or both."
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25330161/supreme-court-justice-refuses-stay-sunnyvales-large-capacity

[Hoyt]

2. LMAO. NRA leadership -- Grover Norquist, Ted Nugent, Ollie North, John Bolton, etc. -- are scared.

But you can bet they'll be calling in favors to save all the gun fanciers from this terrible plight.

[groundloop]

3. Magazines or Clips.... Bullets or Rounds

How long before the NRA sympathizers starts on semantics bullshit arguments?

Anyway, one very small win for sanity.

[Lost_Count]

10. I mean this truly without snark...

... because I know things get heated.

How do you think that this law will reduce shootings/killings or is there another benefit beyond that?

[Bandit]

15. Here is a question for you, How about our military only being allowed three rounds

in their weapon. Do you think that would make a difference when they were in battle. If you do think that why?

[mac56]

20. False equivalency.

Apples and oranges.

I think you already know that though.

[Bandit]

22. Bullshit

How is that a false equivalency? The poster asked how reducing the size of a magazine could save lives. I asked if the size of a magazine was reduced for the military would it cost more lives? They are EXACTLY the same thing. If the military has to have large capacity magazine because they are more lethal, why would you not think the same would apply to civilian life?

[mac56]

23. I usually don't respond to posts where the reply title is "bullshit"

but an inability to see the difference between military needs and civilian use is simply willful ignorance.

[Bandit]

24. This has nothing to do with military needs.

It is all about the consequences of large capacity magazines. If they were not more lethal the military would not "need" them. The argument is, are large capacity magazines more lethal than small capacity magazines? I used the military as an example to demonstrate my point. Do you deny that large capacity magazines are more lethal than small capacity magazines? If large capacity magazines are more lethal, then what is the argument for not regulating them?

[mac56]

27. It has everything to do with military needs

and why they aren't the same as those of a civilian.

If you chose military to illustrate your point, you may want to rethink and rechoose. Otherwise your argument falls flat.

On edit: "The army gets to have them, so why can't we?" Well, you can't have a tank either.

[Bandit]

28. Do you even comprehend what I am talking about?

By your last post I don't believe so. The poster asked a question. It was how would regulating large capacity magazines help stop or slow gun deaths in America. I am in favor of regulating large capacity magazines because I believe as does the military that they are much more lethal. I do not want thirty, fifty, or hundred round magazines to be sold to the civilian market because I believe that they can contribute to mass murder. I do not want a tank and I don't want you to have one either.

[mac56]

29. That wasn't at all clear in your first post.

Now I understand.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. State issue, not federal.

NRA, wasting taxpayer dollars as per usual.

[hack89]

5. While I have no problem with the ruling

I question your assertion that it is purely a state issue. The states do not have carte blanche to regulate constitutional rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Kennedy just determined it wasn't a constitutional issue.

If the states want to, they can pass pre-emption of local laws of this nature, like my state has done. Seattle has, at times, tried to do this sort of shit, and the state has protected me from it. That's the appropriate venue, IMO.

[hack89]

9. No - he merely denied an emergency stay while a lower federal court deliberates

It is in the Federal system and can still end up at the Supreme court. Heller and McDonald started as challenges to local laws.


I support state pre-emption laws.

[CreekDog]

11. it's not a constitutional issue

not allowing giant magazines is not a constitutional issue.

[hack89]

13. Determining the limits of the 2A is very much a constitutional issue

that's why we have a supreme court in the first place.

Don't you want this to go to the Supreme Court so they can set a precedence for the nation?

[CreekDog]

14. no, it's not limiting the 2nd Amendment

but keep trying.

[hack89]

16. I said defining the limits - not "limiting"

any gun law brushes up against the 2A - it has to. It doesn't mean that it violates the 2A but the 2A certainly pertains.

Explain to me why the 2A does not apply to this law?

[CreekDog]

17. this is not defining the limits or me telling you to shut up becomes a Free Speech case

i'm tired of the games. been years of this.

[hack89]

18. Legally defining arms has nothing to do with the 2A?

you can't be that obtuse. On second thought, yes you can be.

[CreekDog]

19. just go away

enough with the games and the gun issue games.

[hack89]

21. Then stop answering my posts. Show some fucking self discipline. nt

[greiner3]

31. I get a post hidden because I 'mean mouthed'

Michelle Bachmann and this gets by????????

[hack89]

32. Life (and DU) is not fair. nt

[marions ghost]

7. Sunnyvale

[DeSwiss]

8. K&R

[mountain grammy]

12. 66% of the voters approved the ordinance, but the NRA sues

like the town in Colorado that voted to ban fracking. The oil and gas companies sued,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_24649775/oil-and-gas-industry-sues-lafayette-and-fort

I understand the courts must be involved if the majority pass laws that discriminate and violate constitutionally guaranteed rights of people, but that's not the case here.

Private corporations and the NRA should have no standing here to bring a lawsuit against citizens exercising their right to self govern.

[lark]

25. Sunnyvale is a good city.

I'm proud of them!

[Lasher]

26. I wonder, does this apply only to detachable magazines?

If not, then it seems like some fixed-magazine guns have been banned by this law.

[NickB79]

30. It appears the lawsuit is still ongoing

Kennedy only denied an emergency injunction, not the lawsuit itself. The only thing this ruling does is make the NRA wait their turn while the Supreme Court works through other lawsuits brought before the court.

In the meantime, the law goes into effect in Sunnyvale and will stay that way until the court rules one way or another.