Gun control: L.A. City Council debate...

Gun control: L.A. City Council debates making large-capacity ammo clips illegal

There are 15 comments on the LA Daily News story from May 3, 2013, titled Gun control: L.A. City Council debates making large-capacity ammo clips illegal. In it, LA Daily News reports that:

Possessing large-capacity ammunition magazines could become illegal in Los Angeles under an ordinance scheduled to go before the City Council Friday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at LA Daily News.

fooman

Costa Mesa, CA

#1 May 3, 2013
They already are illegal under state law... These are some seriously dumb MF'ers running that city.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2 May 3, 2013
They can do NO SUCH THING:

"The right to vote, before this amendment to the constitution, was wholly granted or denied and regulated by the several states of the Union; and now the citizens of these United States have granted and guaranteed by national authority that which before they enjoyed--if enjoyed at all--at the will of the local or state governments. To make available the right to vote to all citizens of the United States without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude was the direct purpose of the fifteenth amendment. We cannot see therefore, how legislation which has this purpose directly in view cannot be appropriate because it was not directed against some denial or infringement by general or state legislation. The mode of the assertion of the constitutional right to vote in the fifteenth amendment is not altogether a novel feature in our constitution as has been remarked on a former occasion during the trial of this cause. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Section 9, art. 1, par. 2. This clause comprehends the constitutional grant of the writ of habeas corpus under the form of an expression of denial of its suspension except in certain cases. Article 1st of the amendment to the constitution, is in these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In this article it will be observed that the right to full liberty of religious faith, as regards any attempt to control it by the general government, secured to the citizen by the constitution of the United States, is granted under a form of expression, forbidding congress to make any law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and that the right to a free press and free speech are granted under a form of expression denying their abridgment. So also with the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Article 2d of the amendment is in these words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is thus conferred by the declaration that it shall not be "infringed."--Judge Edward Green Bradford, UNITED STATES v. GIVEN,[17 Int. Rev. Rec. 195.] Circuit Court. D. Delaware. 1873. Civil Rights--Violation BY State Officer--Powers of Congress.

They can legally be SUED INTO OBLIVION and LOCKED UP under VALID law.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
They can do NO SUCH THING:
"The right to vote,
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4 May 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...
^^^^And THIS is what FACTS do to the LIE-baral mind!^^^^

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6 May 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitress...
Case No 14,897

UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]

Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=

Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.

"...The first count is for a conspiracy to interfere with the right to "peaceably assemble together with each other, and with other citizens, for a peaceable and lawful purpose." This right Is guarantied in the first amendment to the constitution, which declares that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Does this disaffirmance of the power of congress to prevent the assembling of the people amount to an affirmative power to punish individuals for disturbing assemblies? This would be a strange inference. That is the prerogative of the states. It belongs to the preservation of the public peace and the fundamental rights of the people. The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? The 14th amendment declares that no state shall by law abridge the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States. Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from Interfering with the right to assemble, as being one of such privileges and immunities, still does it give congress power to legislate over the subject? Power to enforce the amendment is all that Is given to congress. If the amendment Is not violated, it has no power over the subject.

"The second count, which is for a conspiracy to interfere with certain citizens in their right to bear arms is open to the same criticism as the first...."

[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/a...
Left Coast Conservative

San Jose, CA

#8 May 5, 2013
Magazines greater than 10 round capacity are illegal to transfer, import, manufacture, and sell in California, but they are not illegal to possess if they were acquired before the effective date of the law.

Note that one cannot move into the state with larger than 10 round magazines, as that would be "importing".

California gun laws are, at this point in time, already pretty comprehensive, lacking only firearms purchase permits and firearms possession permits that some states require. But the "gun-grabbers" must be seen to be "doing something" about "gun violence", so they are considering a magazine confiscation law.

This idea has at least two problems. First, it would be an unconstitutional taking of property without either due process or compensation. Second, it would be a violation of the California firearms preemption law, which precludes local laws more strict than state laws. The preemption law has been used several times in the past to challenge local ordinances, especially in San Francisco.

If adopted, this law is CERTAIN to wind up in court.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9 May 5, 2013
Left Coast Conservative wrote:
If adopted, this law is CERTAIN to wind up in court.
So what?

If the state wants to restrict magazines to one round, the state can.

If the state wants to outlaw all guns requiring magazines: it can.

Okay, Barney?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10 May 5, 2013
[QUOTE who="Left Coast Conservative" First, it would be an unconstitutional taking of property .[/QUOTE]

It's not unconstitutional to prevent you to bring into the state something the state says you can't have.

You have a choice at the border.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#11 May 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
If the state wants to restrict magazines to one round, the state can.
If the state wants to outlaw all guns requiring magazines: it can.
Okay, Barney?
"Shall NOT be infringed", you treasonous little troll.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#12 May 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I ... at the border.
Section IV.-- The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

The Constitution.--By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1 ]
"The Right is General.--It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

[1] Tuck. Bl. Com. App. 300.

- Thomas McIntyre Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, Third Edition. 1898.(Thomas McIntyre Cooley, LL.D., was the 25th Justice and a Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, and a nationally recognized scholar).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Shall NOT be infringed", you treasonous little troll.
{click}

If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version, you gay little troll?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#15 May 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>...gay little troll
"...Self defence is a primary lawof nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks...."

- Elbridge Gerry, Observations On the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot. Sic transit gloria Americana.[Boston: 1788.](Mr. Gerry was an American statesman and diplomat. He was a delegate from Massachusetts to the Constitutional Convention. And later was selected as the fifth Vice President of the United States, serving under James Madison).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...Self defence
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...
Yeah

Huntsville, AL

#17 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...Self defence is a primary lawof nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks...."
- Elbridge Gerry, Observations On the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot. Sic transit gloria Americana.[Boston: 1788.](Mr. Gerry was an American statesman and diplomat. He was a delegate from Massachusetts to the Constitutional Convention. And later was selected as the fifth Vice President of the United States, serving under James Madison).
they were expecting the British to come back, dumbass.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#18 May 5, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
they were expecting the British to come back, dumbass.
Blow it out your ignorant rear end dolt. Gerry was directly writing about defense against tyranny in American government. You'd know that if you were to remove your head from your posterior.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News News Trump on unarmed Clinton guards: 'Let's se... 18 min Synque 735
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 1 hr payme 1,975
News Ray LaMontagne cancels Texas show over campus c... Fri justice 6
News Report On "Unprecedented" Criminal Firearm Misu... Sep 22 Show no mercy 5
'K'i't'c'h'e'n's' For Sale North Midlands Area UK Sep 22 Anonymous 1
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... Sep 13 Get Out 5
News Background Checks Initiative is complicated, un... Sep 13 Get Out 3
More from around the web