Magazine Ban Coming to Michigan?

Gflood · Sep 11, 2020

Our attorney general Dana Nessel has signed a amicus brief along with 18 other attorney generals to defend California's magazine ban.

Chicago — Attorney General Kwame Raoul joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general to defend California’s ban on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Raoul and the coalition support California’s petition for en banc review in Duncan v. Becerra, a case in which a divided three-judge panel struck down California’s ban. The brief argues that the Second Amendment allows states to enact reasonable firearm restrictions that protect public safety.
In the amicus brief, Raoul and the attorneys general urge the 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc and argue that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines is a reasonable and lawful restriction because:

The Second Amendment permits states to enact commonsense gun safety measures: The brief explains that states are entitled to adopt reasonable restrictions on firearms to protect public safety. Restricting access to large-capacity magazines is reasonable because it reduces firearm injuries and deaths without infringing individuals’ Second Amendment right to self-defense.

States have a responsibility to prevent gun violence and protect public safety: The brief notes that states have primary responsibility for ensuring public safety. This includes a duty to reduce the likelihood that their residents will fall victim to preventable firearm violence and to minimize fatalities and injuries when such violence occurs. Population density, economic conditions and the strength of local law enforcement all vary widely across the country, and all may have an impact on crime and effective crime-fighting efforts. The brief notes that deciding how best to protect the safety of state residents is a question better suited to legislatures than courts.

Courts have allowed states to regulate large-capacity magazines to protect the public: The divided panel’s Second Amendment analysis breaks sharply from every other court of appeals and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent allowing states leeway to respond to gun violence within their borders.

The case is Immigration Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, No. 4:20-cv-5883 (N.D. Cal.). Joining Attorney Raoul in filing the amicus brief are the attorneys general of California, MICHIGAN, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Waif · Sep 11, 2020

States have a responsibility to prevent gun violence and protect public safety

(Meanwhile in California...)

Duckiller · Sep 11, 2020

Your Attorney General is an elected position. Vote the current one out of office. Do yourself a favor. Calfornia's current mag ban outlaws magazines that were legally bought in California. It is an ex post facto law and it is going down. Those 18
AGs are ignoring the Constitutuion.

6thMichCav · Sep 11, 2020

Well, well, what can the government do to unilaterally enforce “public safety”? The last six months are your answer.

6Speed · Sep 11, 2020

Gflood said: ↑

Our attorney general Dana Nessel has signed a amicus brief along with 18 other attorney generals to defend California's magazine ban.

Chicago — Attorney General Kwame Raoul joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general to defend California’s ban on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Raoul and the coalition support California’s petition for en banc review in Duncan v. Becerra, a case in which a divided three-judge panel struck down California’s ban. The brief argues that the Second Amendment allows states to enact reasonable firearm restrictions that protect public safety.
In the amicus brief, Raoul and the attorneys general urge the 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc and argue that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines is a reasonable and lawful restriction because:

The Second Amendment permits states to enact commonsense gun safety measures: The brief explains that states are entitled to adopt reasonable restrictions on firearms to protect public safety. Restricting access to large-capacity magazines is reasonable because it reduces firearm injuries and deaths without infringing individuals’ Second Amendment right to self-defense.

States have a responsibility to prevent gun violence and protect public safety: The brief notes that states have primary responsibility for ensuring public safety. This includes a duty to reduce the likelihood that their residents will fall victim to preventable firearm violence and to minimize fatalities and injuries when such violence occurs. Population density, economic conditions and the strength of local law enforcement all vary widely across the country, and all may have an impact on crime and effective crime-fighting efforts. The brief notes that deciding how best to protect the safety of state residents is a question better suited to legislatures than courts.

Courts have allowed states to regulate large-capacity magazines to protect the public: The divided panel’s Second Amendment analysis breaks sharply from every other court of appeals and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent allowing states leeway to respond to gun violence within their borders.

The case is Immigration Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, No. 4:20-cv-5883 (N.D. Cal.). Joining Attorney Raoul in filing the amicus brief are the attorneys general of California, MICHIGAN, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Click to expand...

Great 2nd post. Thanks for the heads up but I have plenty of magazines. Enough for my life anyway.

Waif · Sep 11, 2020

6Speed said: ↑

Great 2nd post. Thanks for the heads up but I have plenty of magazines. Enough for my life anyway.
Click to expand...

Thumbs or mag. loaders banned yet?
How about fires? Or fuel for fires?

They still can't see it's the mind abusing fellow citizens and not the gun. But , at least Cali is right on the edge of peace and equality and safe happy citizens.
A representative following Cali's lead is as bad as some Cali reps.
There are some great citizens in Cali..
But there are many others there with a disconnect from reality.
Or simply ; blind misdirected ambition in the wrong country.

Duckiller · Sep 13, 2020

65Speed under California law if any of your mag hold more than 10 you must get rid of them. Doen't matter how long ago ypu bought them. This among other reasons that the Federal judge said the law was unconstitutional. Took a week to suspend the ruling until the appealate court had heard the case and issued a ruling. There is a real good chance that the 9th Curcuit may agree with the trial judge. We live in interesting times.

Hackman · Nov 28, 2020

Waiting to see it heat up with new President. He has stated large capacity mags will be taxed or outlawed and AR-15 will be $200 taxed.

Nostromo · Nov 29, 2020

Tilden Hunter said: ↑

He'll try, but won't succeed. It's a small price to risk for getting rid of Orange Man.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every time these things see a higher court. They don't survive.

Getting rid of Nessel is a good idea though.

DecoySlayer · Nov 29, 2020

This is only the next step. There is NOTHING worth gutting the Bill of Rights. We can only hope that when the time comes, and it someday will, that the military upholds it's oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United State against ALL enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC!

DecoySlayer · Nov 29, 2020

What I need now is a way to put armor and a rifle rest on my walker.

6Speed · Nov 29, 2020

DecoySlayer said: ↑

What I need now is a way to put armor and a rifle rest on my walker.
Click to expand...

Go to an electric scooter and you can armor that up! Might be able to mount a machine gun on it too...

Seriously, leave the mags alone you moron politicians. If you took them all we'd go to belt ammo and I hate picking up links. Brass is bad enuff.

Nostromo · Nov 29, 2020

6Speed said: ↑

Go to an electric scooter and you can armor that up! Might be able to mount a machine gun on it too...

Seriously, leave the mags alone you moron politicians. If you took them all we'd go to belt ammo and I hate picking up links. Brass is bad enuff.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to tell you this. But you're not the example to help this argument.

Judge Lee of the 9th Circuit's opinion layed out the very real need for higher capacity magazines for home and self defense. If it doesn't convince the full court than it will the SCOTUS.
At least that's what I'm betting on.

Taho · Nov 29, 2020

DecoySlayer said: ↑

What I need now is a way to put armor and a rifle rest on my walker.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of old Second Chance soft armor panels.
I put one each on the seat and back of my wheelchair.
If **** goes down, I can tip my wheelchair over and engage assailants from behind cover.