It wont be long until we see this in Washington State.

I'm guessing this is being challenged legally?

quote:

Originally posted by Plugugly:
These stupid laws should quit exempting law enforcement. Maybe then the stupid laws would stop being passed.

You’re asking that the entity that make laws should make the people they’re hoping to enforce the law abide by the same law as the people they’re using force upon?

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

You’re asking that the entity that make laws should make the people they’re hoping to enforce the law abide by the same law as the people they’re using force upon?

I've met far too many cops who were perfectly happy with being able to own what they want, just because they have a badge, while also dropping the hammer on a citizen who got caught with something that some size large asshat of a politician didn't like the people having. So, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for.

I guess you guys are against the provision in this law that allows CCW holders to be exempt from this, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Plugugly:

I've met far too many cops who were perfectly happy with being able to own what they want, just because they have a badge, while also dropping the hammer on a citizen who got caught with something that some size large asshat of a politician didn't like the people having. So, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for.

I agree with your opinions on this issue however such an outcome is unlikely in today’s political climate. The current crop of jagoff politicians thrive on the divisions caused by “rules for the but not for me or our enforcers” type policies they ram into law.

I think I get your point but to answer your question, yes I am against that exemption as well.

There is only one real reason for exemptions. It's a political way to cut down opposition. It is either good law or bad. Giving exemptions and grandfather clauses it a way to make it SEEM more palatable.

Give me one good reason CCW or cops on their own time should have legal access to these mags and a homeowner shouldn't. I'll wait but there is no good reason.

If your position is that "well at least everybody doesn't get fucked" then state that and lets try to get as many exemptions as possible. It is bullshit though. Cops on their private time, veterans, ccw holders, blah blah blah, have to better reason to own these "lethal" hicap mags than ordinary citizens.

The reason you don't want cutouts for cops is because you don't want cops to enforce these bs laws knowing they are liable as well.

Delaware gun control laws face legal challenge

https://bearingarms.com/tomkni...e3e8139f308bd8a1cb93

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I think I get your point but to answer your question

I know you do.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I guess you guys are against the provision in this law that allows CCW holders to be exempt from this, eh?

Only on principle. If I get into it, the tread could get derailed

I know this is the Del thread, but...

Rhode Island seems to have something brewing too. Mags have to be turned in or destroyed by tomorrow night in Rhode Island??

Source: https://www.providencejournal....-rights/69727765007/

PROVIDENCE — As the deadline approaches for gun owners to give up their high-capacity firearm magazines or face legal consequences, a federal judge on Wednesday upheld a newly enacted state law banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which on Sunday will make possession of a large-capacity gun magazine a felony in Rhode Island. McConnell found that the plaintiffs Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply; three Rhode Island residents — Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan Hirons; and, a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette, had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law was allowed to take effect, and that allowing its enforcement was in the public's interest

Mine are going for $100,000 each if that is too steep for them then I guess we won’t have a transaction.

I’d love to hear that judge explain how exactly it’s “in the public interest”. That would at least imply that the “public” will derive some benefit. How many shootings have occurred in Delaware in which having the smaller magazines would have made a difference? How many lives saved? I would venture zero. For that matter, how many times has an AR15 been used at all in Delaware?

Likely the only people happy with this are the gun grabbing pols and the moms demand action variety lunatics

quote:

Originally posted by Tn226:
I’d love to hear that judge explain how exactly it’s “in the public interest”. That would at least imply that the “public” will derive some benefit. How many shootings have occurred in Delaware in which having the smaller magazines would have made a difference? How many lives saved? I would venture zero. For that matter, how many times has an AR15 been used at all in Delaware?

Likely the only people happy with this are the gun grabbing pols and the moms demand action variety lunatics

He’s not allowed to. The court is required to accept as true whatever findings the legislature makes about the benefits of law like this as long as there is some basis for them. So if the legislature found that this law will save lives, the court has to accept that.

How do they assess value. If standard cap mags save a life where a 10 round mag wouldn’t, then the value of the mag should be the life, future earnings, care for dependents, etc.

We buy it for $30 but it’s worth much more.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

quote:

Originally posted by Tn226:
I’d love to hear that judge explain how exactly it’s “in the public interest”. That would at least imply that the “public” will derive some benefit. How many shootings have occurred in Delaware in which having the smaller magazines would have made a difference? How many lives saved? I would venture zero. For that matter, how many times has an AR15 been used at all in Delaware?

Likely the only people happy with this are the gun grabbing pols and the moms demand action variety lunatics

He’s not allowed to. The court is required to accept as true whatever findings the legislature makes about the benefits of law like this as long as there is some basis for them. So if the legislature found that this law will save lives, the court has to accept that.

Until a higher court says no.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I guess you guys are against the provision in this law that allows CCW holders to be exempt from this, eh?

I am.

I think the statute is BS and destined to fail. The one-party ruling cabal in Delaware know this too, but they don't care because litigation costs won't come out of their personal accounts.

One silver lining of those "carveouts" for private citizens-- like CCW holders-- is that it will require the state to argue that a CCW holder in public with the Evil Magazine somehow is less a public policy concern than me, in my house, with NO CCW.

It's not a persuasive argument in light of the last few "big" cases. Again, they know they will lose; they just don't care. They're "doing something," Constitution be damned.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
....... Again, they know they will lose; they just don't care. They're "doing something," Constitution be damned.

Yeah, a few years ago my I mentioned to my state level senator that a state anti-gun bill up for vote was likely unconstitutional. He barked back with this rude response: "Well, we won't know if it's unconstitutional until the courts take a look at it."

Seemed irresponsible to me, but apparently that's how they think. Not his money to go to court, so he just doesn't care.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
....... Again, they know they will lose; they just don't care. They're "doing something," Constitution be damned.

Yeah, a few years ago my I mentioned to my state level senator that a state anti-gun bill up for vote was likely unconstitutional. He barked back with this rude response: "Well, we won't know if it's unconstitutional until the courts take a look at it."

Seemed irresponsible to me, but apparently that's how they think. Not his money to go to court, so he just doesn't care.

I think they know damn well, that their actions are unconstitutional, but it is law until the time and money is spent to overturn them.