allen-1
NES Member
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183170p.pdf
I am NOT a lawyer, but a couple of the statements in this ruling really piss me off.
Here's what seems to be the major premise of the ruling that makes the limitation of 10 round magazines "legal":
So - the second Amendment limits my right to self defense to my home? And retired law officers are special because of their training? I've shot with cops - other than the ones that shoot IDPA/USPSA they generally suck - and they suck because guns are just ONE of the many tools they have to use, whereas shooting well is important to me.
Another check off to SAF - this defeat needs to keep going up through the court system, next stop is the Supreme court.
This is BS.
I am NOT a lawyer, but a couple of the statements in this ruling really piss me off.
Here's what seems to be the major premise of the ruling that makes the limitation of 10 round magazines "legal":
So - the second Amendment limits my right to self defense to my home? And retired law officers are special because of their training? I've shot with cops - other than the ones that shoot IDPA/USPSA they generally suck - and they suck because guns are just ONE of the many tools they have to use, whereas shooting well is important to me.
Another check off to SAF - this defeat needs to keep going up through the court system, next stop is the Supreme court.
This is BS.