History shows, however, restrictions on the possession of firearm magazines of any size have no historical pedigree. If its historical research is accurate, the State would have an argument. Based on this view of history, the State asserts that magazine capacity regulations are historically accepted laws beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. Large capacity magazines have been the subject of regulations since the 1930s according to the State. The State argues that the Heller test is a non-issue because the Heller test does not apply to historically-accepted prohibitions on Second Amendment rights. This section is LONG so I'll only qoute a small bit, but basically Benitez calls out the AG for shity research and bad history. Consequently, possession of a larger capacity magazine is also categorically protected by the Second Amendment 26:6-9 In addition to their usefulness for self-defense in the home, of course, larger capacity magazines are also lawful arms from home with which militia members would report for duty. This stepped-down approach may continue until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. 21:21-25ĭon't forget logic though, Benitez points out the logic a lot too.
The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. OVER AND OVER AGAIN he points out the absurity of 10 rounds as being the limit.Ĭalifornia law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous." 21:12-13 It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. He also loves to make it clear that just because guns are dangerous, does not make them BAD. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. In many places, Benitez outlines that guns are used for self-defense and this is a critical and guaranteed right.įew would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea.
Roger benitez how to#
Side note - I can't remember how to cite legal docs, so I'm citing these like the Bible with page number followed by line.
The 2nd Amendment must be taken at its word until such time as it is modified or repealed.Some of my favorite and something worth memorizing yourselves. The federal judge in this instance made the right call. The 2nd Amendment is a fully ratified portion of the Constitution and is therefore part of the supreme law of the land. Constitution make no mention of sports, hunting or personal self-defense, exactly what kind of firearm does the 2nd Amendment actually protect? If not a militia-grade firearm such as the civilian AR-15, then what? I hope that someone more powerful than a stay-at-home mom like me successfully stands up to this judge and gets this ruling tossed out. The founding fathers in their wildest nightmares could never have dreamed up this type of weaponry for home protection. This nonsense about the 2nd Amendment protecting the right to bear military-style weapons has to stop.
Was this judge trying to be glib or funny with his comparison of an assault weapon to a Swiss Army knife? Really? I think that is a massive insult to everyone who has lost loved ones to bullets fired from such military-style rifles.
But even voiceless stay-at-home moms like me must speak out every now and then. To the editor: In the grand scheme of things, I am no one special.
0 kommentar(er)
