California: Amicus brief in 9th Circuit

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/the-history-of-magazines-holding-11-or-more-rounds-amicus-brief-in-9th-circuit/

 

 

Currently before the Ninth Circuit is an appeal in the case of Fyock v. Sunnyvale, a case which challenges a California’s city’s ban on magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. While the State of California outlaws the sale, import, or transfer of such magazines, the Sunnyvale ban goes further, by prohibiting possession of these magazines, with no provision for grandfathering. The District Court upheld the ban; part of the Court’s analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. Last Friday, amicus briefs in support of appellant were filed, including a brief which I co-authored on the history of magazines and of magazine prohibition.

My co-author on the amicus brief was the DC law firm of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, and the brief was filed on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (which is part of the Claremont Institute), and Gun Owners of California. As the amicus brief states, the NRA contributed funds supporting the preparation of the brief.

 

[Jim No Horse]

Give em hell Subdeacon....Good luck with the Nineth....we are pulling for you....Jim

[Subdeacon Joe]

I'm just passing that on. That was written by David Kopel, which was why I quoted it. Sorry if I gave the impression I was in on writing the brief.

[Oklahoma Dee]

_{The District Court upheld the ban; part of the Court’s analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.}

 

_{This is worrisome, as the possible calibers, types of sights, different types of materals that are used in building firearms today, etc, tec... that were not present at the time the Second Amendemen was ratified could be looked at also.}

 

_OkD

[Subdeacon Joe]

_{The District Court upheld the ban; part of the Court’s analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.}

 

_{This is worrisome, as the possible calibers, types of sights, different types of materals that are used in building firearms today, etc, tec... that were not present at the time the Second Amendemen was ratified could be looked at also.}

 

_OkD

 

The obvious thing, other than pointing out that the founders did indeed know about magazines, is to point out that if the 2nd is frozen at the technology of the late 1700s, then so are all the other amendments. Freedom of the press only applies to hand set type on muscle powered presses or quill pens on paper. Freedom of speech only applies to the spoken word, hand lettered letters, signs and broadsides (again, pen and ink, or brush and ink or paint - no Magic Markers), not to any electronic media, nor to phones. Miranda is right out. "Cruel and Unusual" doesn't include flogging, branding, the stocks, or hanging.

 

Oh...and all the amendments after the 10th are null and void.

 

[Oklahoma Dee]

 

The obvious thing, other than pointing out that the founders did indeed know about magazines, is to point out that if the 2nd is frozen at the technology of the late 1700s, then so are all the other amendments. Freedom of the press only applies to hand set type on muscle powered presses or quill pens on paper. Freedom of speech only applies to the spoken word, hand lettered letters, signs and broadsides (again, pen and ink, or brush and ink or paint - no Magic Markers), not to any electronic media, nor to phones. Miranda is right out. "Cruel and Unusual" doesn't include flogging, branding, the stocks, or hanging.

 

Oh...and all the amendments after the 10th are null and void.

 

Well heck! Thas what I tried to get out. Thanks for makin sense of my thoughts!!

[Subdeacon Joe]

Well heck! Thas what I tried to get out. Thanks for makin sense of my thoughts!!

 

You should hear the way antis sputter and stutter when I put it to them like that. "But...but...but....that's not what I mean! We can't say that the 1st doesn't apply to TV and the internet!"

 

"Well, if one part of the Constitution is frozen at 18th century technology, then, since the Constitution is consistent and must stand together as a whole, then all of it must be frozen in the 18th century. You can't have it both ways."

 

About that point is when I usually get something like, "Well, I just know that if I had a gun, I'd shoot you now!" and they stomp off in a huff.