Quote Originally Posted by Eric P View Post
But upheld the other silliness. Not a win for gun ownership!!
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?