http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-84093728/
Printable View
Look for this to happen here. Most of Kalifornia lives in this state now, as evidenced by our now leftist, anti second govt. This used to be a gun freindly state, not anymore.
Plausible scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by milwaukeeshaker
My reply if and when.....fuck off and die.
Another WIN for the bad guy another LOSS for the good guy :-(. Those people got there head in the sand just like CO. That is why I refuse to visit the State of CA and give them my money.
Yep, we moved out here to Colorado exactly 20 years ago and with it being such a gun friendly State (at that time) that was one of the many reasons for retiring here. Now we are packing up and heading back to Illinois to be closer to our kids but at least we can still buy/sell/trade high cap magazines there if we so desire.
I'm just waiting for LA to charge someone with "constructive possession", meaning that have parts of mags, but no complete mags. Set a precedent, and the rest of the country will follow. The end of our republic is in sight.
I wish it were as simple as "let them reap the [rotten] fruits of their labor". Unfortunately, crap like this spreads faster than ebola.
I am so glad that I got out when I did with what I had. I did buy a 10 round mag for my Browning if I ever go back for a visit.
That state is so screwed up, other cities and counties will follow suit as I don't believe there are preemption laws for this stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
Tell me about it... [off-yourself]
The good news is that I won't be here forever!
But, ...but, -you can surf and ski on the same day! (or so the saying goes).Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
This law/ordinance is unlikely to stand. California has a state preemption law, like Colorado. The NRA and SAF have used the preemption law twice to slap down a couple anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco. They are just wasting the taxpayers money by passing this law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...ition_H_(2005)
http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...d/136/509.html
The OP's link says different...Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm
"The Los Angeles ordinance is modeled on rules adopted in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have so far survived legal challenges."
I shot with Jim Hill and a couple other national Champions at LA R@R. Sad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm
It's not about the legality , it's about the money. The AG's, moms for cum safety, etc have no problem going to court. When they do it's on the taxpayers dime. The NRA and other pro-gun groups is an out of pocket drain. That's one of the goals of doomberg etc. If they cannot beat / defeat us legally. They intend to break us monetarily .
That's because the legal team that brought those suits facially challenged them on 2A grounds, not based on violating the state's pre-emption law. Surprisingly, [Roll1] the CA courts didn't care about running afoul of the 2A and the lawsuit failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Just keep it in mind as one more reason to oppose the degredation of human rights the next time you vote. Talk to your more liberal friends (I know, I know, if you have any) and work on them. I don't think we are yet to a point where they can push us into the ocean, we just suffer from a social environment where a lot of people don't recognize that there is any importance to basic human rights
Most liberals don't consider self defense a basic human right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiro
NRA is now officially supporting the legal challenge to this. Text of the email from NRA-ILA below:
Quote:
After a two year delay, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance banning the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (so-called “large-capacity” magazines). Unfortunately, Mayor Eric Garcetti signed this ill-conceived and troubling magazine ban into law on August 7, 2015.
The NRA is supporting a lawsuit challenging the ordinance.Unlike the state’s magazine law, individuals in the City of Los Angeles currently in lawful possession of these magazines will not be protected by a “grandfather” clause. This ordinance effectively amounts to confiscation because the lawfully-owned magazines must either be turned in to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) or removed from within city limits. Both options eliminate the inherent value in these magazines as tools for self-defense. As such, attorneys bringing the lawsuit plan to ask the court to stop the ordinance from taking effect before Los Angeles residents are permanently deprived of their property.
Sunnyvale and San Francisco have already adopted similar ordinances, and both of those ordinances have likewise been challenged in court. The NRA supported the case against the Sunnyvale ordinance that is currently awaiting a trial after the Ninth Circuit ruled against an attempt to prevent the ordinance from going into effect, reasoning that more facts are needed before a complete analysis can be done by the Court as to the ordinance’s constitutionality.
This ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, but it does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who choose these magazines to defend themselves and their families. As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles, especially those that are selected for defensive purposes. These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.
Ordinances like these give insight into what anti-gun activists will pursue if given the opportunity. Law-abiding citizens who are in compliance with California’s already burdensome gun laws are not a public safety threat, yet Sunnyvale, San Francisco, and now Los Angeles are seeking to turn the law-abiding into criminals one step at a time. While court battles against these ordinances continue, the best option for gun owners is to ensure that their elected representatives, including those at the local level, understand that ineffective, ideologically-driven restrictions on our Second Amendment rights have consequences at the ballot box.