Comments on: BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Upholds California’s Ban on ‘High Capacity’ Magazines

By: Plinker

Plinker — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:43:19 +0000

Yes, this is a gun guy that is very comfortable with his gear. All the equipment shown in the video except the revolver may be illegal to own in CA, but not in most other states. I am certain he has the proper licensing for his equipment. We have seen members of Congress bring Standard Capacity 30 round mags to congress to argue a point, and that was illegal to do in DC.
Thanks for the video, and thank you for showing the fallacy of the argument of the majority.

By: Chris T in KY

Chris T in KY — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 02:19:26 +0000

In reply to Darkman.

The AG Pam Bondi has a learning curve under president trump.
It seems many people do.

And I’m glad for that. So far I’m getting what I voted for.

And yes it’s a slow process.

By: Chris T in KY

Chris T in KY — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:25:44 +0000

The “gun community” should be required to watch the judges’ video.
I watched all 18 minutes of it. He says he is a compettive shooter!!!

He illustrates the slippery slope argument to a tee. And he said what I said years ago. The law could be an interpretation to mean, only single shot break action guns, are considered covered by the second amendment.

And that is their goal until they can ban guns all together.

And as he says. It’s the gun accessories that they want to ban first.

In NYC it’s required that police guns have a very heavy trigger pull. What if they apply that to all civilians owned guns??

Btw
I’m spending money on gun accessories for several of my guns.

By: .40 cal Booger

.40 cal Booger — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:33:26 +0000

Some anti-gun group is going to watch that video and accuse Judge VanDyke of building an illegal ‘ghost gun’

By: Darkman

Darkman — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 19:54:43 +0000

30 days and yes they would be ashamed.

By: .40 cal Booger

.40 cal Booger — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 19:46:45 +0000

BREAKING: DOJ Backs Off on Claim Suppressors Aren’t Covered by 2A. “It was just a couple of days ago when Cam took issue with a DOJ attorney claiming that suppressors weren’t “arms” and thus weren’t covered by the Second Amendment. … After GOA & @gunfoundation broke the news that a Biden-era holdover acting U.S. Attorney argued that suppressors were NOT arms & were NOT protected by the Second Amendment, @thejusticedept is requesting 30 days to reconsider its anti-gun brief. This is HUGE! ” … Now, this is just asking for a 30-day delay while the DOJ “reconsiders” its position, but let’s be real about what that means. If the intention was to power through the appeal with the claim that suppressors aren’t part of the Second Amendment, it wouldn’t ask for a 30-day delay in the first place. The only reason to ask for any such delay is with the intention of potentially backing off entirely from that idiotic argument. I’m not saying they’re going to suddenly say that suppressors shouldn’t be NFA items, mind you, but that possibility is at least on the table. …” https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/03/20/breaking-doj-backs-off-on-claim-suppressors-arent-covered-by-2a-n1228043