• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They are going to have a hard time proving magazine capacity limits have historical precedent on appeal. Such gun control was only implemented within the last few decades.

    • commandar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also can’t see this part surviving appeal:

      Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote.

      Oregon set the capacity limit at 10 rounds. Practically every handgun commonly used for self-defense has a capacity of at least 15.

      • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The judge is dumb because I, an idiot, can not read anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it says the Second Amendment was written with self-defense in mind.

        It literally only says that everyone can own a firearm because a militia (an organization that exists outside of the military or law enforcement institutions, but answers to a state governor) is necessary to maintain a free country protected from any threats to the country.

        And a militia can’t exist without regular people being able to own guns, so they can train with them, hence where it says “well regulated militia”: meaning in good working order. You can’t have a militia in good working order without being able to train with your firearm.