But upheld the other silliness. Not a win for gun ownership!!
Makes you wonder about other conservative appointed judges and how they will rule on similar cases.
He only rejected the part about 7 rounds being loaded in a 10 round magazine. They are still at a 10 round limit.
A lot more info in this article http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...e-act-20131231
Between this and the NSA is allowed to put cameras in your toilet* because terrorists!!1!!1! ruling recently, it's been pretty sad.
* I know, a little hyperbole. But just wait...
Shot Works Pro... It's better than scrap paper!!!
You can use the discount code 'Take5' for 5 bucks off.
My thoughts as well.
I would like to see, for once, a judge with integrity decide these issues on the basis of black-letter law and not subjective policy.
This judge said that some limit was okay, but the seven round limit was not okay. Well... Then what is the limit according to law? How many rounds does it take before you cross the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED standard set by 2A?
Miller v. US settled this plain and simple. If a weapon was in common use, or used in the military, it was protected by 2A. 30 round standard cap AR mags are in common use and issued in the MIL. They are part of weapons system that determine the weapons capability and lethality. Making a weapon less lethal is an infringement.
Why can't Miller ever be part of the consideration?
Is it that acknowledging Miller means a judge would be acknowledging that 2A is actually about balancing the power of the government and has jack shit to do with hunting?
From listening to liberal anti-gun types in the past, they are convinced that as long as you have a single shot .22 and are only allowed to possess one bullet at a time, they are doing you and the 2A a huge favor. This is what people mean when they say they support 2A and then follow that up with "BUT"...