On May 8, Judge Charles Johnson decided 7-2. Statev. Gator’s custom gunWashington Supreme Court support The state prohibits importing and selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Last year, he posted, “The Washington magazine’s injunction against the ban was stayed within minutes.” Gary B. Basholl’s 55-page preliminary injunction explained how the state stayed just 49 minutes after he filed an appeal summary with the Supreme Court. The lawsuit is being remanded to consider the state’s consumer protection enforcement action against Gators on allegedly breaching the prohibition.
The court followed a familiar script that “a large capacity magazine (LCM) is not a “weapon” in the sense of constitutional provisions, not a right to purchase an LCMS, nor is it a supplementary right necessary to realize the core right to own a firearm in self-defense.” It is both the second federal amendment and the fact that under the guarantees of Washington, “the right of an individual citizen to bear arms to protect himself or the state is not undermined.”
Based on HellerThe court said that using “Arms” from “Arms” as “Arms” as “Arms” and “Amsite” the LCM itself does not cast rounds and supplies rounds to firearms.” Furthermore, such magazines do not seem to be “integrated components” of firearms, as they do not require magazines with capacity to operate.
Needless to say, certain parts of the firearm (barrel, sight, safety, or stock) are not used “to cast to another person.” It is necessary for magazines to supply circles to semi-automatic firearms. There is no constitutional basis for the assumption that magazines below 10 rounds may be protected, but more than 10 may be protected. (As an aside, semi-automatic science, which has “magazine safety,” does not fire at all without inserting the magazine.)
Remember that Heller For legal purposes such as self-defense, it was determined that the ‘weapons’ commonly used at the time were protected. Gators The court rejects “ownership statistics” based on whether “LCM is in circulation or not” “commonly used in self-defense.” forThey are said to be less used, as “the average number of shots that have occurred in self-defense is only 2.2.”
it is GatorThe opinion is merely parroting the same playbook as the 9th Circuit in a recent decision. Duncan v. Becerra It supports California’s ban on mere possession of magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges. Please see my post here. How did you come to this?
rear Heller The courts that set up a general test and upheld the ban readily admitted that the test was met. in Heller IIDC circuit Found“I think it’s clear enough in the record that, as the plaintiffs argue, semi-automatic rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are actually “commonly used.” There may be a competence that the magazine is not commonly used, but if there is no evidence of what it is, it will not be 10. “Judge Brett Kavanaugh at the time disagreed and agreed that banned rifles were commonly used, but proposed remand to magazine questions about more facts about general use.
Although it questioned that prohibited items are “weapons” and admitted that they are commonly used, Heller II Interim scrutiny was applied to find that public safety outweighed its constitutional rights. Other decisions etc. Second circuit in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assun, Inc. v. Cuomofollowed the same reasoning.
That is, to the Supreme Court Brune Applying the measures was “too many steps.” Instead, Brune Hosted: “If the plain Second Amendment text covers an individual’s actions, the Constitution presumes and protects that action. The government must justify the regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms control.”
It is painted on Brune A court with an agenda that supports the ban suddenly discovered that semi-automatic rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds ultimately do not even have “weapons.” We see what the government knows best when it comes to exercise constitutional rights.
Such courts have not declined BruneThe directive states that “although the second amendment’s definition of “weapons” is fixed in accordance with its historical understanding, the general definition covers modern means of promoting armed self-defense.” GatorThis mention means that such equipment must be viewed on its own. This means that despite the fact that it is clearly an instrument (“object”) capable of promoting armed self-defense, it cannot use magazines in self-defense. It will be used as an analogy before that Hold in Seattle vs Evans That a Knife pairing Those who were carried for self-defense were not “arms” when carried like that, as they were not designed as weapons like daggers.
What a stingy interpretation of constitutional rights. I sympathize with the poor who can’t afford a dagger. But wait, it’s not a dagger like a Bowie knife. Brune I didn’t think so – in the Middle Ages.”[a]Most people had knifes and daggers in his belt,” and “and.”[c]Ibilians wear them for self-protection and “make them” as they are most similar to modern handguns. I’ll notify you We, “For ordinary people, daggers were everyday usefulness and served a purpose from cutting food to self-defense.”
be against GatorsJudge Gordon McCloud points out that the majority of history “sees history at a very high level of generality. This sees very high that society weighs its usefulness towards their danger and characterizes those old laws as dearming after they deem them too dangerous. But it is “or to be precise, it’s like a balance of policy-based interests.” Brune It was rejected.
Furthermore, the second amendment protects the right to maintain and endure “not only self-defense, but also common use, not just for legal purposes, such as hunting and targeting practice. And when it comes to self-defense, firearms with magazines are “used” when held for that purpose. Not only when the shot is fired, but the average self-defense firing becomes pointless. The majority’s premise that “only the state will choose weapons that can be used in self-defense” turns the constitution upside down.
However, the second amendment does not protect the right to select the best arm for self-defense. It protects the individual’s right to make that choice. Therefore, despite what the nation likes HellerIn the “common use” test, the popularity of an arm among law-abiding public determines whether the arm actually enjoys a second corrective protection.
The state claimed that the magazine was similar to an innovative war-era “cartridge boxes,” simply making it “accessories, not arms.” As Justice McCloud points out, while both cartridge boxes and magazine store ammunition are magazines, “we use springs or other mechanisms to supply rounds of ammunition to the gun’s launch chamber, which is an integral part of a firearm, such as a trigger or grip.”
What’s clear is that the Washington Supreme Court got a post –Brune Notes on how the Court of Rejection interferes Brunemethodology of. Deprived of interim scrutiny, their ruling can reach the same result by denialing that the arm is “arm” under plain text. Reminds me of one beforehandHeller “People” does not include actual people (state militias only), and “weapons” do not include handguns and are not included in advance.Brune The day “Bear” didn’t mean carry.
Without intervention by the US Supreme Court, this obstacle continues. The court again relisted the two-second amended cases for the meeting on Friday, May 15th. Ocean State Tactics v. Rhode Islandconcerning the ban on Rhode Island magazines. Snow v. Brownconcerning the ban on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland. Cross your fingers.
