Vermont magazine ban lawsuit update:

The person charged is very cringy. If they found a better defendant I would assume they would have had a better chance
There was a civil lawsuit that the courts more or less ignored, choosing instead to decide the issue with the criminal case.

it doesn’t matter though. They contorted the English language and used spurious logic to arrive at their decision.
 
Shocked. Remember when Vermonters talked about how awesome they were regarding gun laws??? Friends don’t let friends allow liberals go unchecked. The fight is every day all the time.
About 6 decades ago (+/-, my history is fuzzy), Burlington allowed out-of-state UVM students to vote locally... Burlington city council members are now 58% progressives. We don't go to Burlington...
 
Was this guy caught in the act of bringing the mags back from NH? Other than that, not sure how they can tell if you got the mag in 2018 or today, or 10 years ago. Lots of mags are not dated and have looked the same for years depending on the model.
 
I actually hope VT wins this case, so that the plaintiffs can take it to the US Supreme Court and get magazine bans ruled unconstitutional there, that way all magazine bans nationwide would fall.

Yes I know, not going to happen, but its a nice dream at least.
SCOTUS would punt, leaving all mag pans in place.
 
Was this guy caught in the act of bringing the mags back from NH? Other than that, not sure how they can tell if you got the mag in 2018 or today, or 10 years ago. Lots of mags are not dated and have looked the same for years depending on the model.
If I understand correctly, this ruling was up a pretrial appeal path. So, guy has 30 round mags, gets charged (because charge anything and make defendant prove they aren’t new mags from NH) but hasn’t had trial yet, so hasn’t had a chance to try to turn it around with “FU, prosecutor, YOU prove they’re new; I say they’ve been in my possession for 5 years”
 
Jonathan T. Rose of Dunkiel Saunders Elliott Raubvogel & Hand, PLLC, Burlington, Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren L. Alikhan, Solicitor General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General, and Sonya L. Lebsack, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.

I see Maura was spending my tax dollars to stick her f*cking oar in. Why do I suspect her amicus curia submission wasn’t for the appellee...
 
If I understand correctly, this ruling was up a pretrial appeal path. So, guy has 30 round mags, gets charged (because charge anything and make defendant prove they aren’t new mags from NH) but hasn’t had trial yet, so hasn’t had a chance to try to turn it around with “FU, prosecutor, YOU prove they’re new; I say they’ve been in my possession for 5 years”
Interesting. So I guess anyone in VT with hi-caps that pretty much look all the same with no dates can be jammed up at any time and have to prove it? I have not read the entire case yet, but was this guy special for some reason? Or just another joe going about his business?
 
Shocked. Remember when Vermonters talked about how awesome they were regarding gun laws??? Friends don’t let friends allow liberals go unchecked. The fight is every day all the time.

To be honest I don't. VT has always been a reluctant 2A state as far as I've seen over the past years. VT has an insane amount of SJW/guilt complex around its leadership.
 
Interesting. So I guess anyone in VT with hi-caps that pretty much look all the same with no dates can be jammed up at any time and have to prove it? I have not read the entire case yet, but was this guy special for some reason? Or just another joe going about his business?
He is not an average Joe if you google him you can see who he is
 
He is not an average Joe if you google him you can see who he is
Yes, I see that now since I started digging in. I would hope in a normal proceeding (not pre-trial) it would be up to the state to figure it out, which would be difficult if not impossible depending on what you buy and how you buy it.
 
I go back and forth on this....

I wonder if certain justices need a little time to get over their TDS and remember what their job actually is......and that they are responsible to we the people not their own feels

I'm gonna reserve judgement until we see what comes out of the current unpleasantness

Lifetime appointment. They aren't "responsible" to anyone.
 
Interesting. So I guess anyone in VT with hi-caps that pretty much look all the same with no dates can be jammed up at any time and have to prove it? I have not read the entire case yet, but was this guy special for some reason? Or just another joe going about his business?
Or ... not different from MA, CA or any other state that has capacity restrictions. Or, really, any person, any allegation, any state. Throw every charge you can find in a search of the jurisdiction’s legal code at the poor bastard and let the lawyers and judges argue it out.

The system is horribly, horribly awry.
 
“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”

Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.

Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?
 
“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”

Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.

Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?

This isn’t (yet) a 2A case ... the relevant Vermont cite is the state constitution

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]​

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
 
To be honest I don't. VT has always been a reluctant 2A state as far as I've seen over the past years. VT has an insane amount of SJW/guilt complex around its leadership.

The thing was there was always a question mark there. In the past, most anti gun bills got blown off chewed up and spit out. Problem is in the last wave of garbage passed there, Bloombergs operatives penetrated the legislature in VT and basically put on a parlimentary hack 3 ring circus. Legislation was rammed through, and by the time the small pro 2a contingent could react, it was already long over.

Didn't help matters either that they had/Have a Mittens-like RINO f***tard as a governor, either, that didn't have the balls to veto it. A veto would have f***ed them over hard because even if they had (potentially) enough for an override it would have increased the political exposure on the issue dramatically.
 
“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”

Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.

Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?
If the magazine size has nothing to do with defense, then police and state level members of the National Guard should also be restricted to the same level as the general population. How well would that fly?
 
“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”

Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.

Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?
Any time a lefty argues the “yelling fire “ point as a way to frame their gun control arguments, I simply remind them that I actually CAN yell fire in a crowded room. The government didn’t view it as such a serious risk to public safety that they removed my ability to vocalize and form those words. I can yell it and then be held legally responsible for the results of my vocalization after the fact.

this logic should also apply to guns. It is enumerated as an unrestricted right, so the government limiting magazine capacity is the same logic as operating on my vocal cords so I can no longer make the “fire” sound. It’s for the children after all. It’s a “reasonable” restriction and “common sense”
 
Back
Top Bottom